Books which often look the same

TalkGeorge Macy devotees

Join LibraryThing to post.

Books which often look the same

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

1leccol
Dec 31, 2015, 8:33 pm

as I look over the many of the book shelve tours able to be viewed on the internet, I am often amazed at the similarity of book construction provided by many of the modern manufactuers such as the Franklin Library, Eastern Press. and Folio Society.

2kdweber
Jan 1, 2016, 3:39 pm

>1 leccol: I agree that the Franklin's and Easton's look alike but not the Folio's, unless you mean that each publisher's books look similar to their own books.

3terebinth
Edited: Jan 1, 2016, 4:14 pm

Well, many a shelf of 18th-19th century calf-backed books may look very uniform to a casual observer even when all are the work of different binders. Franklin and Easton books at least add more colour variation to the mix, but still whether their bindings have a timeless grace and opulence or are at best uninventive and/or anachronistic is a question that's hardly likely to cease dividing opinion. Within Folio Society books there are some distinct series with family resemblances, and sets of single authors in uniform bindings, but on the whole I'd think Folio almost as various as LEC productions: arguably more so given the greater diversity in their quality and price points.

4parch-ment
Jan 2, 2016, 12:55 pm

>1 leccol: That will probably only be a parenthesis in history. With the rapid development of computers, 3D printers and other digital equipment, I am sure that in the near future, one can get all variety that one desires:

-Hey Siri! Make me a copy of Picasso's Lysistrata!

"Do you want it to have the engravings and letterpress in relief, or will The Folio Treatment suffice?"

- In relief, of course.

"Let me think about it.....here you are..."

5dlphcoracl
Jan 2, 2016, 2:13 pm

>1 leccol:

Franklin Library and Easton look the same but I agree with kdweber - the Folio Society books vary considerably in appearance , pleasingly so I might add. The only time the FS books have bindings similar in appearance is when they are part of a multi-volume set or part of a series of "themed" books.

6elladan0891
Jan 3, 2016, 12:47 am

>2 kdweber:
"unless you mean that each publisher's books look similar to their own books"
But Folio's books (and LEC's for that matter) do not look alike. The great variety of designs, binding materials, sizes etc. is one of the main reasons I'm attracted to Folio Society and LEC.

>1 leccol:
Folio's output is just as varied, if not more so, as LEC's. EP and Franklin books do look fairly uniform; some people actually like it that way.

7kdweber
Jan 3, 2016, 7:21 pm

>6 elladan0891: I actually feel that FS works do have a certain amount of similarity. They have a couple of different styles and within a style size may vary greatly but I feel if you handed me almost any FS book with all the obvious branding removed or blocked out I could still probably determine if it was a FS book (except for the LEs). There is a certain feel to a FS book. This feeling is different than the similarity one finds in an EP or FL book.

I don't feel the Folio Society's output is as varied as the LEC. The LEC bound books in a myriad of different leathers, silks, damask cloth, embroidered cloth, bark wood, cowhide with the hair still on it. Tiny books, huge books (once, both in the same edition); where as the FS mainly sticks to quartos and octavos (again disregarding LEs) bound in paper or cloth and the ever increasingly rare quarter leather. Books from the FS look like books from the FS while books from the LEC look like books from an number of fine presses (and indeed, they were made at any number of different fine presses).

8elladan0891
Jan 4, 2016, 12:18 pm

>7 kdweber:
I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. LEC was producing limited edition, signed, fine print books. Exclusion of Folio's LEs eliminates the only FS products that are actually directly comparable. FS non-LEs are not fine press; their counterparts are not LECs, but the Heritage Press books, so you can't really expect them to be bound in cowhides, donkey leather and other extravagant materials.

But if you take them for what they are, I think they are really wonderful and do exhibit significant variety - I disagree that they all look alike (aside from the ones done in thematic series). Standard Folios do come in various silks, leather, cloth, buckram, paper and their combos. Just as examples, think about the Blue/White Nile set in silk, creative paper designs such as The Day of the Jackal or the Voyage of Argo, cloth-bound Between Silk and Cyanide with a silk insert of the code poem, quarter quality leather Beowulf with beautiful shiny two-tone cloth boards with gilded viking-like designs, or the wonderful boards of India: A History; the striking simplicity of black buckram and pink leather Lolita; the ethereal photo collage of the Scott's Last expedition etc. They're all completely different, and I could go on and on.

P.S. I do agree with you that I think if I looked at a random standard Folio without FS labeling, I would also guess it was a Folio in many cases. But it would be not because they're all alike, but because there are no/few comparable alternatives in this niche. There were/are many different fine presses, but there is/was only a handful of publishers printing nice but relatively inexpensive books, and only a couple out of that handful - Folio and HP were/are doing books that don't look alike.

And if you take Folio's output as a whole - LEs and standards, it is really greatly varied, IMHO.

Join to post