originals or copies

Hi, just wanted to know if you were commonly accepting facsimile reprints as part of your collection or if you prefer the collectible part of the hobby and tend to get old prints? (Yeah they are very expensive)
Brief are you collectors or readers ? I'm both.

Good topic. I'm both a collector and a reader as well and my interest in collecting probably weighs slightly heavier than my interest in reading. However, in reality (due to budget), it often weighs more heavily toward reading than 'serious collecting'. As part of the trickle down effect, my collection also tends to lean toward the acceptance of facsimile reprints just so I can have it in my library (and read it), but the ultimate goal would be to get the old prints. Plus, I just love the aesthetic of of old books.

>2 chocorua: I often thought the new reprint missed some info the old prints had. I'm forced to admit there is no big differences since printing press, for reading purposes facsimile seems to be ok. Its just a collector point of view at this point.

>3 Geburah: I'm sure in many cases that is correct (I've come across instances of this myself). It also seems that different publishers vary somewhat in the definition of facsimile vs reprint, but in my mind I tend to think of facsimile as being more closely representative of the original whereas a reprint has a different physical appearance but the same content. So yes, a collector point view in many cases (I agree) but I still pay attention because terminology does not appear to be standard across the board.