The Door in the Wall LE

Is now up on the site. It's a certain buy for me.

http://www.foliosociety.com/book/DTW/

Lovely. This is the first LE that's tempted me for a while.

>!
Love it!
I too will be ordering, but no new release member discount :-(
What is the price in Sterling?

£225 + £12.95 p&p

>4 HuxleyTheCat:
Thanks - for once a reasonable exchage rate with the Australian price of A$430.

>3 wcarter: That's the Members' Launch Price (available until 5th June).

Strangely enough a paperback edition will seem to be available next August. Have seen it only at the Amazon Spanish site.

https://www.amazon.es/Door-Wall-H-G-Wells/dp/1567925685/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&q...

How extraordinarily charming. Suspect I'll be acquiring this one before the end of the launch period.

This is a "must have" and it is one of the greatest pairings of photographs with a literary work in the twentieth century. This facsimile is derived from a copy of the ultra-rare edition of sixty copies issued in the UK and originals routinely sell for between $10,000 to $12,000.

Bad bad bad Folio Society.

That's how someone's resolve to slow down on books crumbles.

>8 gmacaree: Charming somehow conjures images of petite, but have you seen the dimensions of this edition? The more I look, the more I want.

ETA - Order placed.

Ugh, caved in. At least Folio still offers a 4-month payment plan.

So the price we see already includes the discount? Why would they not advertise this as usual, or am I missing something?

The US page http://www.foliosociety.com/book/dtw gives a members' launch price of $320 compared to the full price of $360, but as there's no four-instalment payment plan, wishful thinking is for me as far as it's going to get.

Bought. My first LE.

It feels mighty peculiar spending this amount on one book. The regular FS books now seem absurdly cheap. Is this the slippery slope to bankruptcy?

>13 susanne-27: The published price is £250 and Members are getting a Launch Price of £225 (10% discount) until 5th June. It's quite plain on the UK site.

Oh bugger, that's beans on toast for another month.

>15 scratchpad: Yes, or starvation.

Ah yes. Now the Australian site is showing that A$430 is a members discount price. It was not showing that last night. Full price is A$480.

>15 scratchpad:

The first LE always feels weird, then after your 3rd or 4th it's like "What's a couple hundred here or there?" then one day you realise you're on your 22nd and wonder what went wrong.

>19 wongie: - That's why I have refused to buy any LEs. I know that destitution lies down that path, and resisting the first step is easier than resisting the second.

But, that book does look wonderful.

>17 cronshaw:
Have you noticed it's bound in paper? And it's not marbled! ;)

>22 EclecticIndulgence:

Yeah but there are too many of them - if there were 4 or 5, I may have decided to go for them; with the full set? It gets scary :)

>16 HuxleyTheCat: They updated the website just a few hours ago, I refreshed the page and now I can see the discount. Thanks.

>24 susanne-27:

Ah. They usually add the book, then a few hours later add the discount, add it into the search and the main page and so on. As a general rule, if there is no "member discount" on a new book, just give it a few hours - they will add it.

>11 HuxleyTheCat:

"ETA - order placed."

Congratulations! This one is a no-brainer and when compared to the other books in their Limited Editions series over the past decade I believe it is underpriced. The FS appears to have taken extreme care to "get this right" - and they have.

Looks like a keeper.

I think I would have preferred to pay a little extra for something bound in leather rather than the cloth and paper combination that they have gone with here.

Has FS published anything else by Wells?

>27 el_danos:
No other LEs, but there is a very, very nice 3-volume set (The War of the Worlds/Time Machine/The Invisible Man). Also, there is a single-volume collection of his short stories (never seen it personally, so no comments). In addition, some of his short stories were included in various anthologies, such as Short Stories from the Strand.

>27 el_danos: >28 elladan0891:
See
https://www.flickr.com/photos/warwick_carter/24762924014/in/dateposted-public/li...
for a picture of the HG Wells set.

>21 elladan0891: I know! But it is a facsimile, and looks a very good one, with a limitation under 1000. And it is lovely paper, and look at that glittery GOLD!

>22 EclecticIndulgence: I think this LE with its relatively low limitation compared to the Rupert Brooke LE, The Duke's Children and many of the letterpress Shakespeares (the latter with limitations up to 3,750 don't forget!) is fairly priced for the production values plus a specially commissioned commentary volume. Moreover, given the significance of the 1915 original in publishing history terms, and the appeal of Wells as one of the fathers of Science Fiction, I think it likely to become more expensive, rather than less, once it's sold out.

>30 cronshaw: >31 cronshaw: To hell with the binding and the paper (and the GOLD), just look at the photographs! :-) (and the size!).

>26 dlphcoracl: I agree that it seems remarkably good value (albeit I haven't seen it in the flesh yet) and was quite pleasantly surprised at the price. I remember reading JWB's blog where he talked about this production, and seeing the care which had gone into making sure the images were reproduced as close to the original as possible. The more that I've seen of the images, the more that I feel they are worthy of that care and attention.

ETA - I wonder if the comparable reasonableness of the pricing has been influenced to any extent by the imminent arrival of the Dali 1001 Nights? I'm not sure to what extent they will appeal to the same subset of Folio LE collectors, but 1001 looks sure to be on the 'ouch' end of the unaffordability spectrum.

Given the substantial investment of an LE perhaps they might release The hole in the Wall as one :-)

>32 HuxleyTheCat: I know, they look stunning, and go without saying; ellandan was teasing me about the paper-covered boards!

>34 cronshaw: Have you pedalled over to Eagle St to have a look at it yet? (Hint... ;-) )

>35 HuxleyTheCat: Hmmm, I could do with some exercise... I'll just have another slice of dry toast first.

I caved and ordered (by 'caved', what I really mean is 'made no effort to hold out at all'). This is my second LE - I bought myself Moby Dick to celebrate defending my PhD thesis. Not sure what this is celebrating ... maybe it's celebrating Wednesday ... that's a good enough reason.

>27 el_danos: >28 elladan0891:
The three volume set is very attractive and the illustrations are superb. I paid £100 for mine (sealed) and it was worth every penny. The single volume is of the regular FS variety with interesting two-tone illustrations. There's one on eBay UK for £14 all in.

>21 elladan0891:
>27 el_danos:

The reason this book was not bound in leather is because the FS has gone to great lengths to publish an authentic facsimile. The original ultra-rare edition of sixty copies published in the UK was issued with the exact same binding - 1/4 cloth with paper-covered boards.

>31 cronshaw:

Agree entirely.

Given the extreme care the FS has taken to have a small German firm (Karl Grammlich GmbH) faithfully reproduce the original Alvin Langdon Coburn photographs, the mould-made paper, the folio size of the book, the specially commissioned commentary volume, and the solander case, this book is very underpriced, especially when compared to other recent Limited Edition books from the FS.

Bought mine last night, plus the Crusades through Arab eyes to get to the magical 4 month installment #.

I remember reading the Wells when I was a small boy and am quite excited for this.

>42 EclecticIndulgence:

I'd guess they printed 3750 sets of sheets for the earliest volumes, or the 3750 limitation figure would have been meaningless aside from being counter-productive in terms of the attractiveness of the edition to buyers. The limitation was quite soon dropped to 1000 copies, and I expect 1000 or something not very far above it at all is in practical terms the real limitation for the early issues now as well - if there were many extra copies of them floating around the glut on the second-hand market would be conspicuous. Some of the early ones will carry numbers above 1000, though, at their buyers' request: indeed I think I remember that numbers above 1000 chosen early on by intending buyers wanting a uniformly numbered set could be applied to later volumes too...

I'm much more tempted by this issue than I expected to be.

So, I haven't read much H.G. Wells. Can someone explain the literary significance of this LE?
Apart from first (or rare) edition mania...

>44 JustinTChan: That's not an easy question to answer, because I don't think there's any specific 'literary significance' as such - I'm pretty sure all these stories are available elsewhere in considerably cheaper (or free) editions. You say you haven't read much Wells, but are you aware of his significance as an author? If you are, then you may appreciate that any fine edition of his works is something that many book collectors would like to own. Setting that apart, my personal reason for this being a no-brainer, is the wedding of the stories with the wonderful photographs by ALC. When photographic images are selected to enhance a publication by providing a certain atmosphere, then something magical can happen, which elevates the whole above the sum of the parts - the 1911 publication has the reputation as one of those instances.

>35 HuxleyTheCat: I pedalled, saw, was conquered. It's gorgeous — a tall, slim, very elegant volume, using warm creamy mould-made paper that feels delicate when you lift a page yet feels like a soft grainy cloth when you rub it between your fingers, very beautiful. Lovely deckled fore-edges. I'm very taken by the Old Kennerley type, it's clean and handsome, a joy to read. The reproductions of the photogravures look superb, as you'd expect, with the high resolution revealing the subtlety of the tones, grain and wispiness of Coburn's ghostly images. It's a nice touch that they're tipped in by the two top corners, so if you want you can gently lift the image up and note the colour of the paper behind, which varies from one image to the other (a particularly contrasting dark grey was used by Coburn to produce the dusky tone of the image, 'Star', the last displayed in the Folio sequence shown on-line). Each of the eight short stories begins with an ornate capital, the Ts that begin two successive stories I compared were distinctly designed. The gold titling on the front board is solidly smooth and sharp, and gleams all the more for the restrained, natural tones of the binding otherwise. The companion volume is a paperback booklet with the two essays and a collection of letters from Coburn to Wells at the back. There's a further plate illustration in the companion volume not mentioned in the Folio blurb, in the middle of David Lodge's essay, with a couple of cartoons drawn by Coburn depicting Wells penning at a desk and Coburn bent behind his camera and tripod, and a caption, very cute. The companion booklet slips neatly and securely into an angled pocket which is anchored by a reinforced base to the upper panel of the solander box, by the fore-edge. The box is itself refreshingly slim and elegant, so although the volume is impressively tall at 15", in overall width the boxed edition will only take up a fraction of the bookshelf space most other sarcophagus-bound LEs do. I'm delighted I ordered a copy yesterday on impulse when I saw the website images, it's definitely worth starving a little for.

>42 EclecticIndulgence: You're quite right, sir, it was published in 1911. I had remembered the 'January 1915' that was penned in the limitation signature for volume number 50 on which Folio's facsimile is based.

>44 JustinTChan: The Folio website says it better than I can: 'the first major collaboration of author, photo-illustrator and typesetter in publishing history', let alone the significance of Wells in the history of Science Fiction. To my eyes, this is a volume whose aesthetic effect is considerably greater than the sum of its parts, so mutually enhancing are Wells' eight stories, Goudy's type specially designed for them, and Coburn's haunting images.

Is it the mould-made paper that's driving this to almost $500cad? Forgive my ignorance but the book is only 160 pages so for the experience collectors how is it underpriced?

>46 cronshaw:
You really should get a commission from the FS for your advertising prowess. Who could resist after such a description - not I. Ordered!

>46 cronshaw: It's quite nice then. :-)

So tempting, but I have really spent a lot on Folio books already this year and don't feel I can justify the expense. It looks gorgeous from the pictures.

I did find a non-Folio edition which is a standard reproduction of the 1911 edition with Coburn's images, and ordered that instead. A cheap substitute, but at least I can enjoy the illustrated work.

>47 JuliusC:

If price per page is someone's idea of comparison of books, a phone directory will be a great investment. Or a dictionary.

More seriously though - it is the complete package (text, images and the book as an object) and the price of the original version on the market that makes it a steal. The same thing that made the South Polar Times reprint underpriced for example.

>39 dlphcoracl:
As >34 cronshaw: acknowledged, I was just simply reminding him of some of the statements he made before. Such as "I struggle to feel tempted by 'fine editions' with paper-covered boards" ;)

>48 wcarter: I wish.

>49 HuxleyTheCat: It's all right...

>52 elladan0891: Do be fair now, I did apologise for that crass generalisation of mine soon afterwards in the very same thread (and gave examples of numerous exceptions) when I was describing how l had never felt tempted by the paper boards of the Baburnama! ;)

>51 AnnieMod: Fair enough, but I was thinking for a couple more dollars I could get a letterpress Shakespeare bound in leather and hand-marbled paper sides. I guess part of the allure is it's a facsimile.

>54 JuliusC:

And the topic. And the rarity. Shakespeare had been published in a lot of nice editions; this one had been published once (the original run). :) Not all LEs will be to everyone's taste -- I skipped most of the ones lately because I had zero interest in them; this one is a must buy. Someone will feel that this one is not for them while something else is exactly what they needed...

>54 JuliusC: Actually, The letterpress Shakespeare editions sell for around 100-120 gbp on ebay, so you can get 2 of them for the price of this LE. I saw one for 55, but I was at work and had no time to bid.

>53 cronshaw:
That's exactly why I added the bit stating that the paper boards are not marbled ;)
I guess I could have added other numerous exceptions, such as vellum corners, marbling, letterpress printed pattern, marbling, paste paper, marbling, and last but not least - marbling, to make it a bit more clear.

>53 cronshaw:
P.S. I'm just teasing. Congrats on your purchase, I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

>58 elladan0891: Thank you! I am slightly over-excited about it.

Publicity stuff and order form arrived by post today.

>46 cronshaw: and >48 wcarter:

Likewise! Ordered!

FS, you really just need to hire cronshaw already.

Edited for typo.

Ordered - a "must have" for me. :-)

>55 AnnieMod: I get that not every book is for everyone. This I'm actually interested in just wondering how people came to the conclusion that it was at bargain priced :/ I'd probably get this down the road as I enjoyed reading Wells back in high school.

>56 susanne-27: For sure most LE's are considerably a lot cheaper on ebay but I was merely pointing out the prices if I were to buy directly from Folio.

>63 JuliusC: It's an interesting point about the price of LEs on eBay/Amazon/abe. Some are certainly cheaper (including many of the letterpress Shakespeare from what numerous Devotees have reported recently) while some are significantly more expensive second hand than they were new from Folio (eg. Candide, Fables of la Fontaine, South Polar Times, Sound and the Fury, Wind in the Willows, Moby Dick, Johnson's Dictionary). Furthermore, it's often difficult to compare prices as LEs advertised on eBay are typically 'used', so are more likely not to be in pristine condition even when described as 'fine', and of course don't come with FS customer service guarantees.

It seems generally that it's the more expensive LEs, and/or those with higher limitations, which tend to become available more cheaply second hand, but it's not an easy game guessing which volumes are going to become the most sought after when the limitation is sold out (mind you, I'll wager that The Hertfordshire Pomona won't appreciate on the secondary market in a hurry). Of course, the subject is important, and uniqueness/rarity — as was the case with The South Polar Times, as Annie pointed out above, and may prove to be with The Door in the Wall. Medieval works and florilegia don't, on the whole, seem to maintain value as well as other works (though The Luttrell Psalter and The Surinam Album are notable exceptions). I was surprised to find that an edition as magnificent as The Temple of Flora, with a low limitation of only 600 (reduced from the over-optimistic original limitation of 1980), sells secondhand for as little as half the original price of £1000, though in this case there is a far cheaper (if also far less sumptuous) Taschen alternative which must have an impact, and £1000 is huge sum for most bibliophiles in any case, even grossly disinhibited unmarried ones.

The original 1911 limited edition was meant to have photographs printed by the high quality photogravure method, but, as I understand it, due to some misadventure in production, many, if not most, of the illustrations were actually produced using the more inferior aquatone process. The webpage refers to photogravures in the description of the original volume but not in the description of the facsimile itself. Does anyone know how they are printed in the FS version? Or does modern lithography render these distinctions irrelevant?

>63 JuliusC: Oh, I just wanted to save a fellow member a few bucks, especially since the Letterpress editions often flood ebay and prices drop even further than any other LE I know of. Maybe in 10 years or so I can finish the series....or buy a new car, but who needs cars?

Ah, enough. Reading parts of the book from a free PDF (Wells is quite new to me), wondering at the photographs in the mailing, considering JWB's accompanying letter, the production details and certain responses above, I realised I have only two plausible courses of action open to me. Order the book now, or spend the next week or month delaying and pondering further before ordering the book then. "To save time is to lengthen life", as a decal on every Remington typewriter used to say, so I'll prolong my days by ordering now.

Cars? They sometimes appealed to me aesthetically as a child but rarely do of late. Probably they've changed more than I have. Can't say I've ever thought of buying one.

>68 terebinth: I'm not a car aficionado, but, living in the Bavarian countryside, getting around without a car is almost impossible, especially during the winter.

>67 EclecticIndulgence: I bow to your widsom!

I went in to the dMR today, and agree with >46 cronshaw: it's wonderful. I ordered it on the spot.

I was told it's selling very well - c. 200 already gone, and it's only been on the website for three days.

(I was also told that Alice is nearing the end of its run - only c. 200 of the 1,000 left.)

Yes, I was very interested in The Temple of Flora but not the Folio price. The Taschen alternative is actually quite nice IMHO - and easily on par with what you'd get in a standard Folio edition, although sans Slipcase. I got it off of Amazon new, shipped quite quickly from Italy and not damaged in shipping, for $54 - much more my speed. It is a huge though thin book. While there I spent even more on direct from Amazon a "The Green Florilegium" which does have a slipcase and came in acceptable condition from Amazon for $120 or so. This Green one is really nice with quite a lot of artwork reproduced decently.

My copy is now listed as "At warehouse".

I had to query a payment by phone and I couldn't resist asking where mine was yesterday. Apparently, out to delivery and due sometime in the next few days. Be still my beating book heart!

Mine arrived this morning. It's absolutely beautiful. Couldn't be happier. The paper is fantastic - a tactile delight. I got copy number 695 and I ordered ahead of the promo material arriving by post so my guess is, this one is selling rather well. I think they may have hit the sweet spot with desirability and price point.

>74 klarusu:

Numbering's an odd matter lately: a few years back it seemed that a very early order resulted in a low number and an order toward the end of the run in a high one, but I can't say the same has applied to my few relatively recent LE orders, and while this one may well be selling fast I'd be amazed if more than two or three hundred were claimed before yours. Matters not a jot, of course - well, maybe one jot, but no more than two or three - and I'm gladdened to hear of your positive impressions of the volume.

My copy is still "processing", which is all I deserve after delaying my order until a while before business began on Friday morning. Of course, that's just what the Folio website says, so I'll not fall off my chair in shock if the book arrives here in the next half hour and is reported as reaching their warehouse tomorrow.

>75 terebinth: I'm totally not worried about numbering for myself as I just want the lovely book ... it does make me wonder though, whether this is a canny ploy to get those vacillating to snap up copies before they go ;-)

I do hope yours brings you as much pleasure as mine has when it does arrive!

I was in the middle of reading my LE Ancient Mariner when I was so rudely interrupted by a knock on the door, though all was forgiven once I realised it was a Folio delivery. A few snapshots, though my old camera and somewhat poor lighting doesn't do the book justice.

I'm sure somebody with better camera skills will be able to show the book in much better quality.

The texture of the paper to me is the most standout feature of this LE. As klarusu said, very tactile and make me want to just swipe my hands across the whole page just to feel it.

Ordered a few hours after it was listed and 709 for me, as others have mentioned it's now completely random and not indicative for how well the book it selling but it would be nice if Folio did start sending them out in numerical order.

.
.
.
.
.

>74 klarusu: >75 terebinth: Re. numbering, I remembered that JWB had addressed this issue when there were a couple of queries about it on his blog: http://www.foliosociety.com/joesblog/friday-19th-february-2016/#comments

Doesn't seem that things have changed too much.

Personally I couldn't care at all what number copy I have, as long as the book meets expectations (which are rather high... :-) )

>78 HuxleyTheCat: Thanks for the link - it explains a lot. I, too, really don't care about the issue number. The books are never going to leave my collection anyway so, as you say, the pleasure is in the meeting & exceeding of expectations :-)

This is why I'm deliberately delaying my order for this LE so as to ensure I receive a really low number.

Just received my copy of 'The Door in the Wall' today and it is stunning, one of the FS's best efforts in several years. The paper is superb, the printing is sharp and crisp and the photos have been beautifully reproduced.

Incidentally, I think the FS may be shipping these books in sequential numerical order and not in a random manner. FWIW, >74 klarusu: received no. 695, >77 wongie: received no. 709 and my copy is no. 721. If you are delaying your order to receive a lower number you may be rudely surprised to find that this edition sells out as you are waiting.

I note from the colophon photographed above that '... typographic idiosyncracies have been retained.' And added to.

>81 dlphcoracl: I've just received mine, and I concur: it is superb. I very much look forward to reading it later this evening.

Unfortunately, for the second LE delivery in a row, the book was left on my front doorstep by the courier, DX.

>82 affle: Haha, well spotted!

>83 HuxleyTheCat: The courier thought I was out & I just caught him leaving it on the front doorstep at my place too. Fortunately, I was only in the garden out back as it's been showery.

>85 klarusu: For what it's worth I've emailed Folio about it, but I expect nothing to be done. It makes me seriously consider collecting the 1001 Nights from Eagle Street should I decide to purchase that. It would add about £50 onto the price but at least I'd know that it would be safe, which quite clearly a DX delivery wouldn't be.

>80 boldface:

Yes, zero is a low number between -1 and 1. :)

>86 HuxleyTheCat: When I'm in London we should all pool our resources together and rent a helicopter and land at Eagle Street wearing white gloves to receive 1001 Nights. Maybe next could be afternoon coffee with Jonathan (boldface). I think the last time I was at the Shed at his estate I spotted a helicopter landing pad.

>83 HuxleyTheCat:
>85 klarusu:

In the States, Folio Society has the Limited Editions books delivered by FedEx (Federal Express) with Signature Required - and FedEx is scrupulous in this regard. If I am not at home they leave a standardized note stating that they will deliver the following morning. I can sign the form and have them leave the parcel at my front door (which is protected by a large overhang) if I am not home or I can pick up the parcel later that evening at the FedEx office.

>89 dlphcoracl: This from the DX Website about the DX Secure service (as used for FS LEs):

"Taking extra care at the delivery point is a key strength of DX Secure. We ensure your goods reach the right destination on time and our extra security layers avert unnecessary risks once at the final hurdle.

We take additional steps to ensure that our customers' goods can only reach locations and address types which they have specifically earmarked as being appropiate for safe delivery. We are highly involved with many of our customers in finding solutions to combat fraud.

We were the first UK carrier to take photographs at the delivery point and this remains just one of the many steps we take to ensure that our customers' parcels are delivered securely. This feature in particular has proven very popular with our e-commerce customers as they aim to alleviate claims of non-receipt.

Our fully vetted couriers follow very strict processes that mean the highest standards are always applied to every packet or parcel we deliver. Our customers wouldn’t have it any other way."

Funniest thing I've seen all year. I also note from their website that: "DX is also the preferred provider of the UK Government and foreign embassies for identity documents and visas." And there we have it in a nutshell - they're the cheapest bidder and quality can take a hike.

>86 HuxleyTheCat:
>89 dlphcoracl:

I think DX falls somewhat short of FedEx ;-)

>82 affle:

Oh my goodness, what a blunder. Surely on a Limited Edition they would not get this wrong? This is terrible.

>82 affle:

One of the examples here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy also have the "c" instead of "s". Wiki calls it alternative spelling: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idiosyncracy#English and they tend to have these right.

Now you made me curious on why the double spelling. By the way "c" is the more logical there even if "s" is considered the correct one. Don't you just love English Spelling?

>77 wongie: Thanks for the photos wongie. Is this one going to live in its case or will you shelve it as naked as the others? (Which do look rather nice freed from their sarcophagi!)

Apologies for highjacking the thread with grumpiness, but the joy of receipt was somewhat impinged upon by its nature, particularly as it's not the first time it's happened. I'll have calmed down about it by tomorrow (evening).

>93 AnnieMod:

The usage notes in your link are strongly suggestive of error as a source of the -cy spelling. Nor am I convinced of its logic: rather the reverse, the Greek krasis having entered English as the - admittedly obscure - word crasis. But I'm not a prescriptivist, I was suggesting only that the FS's use of this spelling was, well, idiosyncratic.

>95 affle:

Webster calls it alternative; everyone else calls it an error. At this point, it is legit if you are using Webster as your dictionary. Does not make it less weird but at least they may have checked a dictionary.

Oh, I know why it is an -s. But if I had not thought of etymology, my non-native speaker brain is telling me it should be a "c" :)

>95 affle:

It may have been an insider joke, who knows? I suspect it was a goof.

>96 AnnieMod:

Yes, I see that, the -cracy ruling words all being fairly common. There is the happy fact that both theocracy and theocrasy (god-mixing) are English words in good standing, and ought not to be confused, but otherwise Webster's rough and ready approach will do. I may be a little OT.

>93 AnnieMod: - >98 affle:

For the record, OED says:

ἰδιοσυγκρᾱσία = idiosyncrasy

θεοκρατία, δηµοκρατία = theocracy, democracy

θεοκρᾱσία = theocrasy

with no alternatives.

>87 ironjaw:

Too true!

>88 ironjaw:

If I could afford a helicopter and helipad, I'd have bought FS as well! You can still come to tea, though - just don't trip over the bicycle.

>99 boldface:

Thank you Jonathan, you beat me to it.

>99 boldface:

And yet, there's Sir Thomas Browne in the Pseudodoxia Epidemica using "idiosyncracies", and a couple of 19th century examples too. Browne's preference - it wouldn't be his sole idiosyncrasy by a long chalk - or was he just less than assiduous in reading his proofs?

>94 HuxleyTheCat:

It's currently shelved as free and as naked as the others LEs.

>99 boldface:

In OED vs Webster turf wars, I'm firmly on the side of Oxford, of course, but dictionaries ought to describe not prescribe. The problem is that what LesM, correctly I'm sure, calls a goof, may now be called as evidence of an alternative spelling. So we old folks shake our heads in sorrow.

I hope to go to Eagle Street today to inspect the book. I'm starting from a sceptical position, attractive photographs not necessarily outweighing the lack of appeal of a collection of minor Wells short stories; grating orthography won't help convince me.

>104 affle:

Will you broach the subject of spelling?

>100 boldface:

So what are you saying Jonathan that we should all tip in and raise enough capital to make a hostile takeover of the Folio Society? My God, Man. You are surely a crafty banker.

I just received 719 - I am in Dallas, Texas if anyone was wondering. It looks like the numbers are bunched in the 700s.

very beautiful edition, I was surprised by its size - I saw the measurements but it is really quite robust!

>102 terebinth:
>104 affle:

In everything I've ever read about the OED the point has been forcefully made that that dictionary was, and is, most certainly intended to be descriptive and not proscriptive. Murray and his fellow editors were determined to be "scientific" in their approach and not merely opinionated in the way that, for example, Dr Johnson had been in the previous century.

In Sir Thomas Browne's day the consensus on spelling was still fluid, but during the nineteenth century scholarship in etymology, philology, and lexicography marched apace. Etymology was able to lend scholarly weight to a more logical system of spelling which paid homage, rightly or wrongly, to the origins of words, particularly those words which had their roots in the classical languages. The scholars of that age were the products, we must remember, of a long tradition of classical education, even if Murray himself was largely self-taught. The gradual spread of universal education in a modern, progressive and increasingly scientific age made it seem desirable to standardize/standardise spelling as far as possible. It isn't always possible!

Under these circumstances, the OED is a product, like anything else, of its age. Its editors believed that a dictionary founded on historical principles should indeed record variants, while pointing out any illogicalities (for example, from an etymological point of view) in their formation. They would see this not as proscription but as education.

Getting back to The Door in the Wall itself, if like me any other US members lusting after it were put off by no instalment payment availability (the discount price of $320 is under the $350 threshold for four instalments), the website has now been adjusted so that the threshold kicks in to include rather than exclude the $45 shipping cost, ie the total $365 now comes up at checkout with the four-instalment option.

109: Really? I thought you needed $400+ to have installments.

Wonder how well this wonderful-looking LE has been selling?

No... I had the $350 figure direct from FS.

> 107
Yes, it does seem the numbers, which I do understand are randomly pulled from the warehouse, are "bunched in the 700s." I ordered either the day it was released or the day after (can't remember now) and I just took delivery in Chicago and was assigned No. 715, which I am eminently pleased with, as I have always been partial to limitation numbers that end in 0 or 5 (call it the financial accountant in me!) and I always get some odd number that is not memorable. But 715 is quite satisfactory!

As others who have received or inspected a copy have noted, the paper is absolutely delightful, the typography very clear (if one didn't know better you might think it letterpress), the binding crisp and elegant. It is a disservice to describe these as "paper sides" though I suppose that is accurate enough, but conveys a rather misleading impression of the high quality. It is rather too large for storage and handling, but if an accurate reproduction of the original, completely understandable. Fortunately, while I have not the space for an additional display stand (my only one holds open my National Geographic World Atlas to a modern map of Merry Olde England), in converting my dining room into a library, I purchased an oversize leather reading chair with matching ottoman that doubles as a safe and non-impactful book holder for reading oversize editions such as this. And that is precisely where this book was first inspected and shall be read in the future.

#713 just arrived here in sunny Phoenix - Priority USPS and not FedEx this time.

It is a big bigger than it should have been but it may be because it is easier to bind standard sized sheets.

And my copy has just arrived, #503, somehow a pleasing enough number: I'd taken a little while to come round to placing an order, which officially is still at the warehouse. >80 boldface: 's plan to hold out for long enough to get an early copy may have legs. I can't dissent from the general verdict here so far, my first impression says the book is a particular triumph.

>114 terebinth:

Despite your faith in my plan, my own faith is fast breaking down in the face of all the enthusiastic comments from those of you who've received their copy! I just caught myself mentally re-arranging space for it in the Shed. In fact, my real reason for holding back is the boring one of having blown this month's budget already (whispers on an early Castle Hill Press edition - don't tell the Mole, he/she may not approve!). Another ten days and I'll be flexing the credit card again, I hope.

>115 boldface: And don't forget that the prospectus for 1001 Nights will be with us before the end of the month. (Both space and credit card flexibility will potentially be severely strained shortly after that !)

>116 HuxleyTheCat:

No, I hadn't forgotten. It's going to be a difficult summer, particularly as I have a whole list of non-Folio goodies in my sights, and after my wife retires in a few months I'll no longer be able to spend her salary.

>117 boldface: But presumably she has a nice pension lump sum for you to spend to ease you into not being a kept man ;-)

>119 EclecticIndulgence: This is not just any 1001 Nights, this is a Dali 1001 Nights.

>118 HuxleyTheCat:

Oh yes, the lump sum has already been allocated in my mind, but if she has any sense she'll put it in a trust that I can't touch!

>119 EclecticIndulgence:

42.

>123 AnnieMod:
Ah yes - the meaning of life and everything.

This one is gorgeous! I may have to make it my first FS LE purchase

Poll is here:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/222469#5570178

Currently 20 yes, 14 no, and 4 undecided.

That's 71% purchasing this LE. Of course, with small statistics I estimate an error of around 20%. So let's say "only" 50% are interested in this. Still if that were 50% of Folio Society devotees members, that means roughly 650 people have either ordered it or plan to.

Well, I could be mistaken, but I think this is likely to sell out on the quicker side of things.

>126 astropi: I think you're probably getting a nasty sample bias here -- those not interested in this new LE would not be expected to click into the thread and find the poll in the first place.

I've been waiting all week to have some quality time with my copy and I'm now sitting cross-legged in bed reading it. I must say, apart from the visual aesthetics, it is a lovely book to read. The weight, size, paper quality & font make the experience of reading rather than browsing it an absolute pleasure. Couldn't be happier about jumping to purchase.

127: very possible indeed...

I received my copy today on the other side of the planet. I am actually a little disappointed that I received copy number 726 despite ordering on the first day it appeared on the website. I wish the FS would send them out in roughly numerical order depending on when the book was purchased, as I do prefer a lower number.
This should not be difficult as the number is printed prominently on the box, and one would think that the warehouse staff could fairly easily pick from the low numbers before the high ones.
BTW, on my order history on the FS website, the Door in the Wall is still listed as "Order Pending".

>130 wcarter: Yes, I agree. My order went in on day one and I got 697. I felt a bit of a baby when someone said they didn't care about the number so long as they had the book. Mind you, I recovered quickly and continued to feel cheated. The logic of the distribution is that later buyers get the 'best' numbers. Boo, hoo....

...and today the promo leaflet arrived; much as I am tempted, I'll try to pass on this one - and keep my LE kitty prepared for summer - I still have a lingering hope that we'll get a LE coupon this year, as well - in which case the Disasters of War will end up in my shopping basket at near relativistic speed. (If there is no coupon by August, I'll just clench my teeth and order it sans discount!)

Sigh. The Door in the Wall IS incredibly beautiful, though. And I AM a sucker for Wells... Much procrastination ensues.

>132 odderi: Just hold on for as long as possible and you might get no. 1!

No. 1 reserved for old Charlie the future King of England and all that.

>131 scratchpad: Even though my LE number genuinely doesn't worry me, I can see that it may well be important to others (rightly so). It does seem a strange practice to randomly distribute LEs. The logical approach would surely be to let them go sequentially.

>131 scratchpad: >130 wcarter: >135 klarusu:
"The logic of the distribution" is that they don't care who gets what number. They treat them as a single SKU, so just open up any box with the title in question and start picking orders from it. Hence people get limitation numbers close to each other (high 600s/low 700s right now), but out of overall sequence. Having warehouse pickers pick and pack these LEs in order is not as straight forward as it might seem, although it can be handled by a specifically defined standard operating procedure(s). It would be inefficient and prone to errors, but sure, it can be done. With a prerequisite that either the whole print run arrives from the binders at the same time or, if it arrives in different shipments, the binders send them sequentially too. But the current way is actually the simplest and most definitely not strange or illogical from the warehousing perspective )

>136 elladan0891: "But the current way is actually the simplest and most definitely not strange or illogical from the warehousing perspective".

Ok, then I have to say: may the good lord preserve us from the warehousing perspective. It seems to me that given the care taken to produce the book in the first place, and the price of purchase which denotes some sense of value/worth, the least FS can do is to follow through on, as I see it, a fair distribution.

Why are they numbered anyway?

>137 scratchpad: "Why are they numbered anyway?" Logically, to ensure that each copy is unique and clearly part of a limited edition. With an edition printed letterpress, there is some degradation of the print quality over the course of the run, so it would be desirable to have a low number, as these should (providing that the sequence is true to the print run) provide the cleanest, most accurate reproduction (particularly when it comes to printing direct from wood blocks), but with modern printing techniques there should be no discernible difference between copy no. 1 and copy no. 1000, hence having a low limitation seems more of a conceit than a necessity.

It is interesting that prior to the warehouse move, the LEs were apparently sent out in strict numerical order, but there were different allocations for the different geographical markets - I believe that the UK generally started from no. 1 but that the batch reserved for ROW could start at say no. 200 - I can't remember if for more recent LEs that system changed, but I do recall there being conversation on here about it fairly recently. In Joe's blog he addressed the issue of distribution in numerical order going awry due to the warehouse move, and he stated that those issues would be resolved for The Door in the Wall onwards: it seems they haven't been.

Oddly, somehow I got number 61. Not that I'm complaining...

Received my copy today. We're into the 400s.

101 here!

I think the Folio Society need to re-consider how they sell their Limited Editions. Their present way suggests:

1. Lower and more desirable numbers will be sold later;
2. Waiting to buy helps our cash flow and damages their's;
3. The longer we hold off the more information we have about the market value of copies on ABE etc; and
4. If they are going to issue a high quality standard edition of a Limited Edition then that might be a very acceptable and much cheaper alternative.

The downside for us holding off is that we may lose the early buyer discount but then if we are paying interest on credit cards or bank loans, we might be better off deferring our purchase.

So how number 34 is better than 760? Or more desirable? They are the same books, they have the same limitation - it is just a copy number.

Well AnnieMod next time you buy a Folio Society Limited Edition would you prefer to buy the volume numbered 'Number 1' or say 'Number 832'?

PS The late owner of The Folio Society, Lord Gavron, who presumably had a pretty free choice in the matter, showed his personal preference.

>143 AnnieMod:
If I had the choice of copy number 27 and copy number 789 at the same price, I would choose the lower number, but not pay more for it. I would pay significantly more for copy number 1, and possibly slightly more for the last number in the series.
I actually own number 300 of 300 for the Limited Editions Club edition of Seven Years in Tibet, and that pleases me a lot.

I'm not at all seriously bothered by the number allocation, but will confess to having been mildly gratified over the years when an LE order I placed without significantly hesitating resulted in a limitation number in the low double digits: and to being mildly gratified again whenever I notice the fact, which in the meantime I'll probably have quite forgotten. It just seems the FS is missing an opportunity here to bolster the impression of a personal service and of such books being a little further removed than they are by their design and material qualities alone from the ordinary procedures of mass production. However small a motivation, early numbers can surely be for quite a few of us a definite factor toward placing a speedy order. I struggle to imagine how the tweak in supply logistics required to achieve a more or less sequential distribution can be so difficult as not to be worth making.

>144 Chawton:

The 'privilege' copies of LEs are lettered, not numbered.

>147 affle:

Has that been the case lately with the FS? I've seen in the past on a limitation page the statement that an edition was limited to x numbered copies and (usually) 26 copies hors de commerce lettered A to Z, but I think it's a while since I saw anything of the sort on a new Folio LE.

>148 terebinth:

I bought three of last year's LEs, all had hors commerce lettered copies, 20 for Trollope and Brooke, and 25 for Apuleius.

>149 affle:

You're right: I've just been unobservant, then, as I bought the Brooke and Trollope too. Checking a few others, Doughty and the Pomona had lettered copies. while the South Polar Times and The Door in the Wall make no mention of them.

>150 terebinth: But 980 copies is a strange limitation.

>151 HuxleyTheCat:

You're right too ;-)

>144 Chawton:

Same text. Same book. Cannot care less what number in the limitation I have. I buy books to read - not so that I can tell that I have a lower limitation number.

20 are lettered, maybe or reserved copies ?

>155 EclecticIndulgence: Hahaha!

Received my copy this afternoon, and I was quite surprised - No. 84. First time I've been in double digits with a FS LE.

Other than that, the book is absolutely splendid and, quite frankly, I couldn't care less what number my copy is. The exception is my Liber Bestiarum, which is splendidly numbered 1154 (beginning of Henry II of England's reign), and is thus very suitably medieval.

"At warehouse" a week ago, "despatched" four days ago, and today it arrived in Southern California in perfect condition, as well-packed an LE as ever there was. I can only echo everyone else's comments on what a sumptuous volume The Door in the Wall is — I can't improve on >46 cronshaw:'s descriptive eloquence, but would add that its large soft creamy leaves may need a little extra care to avoid inadvertent marks or creases; and yes, an unmissable bargain for an LE of this size, quality and price. As for the sequencing of number-mailing, maybe they are working backwards, as mine is #7!

Succumbed to @cronshaw's delectable & delicious description and ordered this LE :-)

Can't wait to get my hands on the package when it arrives!

Things are really quiet in this thread!

Is everyone busy thumbing through their 'The Door in the Wall' LE? ;-)

>160 bookaroo: Actually I was pawing and purring through mine yesterday evening. Unique and beautiful without ostentation, it's one of the LEs I'd choose if life became so unkind I could have only a dozen.

(edited to add: >159 bookaroo: I do hope you love it, always a pleasure to enable!)

>162 EclecticIndulgence: *Panic attack* What a sadistic thought experiment, O Evil Eclectic One.

If I had sufficient quantity of benzodiazepines and gin to be able to contemplate paring down to a mere four, then it would probably be Johnson's Dictionary, Temple of Flora, Surinam Allbum, Pepys Diary, Faerie Queene, either Poems of Thomas Gray or Night Thoughts (depending on whether I want to gorge on quality or quantity) and Door in the Wall. And don't try and tell me that's slightly more than four, it fully counts as four after a bottle of gin.

By the way, of course include Mort at the ultra limitation of only 500. And don't forget your recent Royalist acquisition ;)

>162 EclecticIndulgence: And there you upset me so much I quite forgot South Polar Times which must fit into the four too.

>162 EclecticIndulgence: And Travels in Arabia Deserta

*hic* and then there's the Quantum Bloke *hic* Quentin Blake series, isn't there? And that other *hic* colourful one, The Found and the Sury, tha's eshenshal too

an' Ace of Horodes, shmall but *burrrrp* boootiful

And as Cronshaw lay comatose on the floor, Eclectic snuck in to relieve him of all the LEs in his collection he had forgotten to mention, but was disappointed, because this was precisely zero!

>161 cronshaw: @cronshaw: I am delighted you recommended this LE. It is indeed one of the jewels in my collection.

I imagine you and @HuxleyTheCat as two strong pillars of our Folio Society Devotees group!

How long have you both been members of the Folio Society?

>169 bookaroo: Good lord NO. I'm as much a pillar as any other raving inebriate propping up a bar, I just don't have much of a filter when it comes to gushing about things Folio. Huxley, affle, boldface, django, conte_mosca (when his wife lets him break his FSD sabbaticals), drasvola, dlphcoracl, terebinth and a host of others, including wcarter, osbaldistone, and folio_books who've contributed a lot to the group website, are far more effective at holding up the ceiling of things*, seeming to know an awful lot more about books and publishing than I do, and have been Devotees far longer on the whole too. I'm clearly tapping far too much here during my coffee breaks if I'm giving you that impression, a likely side-effect of my being a distance-learning student too closely attached to a laptop and with a Carassius auratus attention span that encourages frequent nibbling at the surface of FSD.

(*I haven't actually read Folio's 'Structures or Why Things Don't Fall Down' but I'm continuing the wobbly metaphor)

>170 cronshaw: "I just don't have much of a filter when it comes to gushing about things Folio"

Ditto.

>167 cronshaw:
Considering Eclectics post, when you are sober, I advise you to check your shelves to see if anything is missing.

Ordered on Friday, it has arrived today; number 575 for those who are interested in such things. I am not generally a fan of books in boxes, but I am very impressed. Leaving aside the literary merits, it is aesthetically very pleasing. I am in full agreement with all the positive comments made thus far. However, despite the dimensions being listed and the comments here on the size of the book, I was taken aback by it.

It will not fit on my shelves, my coffee table (and floor) are already laden with oversize tomes. I would be grateful for advice from those of you who already possess it and other of the boxed editions. Currently it is back in the paper and box and paper and box and bubble wrap and box, that it arrived in!

>174 xrayman:
See "How to Store Tall Heavy Books" on the FSD wiki site at:-
http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Groups:Folio_Society_Devotees

>175 wcarter:

It's certainly a tall book, but not a heavy one, so, while several LEs here are stored horizontally to prevent text block sag or worse, The Door in the Wall stands up in its solander box on a convenient surface, sandwiched between a couple of other LEs that are wider and therefore more stable.

Unfortunately I can't advise on where to find a convenient flat surface should those in the house already appear fully occupied, but if anyone can offer hints of that sort I and probably many others will be delighted to hear them.

Did any fellow devotees care to *smell* the gorgeous creamy mould-made paper used for this limited edition?

I took one whiff yesterday and was smitten!

And the first whiff was definitely not the last.

Subtle but deadly. I couldn't read the book, my face was too close to the page.

These LEs seem to be addictive substances ... although fortunately the highs they give are still legal.

@Chawton @scratchpad: Did any of you smell the paper again? I certainly did, and afterwards looked like Sherlock Holmes (after he'd had The Seven Percent Solution) ;-)

>181 EclecticIndulgence: My copy arrived today, and it is a delight. I can appreciate the point you make about the weight of the paper relative to the size of each page, and while I personally might not use 'flimsy' to describe the paper I agree with >158 davidjbrown10: that extra care may be needed when turning the pages to avoid inadvertent creasing.

I may need a little time for the rather dark and sombre soft-focus, almost semi-abstract, plates to grow on me, however.

I'm reviving this old thread as this LE is still available from FS and I am very much tempted to buy it.

However, the price is now £315 including shipping to the EU, while there was a copy on eBay that sold for less than £225 (Best Offer) in November. This makes me wonder if it could be worth waiting for other used copies to pop up on the second hand market.

This is the first time I'm considering acquiring a LE and it's a big financial commitment for me. The sad fact is that I'd be loath to buy it if the value later drops. I do wish to buy it in order to hold on to it (it is a thing of beauty), but it would be an extra security knowing that it would keep its value through the years.

I read earlier that many were optimistic regarding this LE, as an example of a LE where the FS got a lot of things just right. It is special.

What are your thoughts now, a few years later?

With some rare exceptions, LEs don't keep their value. Don't buy them expecting an investment.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Door in the Wall discounted this summer in the LE sale.

For the UK it was £199 in last summer's limited edition sale - I believe this was reduced from £250 (the current UK price) .

Agree with others. Wait for the summer sale. For the past two years they've been running summer LE sales. I suspect they'll do it again. The Door in the Wall has high limitation, so while it was selling fast initially, most of the demand had been satisfied already. They took out the counter, but my guess is there should be around 100 or 150 copies remaining. So if they run an LE sale, which I think they will, I'm pretty sure they'll try to move those remaining copies.

Like >184 gmacaree: said, most LEs (or books in general) depreciate with time. Although there are some FS LEs - Sound and the Fury, Moby Dick - whose values increased significantly, even by several-fold.

Thanks for the comments. I will most surely follow your advice and wait for the summer sale.

>186 elladan0891: For the past two years they've been running summer LE sales. I suspect they'll do it again

Then again, they did mention last year that that would be their last big LE sale.
I think that from now on they might add some LE's to their normal sales, just like they did now with the New Year Sale. But I don't expect a new big LE sale this year.

>188 joco30: But they also said that their first LE sale in 2017 was their first and last LE sale (I bought The Door in the Wall during this sale). I wouldn't be surprised if they continue with the sales. That said, I think they will become smaller as they currently don't have that many different LEs (a big chunk in 2017 were Letterpress Shakespeare), which would support your idea >188 joco30:.

>189 c_schelle: But they also said that their first LE sale in 2017 was their first and last LE sale

Ah did they? I only remember them advertising it as their first ever LE sale.
Well, it might just be sales pitch. But last year really was a big sale compared to 2017, which was mainly Letterpress Shakespeare if I remember correctly.
I don't think they can do such a big one for a second time. Or they would have to put on offer every LE they currently have.