Which Folio Society Lord of the Rings edition is the best?

It seems the 1970's release usually goes for the most money. Is it the best?

>1 RickFlair: the 1970s edition is printed letterpress (and with decent presswork). It's my favorite edition personally, though the binding leather quality is not the highest, and tends to wear easily. The low durability binding thus further pushes up the price (because it makes fine condition copies scarcer), as often happens with secondhand books. (This effect seems perverse to me, since it means one pays more for a lower quality object that requires extra care, but so it goes.)

I was quite happy when I found a set with fine condition text blocks and worn bindings. More reasonable price, and no need to worry about preserving the bindings.

Edit: see also this earlier, extensive topic:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/193664

>2 abysswalker: I remember from reading into this before that people recommended the 1976 Allen & Unwin version of the Hobbit (printed for Folio and bound like the others from the 70s with the maze-like stamp on the spine but with brown leather not burgundy bonded leather) but I could never tell if any of the LOTR printings were also in conjunction with Allen & Unwin. Does anyone know?

>3 ChampagneSVP: I could never tell if any of the LOTR printings were also in conjunction with Allen & Unwin.

I bought the 1976 Hobbit on release (it sold out before it could make it into a Prospectus). As you say, it was the Allen & Unwin deluxe trade edition wrapped in Folio binding. Lord of the Rings followed in 1977, a total Folio production with illustrations by "Ingahild Grathmer", drawn my Eric Fraser. It retained the binding design from The Hobbit, including the maze motif on the front board. The spine was in grey leather. No connection with Allen & Unwin.

>4 folio_books: I just found the Allen Unwin Hobbit. It is delicious and I see that it contains illustrations directly from Tolkien. And it seems it must be letterpress as well? Does any other Hobbit edition contain those same illustrations?

Can anyone comment on the quality of the "elephant hide" edition of Lord of the Rings? I know it isn't letterpress but, in terms of looks, it's the binding that appeals to me the most.

>6 SyllicSpell:

I haven't seen it but shouldn't that be 'oliphaunt hide' ;-)

>7 Cat_of_Ulthar: Ha!

I just came across a teaser for Harper Collins’s upcoming 70th-anniversary edition of The Lord of the Rings. Normally, I don’t pay much attention to these "deluxe" editions, as they’re usually mass-produced with some cost-cutting added as a bonus (especially the binding)… But this one might look interesting. It’s supposed to be printed on Munken Lynx and cloth-bound by Graphicom S.p.A. – the same printer FS uses. Maybe that means better quality than past sets, maybe not, no idea, to be honest. But it comes in a clamshell box, limited to 1000 copies, signed by Alan Lee, so I figured I’d share.

>9 drizzled: At least the limitation page appears 'bound-in' as opposed to 'tipped-in'. :)

https://www.facebook.com/officialtolkien/videos/the-lord-of-the-rings-clamshell-...

>10 mr.philistine: True, indeed… ;)

>9 drizzled: ohh…if the dimensions are more sensible than the Folio edition I may be tempted by that.

Do you think the typesetting might be reset from the recent HC anniversary edition (which this seems to be based on)? I found the margins really narrow in that edition, and the reading experience not that fun because of that.

I don't quite see the point of this, other than it being, no doubt, another money-spinner from HC's point of view. Apart from a bit more cloth, a box instead of a slipcase, and Alan Lee's signature (which isn't that hard to come by anyway), the books look identical to the 2024 anniversary edition, which itself wasn't very different design-wise from the FS LE. Yes, >13 BorisG:, I'd be surprised if the typesetting was anything different either, particularly as the ISBN for the new signed limited edition (978-0-00-870021-8) is already printed on the copyright page of the 2024 version.

>14 boldface: Well, from my perspective it could be a nice middle ground (depending on the price) between an SE and LE from FS, especially since I only have the regular trade set of LOTR :) And the 2024 deluxe HC version has a bleh cheap leather, I definitely prefer a full-cloth binding.

The answer is obvious: the one I am missing.

And you people call yourselves collectors.

This likely to be essentially identical to the 2024 deluxe, but without the faux leather quarter binding. That's a very mediocre set if you care about the image reproduction. This is unlikely to be better (same printer, same basic specs).

>17 stubedoo: "This is unlikely to be better (same printer, same basic specs)."

Yes, I fear so. The full cloth is the only real improvement I can see.

'individual, fully-lined drawers within a cloth solander archival storage box' sounds a step up from the rather flimsy Folio LE slipcase, at least as a concept of a plan. I don't expect the books within will be quite as nice but the set will probably be cheaper.

Having said that, is it really that difficult to get the books out of the LoTR slipcase?

Gently tip the case forward on the edge of a table or shelf, holding back the volumes you don't want with a spare finger or two. Or let them all slide out a little if you prefer.

Once the book or books have slipped out by half an inch or an inch, push any ones you don't want back in and grab hold of the one you want and pull it out.

Really not that difficult unless you keep it in a very tight shelf, in which case, okay, it's a pain in the butt ;-)

>19 Cat_of_Ulthar: You can do that, but while you’re doing it, don’t you already feel the flimsy cardboard panels shifting around like they’re complaining about all being glued together? How someone at the FS tested that and passed it onto production is beyond me. Compare to the Shakespeare LE for example.

>20 What_What: You're quite right, LoTR should have had something more like the Shakespeare set's case. Much more solid feeling.

>19 Cat_of_Ulthar:

Having to take the whole set of books off the shelf to tip them is a bit silly, given they weigh 8kg or somesuch. Just not that practical with a flimsy sliicase.

I have the set they currently sell and an older ivory coloured set from, I think, the 90s.

I'm not a fan of the current set I have. The spines are so tight it feels like you have to force the book to fully open.

The editions with art by “Ingahild Grathmer” are my favorites. That is a pseudonym of Margrethe II of Denmark! She sent her illustrations to Tolkien, who responded that he liked them very much and that their style is quite similar to his own. You can’t get better than that!

Apologies for the double post; I evidently managed to delete the first one when I intended to edit it. Alas!

>25 Salaxalans:

Worth saying that all IG’s illustrations were redrawn by Eric Fraser, so the Folio edition has illustrations that were inspired by them, only. The original illustrations are quite different in style (much softer).

>26 stubedoo: I didn’t know that, thank you! That’s very interesting. I do hope Her Majesty wasn’t offended!

The 'best' LOTR edition is possibly the one they haven't done yet - a new standard edition using the Alan Lee illustrations from the recent LE. The current SE offering has served Folio well for decades, is pleasant, quaint and no doubt has many fans. However, given Folio's modern standard of book design, I feel it does not really do the book justice.

>28 Elysium72:

That's not likely to happen since there are standard editions of the LR by the regular publisher. My guess is that they have rights to the old editions that are decades old and in their favour. I doubt they would do as well with a new contract.