Folio Archives 51: The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer – Kelmscott Facsimile Fine Edition 2008
Talk Folio Society Devotees
Join LibraryThing to post.
1wcarter
The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer – Kelmscott Facsimile Fine edition 2008
This is a huge book that has presence!! Even when housed on a library shelf, visitors are drawn to it, and if laid open on a table, it dominates the room, as your eyes constantly seek it.
Only 425 copies of the original book, illuminated by William Morris and published by the Kelmscott Press in 1896, were printed. It was the last work illustrated by Morris as he died very soon after its publication. Most pages are fairly plain text decorated with illuminatd capitals, but about 15% are illustrated with lavishly detailed engravings.
The Old English is not easy to read, but I put it on a lectern, and read a few pages every day, and slowly got used to the style, finally finishing it after several months. I found reading it aloud, but quietly, helped get the rhythm and understanding of the words.
The book is an exact facsimile, with only one small paragraph on page 554 indicating that it was printed for the Folio Society by Cambridge University Press on Oxenford twin-wire laid paper specially commissioned from James Cropper, a small mill in the Lake District. A five page essay by William S. Peterson at the back of the book, explains its history.
This book was originally published by the Folio Society in 2002 as a limited edition, which was bound in white leather gilded with a design, but a different design to the fine edition. The texts and paper of the two books are identical, but the LE has an added colophon page.
I do not own the limited edition, only the fine edition (but I have seen the former), but I actually prefer the fine edition, as the gold blocking stands out against the dark red cloth, wheras on the limited edition the gold is not a prominently displayed against a white background.
The fine edition is bound in dark red buckram, blocked with a gilt design by David Pearson. It has a gilded top paper edge and a ribbon marker. The book has 568 pages, and is housed in a gilt titled dark brown slipcase 43.5x31x8.2cm. It was originally priced at A$800 (£450), but I bought it on sale for half that price.
FS promotional picture
Limited edition – Google image
An index of the other illustrated reviews in the "Folio Archives" series can be viewed here.
This is a huge book that has presence!! Even when housed on a library shelf, visitors are drawn to it, and if laid open on a table, it dominates the room, as your eyes constantly seek it.
Only 425 copies of the original book, illuminated by William Morris and published by the Kelmscott Press in 1896, were printed. It was the last work illustrated by Morris as he died very soon after its publication. Most pages are fairly plain text decorated with illuminatd capitals, but about 15% are illustrated with lavishly detailed engravings.
The Old English is not easy to read, but I put it on a lectern, and read a few pages every day, and slowly got used to the style, finally finishing it after several months. I found reading it aloud, but quietly, helped get the rhythm and understanding of the words.
The book is an exact facsimile, with only one small paragraph on page 554 indicating that it was printed for the Folio Society by Cambridge University Press on Oxenford twin-wire laid paper specially commissioned from James Cropper, a small mill in the Lake District. A five page essay by William S. Peterson at the back of the book, explains its history.
This book was originally published by the Folio Society in 2002 as a limited edition, which was bound in white leather gilded with a design, but a different design to the fine edition. The texts and paper of the two books are identical, but the LE has an added colophon page.
I do not own the limited edition, only the fine edition (but I have seen the former), but I actually prefer the fine edition, as the gold blocking stands out against the dark red cloth, wheras on the limited edition the gold is not a prominently displayed against a white background.
The fine edition is bound in dark red buckram, blocked with a gilt design by David Pearson. It has a gilded top paper edge and a ribbon marker. The book has 568 pages, and is housed in a gilt titled dark brown slipcase 43.5x31x8.2cm. It was originally priced at A$800 (£450), but I bought it on sale for half that price.
FS promotional picture
Limited edition – Google image
An index of the other illustrated reviews in the "Folio Archives" series can be viewed here.
2terebinth
The 2003 publication was my first Folio LE, and I'm glad to this day that it was, but the Fine edition made exactly the same book available more affordably and I'm glad about that too. Even more affordably than you say, as the UK launch price was £300 ( https://www.librarything.com/topic/36002#1404995 ) and the sale price a quite remarkable £150. A delightful set of photos which should be enough to set a few new Devotees on the trail of the volume.
3folio_books
>1 wcarter:
This is the version I have. As you say it's virtually identical to the LE. The leather binding of the LE tempts me, of course, but not until I see one at a reasonable price. In the meantime this one will do very nicely, As noted elsewhere on FSD quite recently it's not the easiest book to read, physically, but that it is a handsome beast is undeniable.
This is the version I have. As you say it's virtually identical to the LE. The leather binding of the LE tempts me, of course, but not until I see one at a reasonable price. In the meantime this one will do very nicely, As noted elsewhere on FSD quite recently it's not the easiest book to read, physically, but that it is a handsome beast is undeniable.
5dlphcoracl
Although considerably more expensive, the Basilisk Press facsimile of the Kelmscott Chaucer should be mentioned. In some ways, it exceeds the original Kelmscott Press edition. Occasionally, it can be found for sale in the $2,000 to $2,200 and it is in an entirely different league than either of the FS LEs.
6ultrarightist
>5 dlphcoracl: I recall you stating previously that you prefer the Basilisk Press edition over the original. In what ways does it exceed the original?
7ultrarightist
I own the FS LE edition and I love it. The leather binding is truly sumptuous. The buckram binding of the fine edition, however nice, does not hold a candle to the leather of the LE.
8dlphcoracl
>6 ultrarightist:
The Basilisk Press facsimile is superior in several ways:
1. The vast majority of Kelmscott Chaucers have the wretched holland binding whereas the Basilsk has a beautiful binding of a William Morris designed Liberty cloth over wooden boards.
2. The Basilisk paper is of nicer quality than the Kelmscott Batchelor paper. It is handmade to Basilisk specification and has slightly greater opacity so that the elaborate illustrations and wood engravings do not show through the page into the text on the opposite side of the page. The paper was formulated several times to make it as close to the original Batchelor paper as possible.
3. The Basilisk comes with a commentary volume and substantial slipcase made of thick wooden boards which are covered with a fine light grey cloth.
4. Perhaps best of all, the elaborate wood engravings (initial letters, borders, and illustrations) were re-engraved into wooden blocks and used for directly printing them from the wood. The illustrations in the Basilisk facsimile are near identical to the original Kelmscott edition.
The Basilisk Press facsimile is superior in several ways:
1. The vast majority of Kelmscott Chaucers have the wretched holland binding whereas the Basilsk has a beautiful binding of a William Morris designed Liberty cloth over wooden boards.
2. The Basilisk paper is of nicer quality than the Kelmscott Batchelor paper. It is handmade to Basilisk specification and has slightly greater opacity so that the elaborate illustrations and wood engravings do not show through the page into the text on the opposite side of the page. The paper was formulated several times to make it as close to the original Batchelor paper as possible.
3. The Basilisk comes with a commentary volume and substantial slipcase made of thick wooden boards which are covered with a fine light grey cloth.
4. Perhaps best of all, the elaborate wood engravings (initial letters, borders, and illustrations) were re-engraved into wooden blocks and used for directly printing them from the wood. The illustrations in the Basilisk facsimile are near identical to the original Kelmscott edition.
9boldface
>5 dlphcoracl: "In some ways, the Basilisk Press edition exceeds the original Kelmscott Press edition."
The Folio Society must agree with you, since the accompanying booklet states that the FS facsimile is actually a facsimile of the 1975 Basilisk Press facsimile!
A facsimile of facsimiles, then, or perhaps a "facsimile thus"?
The Folio Society must agree with you, since the accompanying booklet states that the FS facsimile is actually a facsimile of the 1975 Basilisk Press facsimile!
A facsimile of facsimiles, then, or perhaps a "facsimile thus"?
10PeterFitzGerald
This was probably one of my luckiest finds on the Naughty Trolley (of blessed memory). I think I picked up for £80, and it now has pride of place on one of the few shelves I have tall enough to house it.
11ultrarightist
>8 dlphcoracl: Thanks for the information. The point about the paper is especially interesting. Many have commented on the fine quality of Batchelor paper. I have some books with Batchelor paper, and it is excellent (although I am even more impressed by Barcham Green paper). The fact that Basilisk Press iteratively formulated a paper that was similar to, but more opaque than, the original Batchelor paper is impressive and demonstrates the care they put into their facsimile. Your point about the cover is taken, but it would be unfair to omit mention of the subset of original copies bound in blind stamped and tooled pigskin with silver clasps. I've seen that cover at an exhibition of rare books and it is quite lovely.
12kdweber
>11 ultrarightist: "although I am even more impressed by Barcham Green paper"
Your statement set off a ten minute search for my LEC copy of A Sentimental Journey. Wow, I forgot how that's such a great paper; though, I still prefer the Batchelor.
Your statement set off a ten minute search for my LEC copy of A Sentimental Journey. Wow, I forgot how that's such a great paper; though, I still prefer the Batchelor.
13dlphcoracl
>11 ultrarightist:
1. Regarding the crème-de-la-crème of fine handmade papers, there are three that I consider the best of the best: Richard de Bas, Barcham Green and in much older private press books, circa 1890 to 1930, Arnolds unbleached rag paper. One of the joys of Allen Press books is that a number of their titles were printed on the ultra-rare Richard de Bas paper and, of course, the Arion Press 'Moby Dick' is printed on a Barcham Green paper that was made to Arion Press specifications.
2. The binding subset you mention - the blind stamped and tooled pigskin binding with silver clasps was designed and crafted by T.J. Cobden-Sanderson at his Doves Bindery. Only 50 copies of the 425 Kelmscott Chaucer printed on paper were given this luxe binding and these were made very early in the production cycle. They will cost a pretty penny because these copies in NF or close-to-fine condition will typically sell for between $150,000 to $175,000 AT AUCTION !! One can only imagine what fine & rare booksellers thus charge.
One final comment: the Basilisk Press facsimile is a good example of why one cannot always determine value by price alone (note: I am excluding books which one simply cannot afford, as everything and everyone have their own reasonable limits). A truly collectible copy of the Kelmscott Chaucer in the original holland binding will usually retail for between $80,000 to $110,000 from booksellers. By comparison, the Basilisk facsimile will give you about 95% of what the original Kelmscott Chaucer does (note: the letterpress printing from the Kelmscott Press cannot be perfectly duplicated in my experience) at about 2.5% to 3% the cost of the original. Expensive? Yes, but not unreasonably so for reasons stated.
Collector's tip: three wonderful books worth acquiring for under $650, all printed on Barcham Green paper, are:
1. The Shepheardes Calendar by Edmund Spencer, Cresset Press, 1930.
2. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Limited Editions Club, illustrated by Eric Gill, 1933.
3. The Chester Play of the Deluge, Clover Hill Editions (printed by Will Carter at the Rampant Lions Press),
illustrated by David Jones, 1977.
1. Regarding the crème-de-la-crème of fine handmade papers, there are three that I consider the best of the best: Richard de Bas, Barcham Green and in much older private press books, circa 1890 to 1930, Arnolds unbleached rag paper. One of the joys of Allen Press books is that a number of their titles were printed on the ultra-rare Richard de Bas paper and, of course, the Arion Press 'Moby Dick' is printed on a Barcham Green paper that was made to Arion Press specifications.
2. The binding subset you mention - the blind stamped and tooled pigskin binding with silver clasps was designed and crafted by T.J. Cobden-Sanderson at his Doves Bindery. Only 50 copies of the 425 Kelmscott Chaucer printed on paper were given this luxe binding and these were made very early in the production cycle. They will cost a pretty penny because these copies in NF or close-to-fine condition will typically sell for between $150,000 to $175,000 AT AUCTION !! One can only imagine what fine & rare booksellers thus charge.
One final comment: the Basilisk Press facsimile is a good example of why one cannot always determine value by price alone (note: I am excluding books which one simply cannot afford, as everything and everyone have their own reasonable limits). A truly collectible copy of the Kelmscott Chaucer in the original holland binding will usually retail for between $80,000 to $110,000 from booksellers. By comparison, the Basilisk facsimile will give you about 95% of what the original Kelmscott Chaucer does (note: the letterpress printing from the Kelmscott Press cannot be perfectly duplicated in my experience) at about 2.5% to 3% the cost of the original. Expensive? Yes, but not unreasonably so for reasons stated.
Collector's tip: three wonderful books worth acquiring for under $650, all printed on Barcham Green paper, are:
1. The Shepheardes Calendar by Edmund Spencer, Cresset Press, 1930.
2. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Limited Editions Club, illustrated by Eric Gill, 1933.
3. The Chester Play of the Deluge, Clover Hill Editions (printed by Will Carter at the Rampant Lions Press),
illustrated by David Jones, 1977.
14ultrarightist
>12 kdweber: I do not have that LEC title. You've now enabled me. :-) My primary points of comparison of Batchelor vs. Barcham Green paper are the LEC Confessions of an English Opium Eater and the Rampant Lions Press Psalms of David, respectively.
15ultrarightist
>13 dlphcoracl: Thank you for the additional information. If I could afford the original Kelmscott Chaucer with the pigskin binding, I would acquire it as the crown jewel of my collection. I would pass on an original with the holland binding, however, even if I could afford it. I agree with you that it is a wretched binding.
Regarding your three suggestions, I already own #2. I will now have to acquire numbers 1 and 3. I am especially interested in #3, because I am a big fan of Will Carter's pressmanship, which I consider to be superlative.
Regarding your three suggestions, I already own #2. I will now have to acquire numbers 1 and 3. I am especially interested in #3, because I am a big fan of Will Carter's pressmanship, which I consider to be superlative.
16dlphcoracl
OT response to >15 ultrarightist::
The irony of putting a cheezy holland binding - a veritable dirt magnet if ever there was one - on a book as magnificent at the Kelmscott Chaucer is that Wm. Morris did so in the expectation that each owner would them commission his or her own bespoke full leather binding from one of Great Britain's finest binderies, e.g., Sangorski & Sutcliffe, Zaehnsdorf, Bayntun-Riviere, Smith & Sons Ltd., etc. However, that rarely occurred and to this day nearly all of the Kelmscott Chaucer editions remain in their original holland bindings, regardless of how worn, soiled and filthy they are.
Go figure.
The irony of putting a cheezy holland binding - a veritable dirt magnet if ever there was one - on a book as magnificent at the Kelmscott Chaucer is that Wm. Morris did so in the expectation that each owner would them commission his or her own bespoke full leather binding from one of Great Britain's finest binderies, e.g., Sangorski & Sutcliffe, Zaehnsdorf, Bayntun-Riviere, Smith & Sons Ltd., etc. However, that rarely occurred and to this day nearly all of the Kelmscott Chaucer editions remain in their original holland bindings, regardless of how worn, soiled and filthy they are.
Go figure.
17kdweber
What finally sold me on the FS Kelmscott Chaucer was the inclusion of a sample page in the marketing mailer. I think it's one of the nicest papers ever used by the FS.
>13 dlphcoracl: The Richard de Bas paper is even rougher than the Barcham Green or Batchelor. I'm not familiar with the Arnolds paper, which presses used it?
>13 dlphcoracl: The Richard de Bas paper is even rougher than the Barcham Green or Batchelor. I'm not familiar with the Arnolds paper, which presses used it?
18dlphcoracl
>15 ultrarightist:
>17 kdweber:
The Arnold unbleached rag paper is not associated with any particular private press and only shows up sporadically. Ironically, it is often found in very inexpensive books from obscure private presses, often costing less than a deluxe FS edition, e.g., Beowulf, Piers Plowman, etc. The most famous private press book printed on Arnold's unbleached paper is the Lakeside Press edition of Moby Dick (3 vol.) with the classic Rockwell Kent illustrations. I recently encountered it again in a 5-volume special edition of the Nonesuch Press 'The Holy Bible' which was limited to 75 copies. It has a crisp, linen-like appearance and it was made in Heaven for letterpress printing, resulting in a very distinct, razor-sharp appearance of the type.
>17 kdweber:
The Arnold unbleached rag paper is not associated with any particular private press and only shows up sporadically. Ironically, it is often found in very inexpensive books from obscure private presses, often costing less than a deluxe FS edition, e.g., Beowulf, Piers Plowman, etc. The most famous private press book printed on Arnold's unbleached paper is the Lakeside Press edition of Moby Dick (3 vol.) with the classic Rockwell Kent illustrations. I recently encountered it again in a 5-volume special edition of the Nonesuch Press 'The Holy Bible' which was limited to 75 copies. It has a crisp, linen-like appearance and it was made in Heaven for letterpress printing, resulting in a very distinct, razor-sharp appearance of the type.
19ultrarightist
>18 dlphcoracl: Ahhhh...yes, I've perused that Nonesuch Press special edition of the Holy Bible, and I distinctly recall the 'wow' factor of the paper. Out of curiosity, where did you encounter that set?
20dlphcoracl
>19 ultrarightist:
It is a recent purchase from Sophie Schneideman Rare Books (London). Although 75 copies of this special edition on Arnold's unbleached paper were printed it is ultra-rare. Sophie Schneideman commented that in her thirty years as an independent fine & rare bookseller this was the first set she had acquired.
It is a recent purchase from Sophie Schneideman Rare Books (London). Although 75 copies of this special edition on Arnold's unbleached paper were printed it is ultra-rare. Sophie Schneideman commented that in her thirty years as an independent fine & rare bookseller this was the first set she had acquired.
21ultrarightist
>20 dlphcoracl: I'm envious! You have a truly special set. I think it rivals the Arion Press Bible.
22dlphcoracl
>21 ultrarightist:
The Nonesuch Press special edition is indeed special but, trust me, in no way does it rival the Arion Press edition of 'The Holy Bible'. I own both and the Arion Press edition is magisterial. Each volume measures 19" H x 14 " W x 3.5 " thickness and each volume weighs 25 lbs. !! The page design and letterpress printing are what you would expect from one of Arion's finest efforts, with a clarity that is breathtaking.
Incidentally, you can see for yourself by purchasing the prospectus for the Arion Bible separately. It is beautifully done with an interesting discussion by Andrew Hoyem on the history of the great lectern bible editions following the Gutenberg Bible, the flaws in the design of the most notable of these bibles, and the design challenges and decisions that printing a new edition posed. The prospectus is bound in thick flat black stiff paper wrappers (very tasteful) contains 7 pages and includes a separate folded sample sheet of the Arion Bible (same paper, same letterpress printing, same page size of 18 x 13 inches) resulting in four sample pages taken from Genesis, Job, Psalms, and John.
Several copies of the Prospectus are currently available for purchase, usually in the $45 to $60 range. If you cannot drop between $8,500 to $11,000 for one of the Arion Bibles in full morocco leather binding, this is the next best thing :-) .
The Nonesuch Press special edition is indeed special but, trust me, in no way does it rival the Arion Press edition of 'The Holy Bible'. I own both and the Arion Press edition is magisterial. Each volume measures 19" H x 14 " W x 3.5 " thickness and each volume weighs 25 lbs. !! The page design and letterpress printing are what you would expect from one of Arion's finest efforts, with a clarity that is breathtaking.
Incidentally, you can see for yourself by purchasing the prospectus for the Arion Bible separately. It is beautifully done with an interesting discussion by Andrew Hoyem on the history of the great lectern bible editions following the Gutenberg Bible, the flaws in the design of the most notable of these bibles, and the design challenges and decisions that printing a new edition posed. The prospectus is bound in thick flat black stiff paper wrappers (very tasteful) contains 7 pages and includes a separate folded sample sheet of the Arion Bible (same paper, same letterpress printing, same page size of 18 x 13 inches) resulting in four sample pages taken from Genesis, Job, Psalms, and John.
Several copies of the Prospectus are currently available for purchase, usually in the $45 to $60 range. If you cannot drop between $8,500 to $11,000 for one of the Arion Bibles in full morocco leather binding, this is the next best thing :-) .
23johnaba
>13 dlphcoracl:
The paper discussion is quite interesting. I'm tempted to check out the Cresset Press edition of Spencer. I do find Barcham Green to be better to my eye and fingers than Batchelor's. Do you know what paper the Cresset Press Gulliver's Travels is printed on?
The paper discussion is quite interesting. I'm tempted to check out the Cresset Press edition of Spencer. I do find Barcham Green to be better to my eye and fingers than Batchelor's. Do you know what paper the Cresset Press Gulliver's Travels is printed on?
24dlphcoracl
OT to >23 johnaba::
In the colophon page, the Cresset Press 'Gulliver's Travels' merely states that it is printed on "hand made paper" without specifically identifying it. The paper is thick, slightly stiff, luxurious, and the letterpress type shows beautifully on it. It does not have a watermark.
I compared its paper (by actual feel) to that in the Cresset Press 'The Shepheardes Calendar" which is known to be Barcham Green paper. Note that both books were printed and published by the Cresset Press in the same year (1930). Although the paper in 'Shephearde' is a different color (pale grey) it is near-identical regarding thickness and actual feel.
My point: I strongly suspect that the Cresset Press 'Gulliver's Travels' is printed on Barcham Green paper as well. This makes sense since Barcham Green paper and Batchelor paper were (I think) the papers chosen and used in the finest private press editions throughout the U.K. in the 1920's and 1930's.
In the colophon page, the Cresset Press 'Gulliver's Travels' merely states that it is printed on "hand made paper" without specifically identifying it. The paper is thick, slightly stiff, luxurious, and the letterpress type shows beautifully on it. It does not have a watermark.
I compared its paper (by actual feel) to that in the Cresset Press 'The Shepheardes Calendar" which is known to be Barcham Green paper. Note that both books were printed and published by the Cresset Press in the same year (1930). Although the paper in 'Shephearde' is a different color (pale grey) it is near-identical regarding thickness and actual feel.
My point: I strongly suspect that the Cresset Press 'Gulliver's Travels' is printed on Barcham Green paper as well. This makes sense since Barcham Green paper and Batchelor paper were (I think) the papers chosen and used in the finest private press editions throughout the U.K. in the 1920's and 1930's.
26ultrarightist
>24 dlphcoracl: Is the Barcham Green paper in the The Shepheardes Calendar watermarked?
27dlphcoracl
>26 ultrarightist:
No.
However, the first sentence of the colophon in the Cresset Press 'The Shepheardes Calendar' states:
"This edition of 'The Shepheardes Calendar' has been printed on Barcham Green hand-made paper, with three copies on Roman vellum."
Incidentally, aside from gorgeous letterpress printing and use of several different beautiful and distinctive types, the colophon also notes:
"The illustrations by Mr. John Nash have been coloured in the stencil process by the Curwen Press, London.
By "stencil process" they mean pochoir illustrations and they are indeed a treat, quite rare in private press books. Simply put:
You need this book.
No.
However, the first sentence of the colophon in the Cresset Press 'The Shepheardes Calendar' states:
"This edition of 'The Shepheardes Calendar' has been printed on Barcham Green hand-made paper, with three copies on Roman vellum."
Incidentally, aside from gorgeous letterpress printing and use of several different beautiful and distinctive types, the colophon also notes:
"The illustrations by Mr. John Nash have been coloured in the stencil process by the Curwen Press, London.
By "stencil process" they mean pochoir illustrations and they are indeed a treat, quite rare in private press books. Simply put:
You need this book.
28BuzzBuzzard
>13 dlphcoracl:
Aesop's Fables, Limited Editions Club, 1933 deserves a shout out!
At least two more LECs were printed on Barcham Green paper:
The Rivals, 1953
The Masque of Comus, 1954
Along with Hamlet all four printed in England.
Aesop's Fables, Limited Editions Club, 1933 deserves a shout out!
At least two more LECs were printed on Barcham Green paper:
The Rivals, 1953
The Masque of Comus, 1954
Along with Hamlet all four printed in England.
29dlphcoracl
>28 BuzzBuzzard:
Thanks, Buzz.
I do not own ‘The Rivals’ or ‘The Masque of Comus’ but the LEC ‘Aesop’ is a treasure, not surprising since it was designed by Bruce Rogers, printed by John Johnson at the artistic height of the Oxford University Press (note: the OUP also did the letterpress printing for Bruce Rogers’ edition of the Oxford Lectern Bible), and is illustrated with facsimiles of medieval Florentine woodcuts. One of my favorite George Macy LECs.
Thanks, Buzz.
I do not own ‘The Rivals’ or ‘The Masque of Comus’ but the LEC ‘Aesop’ is a treasure, not surprising since it was designed by Bruce Rogers, printed by John Johnson at the artistic height of the Oxford University Press (note: the OUP also did the letterpress printing for Bruce Rogers’ edition of the Oxford Lectern Bible), and is illustrated with facsimiles of medieval Florentine woodcuts. One of my favorite George Macy LECs.
30wcarter
Just to return momentarily to the original topic, I note that there are several copies of the Kelmscott Chaucer fine edition on Abe for around the US$360 mark at present if any one is interested in adding this massive tome to their collection.
32Niurn
>30 wcarter: : several copies of the Kelmscott Chaucer fine edition on Abe for around the US$360 mark
*mumbling to myself* I must save for the upcoming Mandeville, i must save ...
*mumbling to myself* I must save for the upcoming Mandeville, i must save ...
33bookist
Kelmscott original vs Basilisk facsimile vs Folio facsimile
Kelmscott (crop of image from web):
Basilisk:
Folio (unlimited edition):
The Basilisk image is very close to the Kelmscott original, but with some slight loss of detail in places, e.g. in the horse's tail some of the vertical lines which are distinct in the Kelmscott blend together in the Basilisk.
The same effect is more pronounced in the Folio. For example, there is loss of detail in the dark area of the treeline in the upper right of the Folio illustration.
A few more close-up images, which also show the heavier texture of the Folio paper...
Basilisk:
Folio:
Basilisk:
Folio:
The Kelmscott original and the Basilisk are letterpress editions. The Folio was produced photographically from a disbound copy of the Basilisk, loaned by the proprietor of the John Roberts Press, who printed the Basilisk edition.
Kelmscott (crop of image from web):
Basilisk:
Folio (unlimited edition):
The Basilisk image is very close to the Kelmscott original, but with some slight loss of detail in places, e.g. in the horse's tail some of the vertical lines which are distinct in the Kelmscott blend together in the Basilisk.
The same effect is more pronounced in the Folio. For example, there is loss of detail in the dark area of the treeline in the upper right of the Folio illustration.
A few more close-up images, which also show the heavier texture of the Folio paper...
Basilisk:
Folio:
Basilisk:
Folio:
The Kelmscott original and the Basilisk are letterpress editions. The Folio was produced photographically from a disbound copy of the Basilisk, loaned by the proprietor of the John Roberts Press, who printed the Basilisk edition.
34Willoyd
An absolutely stunning volume. I was, however, quite happy to sell this off earlier this year: perhaps the most impractical reading volume I've ever owned!
35kdweber
>34 Willoyd: I must be one of the few that really enjoyed reading my volume. A number of years ago we read the Canterbury Tales for our family book club (our two kids were in college at the time). My spouse and son read a modern translation while my daughter and I read the stories in Middle English (I had already read the Canterbury Tales multiple times in modern translation). I quickly got use to reading the font and into the Middle English and the size and weight of the tome didn't bother me. Loved the paper and the size of the text. I did keep my Riverside Chaucer handy to help.
36cindydavid4
>1 wcarter: thats the one I have, love the gold against the read. I found this at my fav rare bookseller, for $400.
I cant read the chaucer, but I bought it for the Morris print and illustrations, just gorgeous.Sometimes I pull it out, open it on my table and just turn the pages slowly for a good long time and being amazed how this work was done.
I cant read the chaucer, but I bought it for the Morris print and illustrations, just gorgeous.Sometimes I pull it out, open it on my table and just turn the pages slowly for a good long time and being amazed how this work was done.
37Willoyd
>35 kdweber:
Yes, I don't have too much of a problem with the Middle English (although a translation does help!), but prefer more sensibly sized books to read and shelve! My favourite reading edition is the parallel translation 3-volume FS edition.
Yes, I don't have too much of a problem with the Middle English (although a translation does help!), but prefer more sensibly sized books to read and shelve! My favourite reading edition is the parallel translation 3-volume FS edition.
38folio_books
>37 Willoyd: My favourite reading edition is the parallel translation 3-volume FS edition.
As I've said elsewhere I have the non-LE but my favourite Folio edition is the 3 volume work. Side by side translation and superb illustrations.
As I've said elsewhere I have the non-LE but my favourite Folio edition is the 3 volume work. Side by side translation and superb illustrations.
40L.Bloom
I might be masochistic but I love the giant absurd tomes that FS puts out. The Eric Gill Canterbury Tales LE is a monster and a monstrous delight to read on a sufficiently sturdy table. I deplore reading in columns like the Kelmscott has so it never interested me except as an object.
