Fine Press Folio Society

I think the WW1 poet books qualify by my definition of the term. I would not include most of the recent LEs in that category.

>2 LBShoreBook: I agree with LB on both points. There’s also a full set of I think 16 titles from the late 80s / early 90s known as the Fine Press Classics (https://www.jonkers.co.uk/rare-book/14127/complete-set-of-folio-society-fine-press-editions/the-folio-society). That’s a sold listing but it gives you an idea what to look for. And then a nice set of complete Shakespeare that was printed letterpress and has costume illustrations (https://stellabooks.com/books/william-shakespeare/the-folio-press-shakespeare-37-volumes/2129421) and then the Letterpress Shakespeare limited editions. Oh, and Perfect & Imperfect Enjoyments.

The recent Poe LE includes what I'd consider a Fine Press edition of The Raven as a companion volume.

The Wasteland LE was printed letterpress on mould-made paper and hand-bound by Ludlow, but still doesn't quite feel like a fine press publication to me.

I would argue that the Aurora Australis facsimile does have fine press production values, though of course it is printed offset apart from the letterpress companion volume.

I don't have it, but their Sappho seems to fall under that category for a lot of people.

>3 ChampagneSVP: There’s also a full set of I think 16 titles from the late 80s / early 90s known as the Fine Press Classics..

The Folio Press Fine Editions (FPFE) set of 20 titles released from 1987-91; and precursor to the FS Limited Editions program if I'm not mistaken. They are reviewed in 3 parts on the B&V website:

https://booksandvines.com/2015/01/26/affordable-treasures-and-pleasures-5-the-fo...

https://booksandvines.com/2015/02/09/affordable-treasures-and-pleasures-5-the-fo...

https://booksandvines.com/2015/02/23/affordable-treasures-and-pleasures-the-foli...

>5 SF-72: Yes, it was my first FS purchase and I'd count it as fine press.

Their 1976 edition of The Castle of Otranto most likely qualifies, too. It's printed letterpress with marbled papers and lithographic prints.

Letterpress Shakespeare seems pretty obviously fine press to me

>5 SF-72: I have it and I agree that it qualifies as fine press.

I'd also add the LEs of the medieval manuscript facsimiles. High-resolution facsimiles in brilliant colors with fine bindings. Letterpress cannot be used as a (dis)qualifying criterion for these because it is impossible to reproduce these via letterpress printing.

The Door in the wall and London & New York facsimiles are particularly nice editions, but might fall a little short depending on how strict the criteria is.

>11 LT79: Well, for Aurora Australis they could not have done as accurate a facsimile letterpress - offset is the right choice for high-quality facsimile. The letterpress companion is a nice touch for a tribute to a major feat of printing, though they really should’ve put the effort into having it done on an Albion hand press.

For the main Poe volume, just doing the main text letterpress would've skyrocketed the costs without really elevating it into a fine press publication. I do wish they'd sold The Raven separately, though, as I probably would have purchased it on its own.

>11 LT79: Otranto is indeed a bargain most of the time, and a beauty of a volume. I think the only other letterpress FS titles I have besides it are If Not, Winter and Twelfth Night, the latter of which FS seemed to be shoving out the door at rock-bottom prices towards the end. The Exeter Riddle Book seems like it should have been letterpress, but I don't believe it is. Could be wrong, of course.

>14 Shadekeep: RE: Exeter Riddle Book. I believe it is letterpress, one of the last so printed.

Remember, almost all Folio Society books printed before 1979 were letterpress.
Letterpress doth not necessarily make it fine press.
Lack of letterpress doth not necessarily preclude fine press.

>16 wcarter: Agreed

The William Blake limited edition facsimiles (in particular, Poems of Thomas Gray and Night Thoughts) aren't fine relief printing, but they are what I think of as good examples of fine press that actually requires non-letterpress printing.

>16 wcarter: If we are not precluding non-letterpress printed books, I would consider the limited edition Divine Comedy fine press. Though I often imagine how incredible it would have been if, all else remaining the same, the set WAS printed letterpress (sigh).

>16 wcarter:
Keep reminding us of that. There is more to a “fine press” book than the method of printing.

>15 Glacierman: T'would be nice then! One more in my collection if so.

I do think their Bestiary facsimile is a damn fine version of the one from the Bodleian, and it's offset. And The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon is beautiful, right down to its silk cover.

If we can move away from the demand for letterpress, I would definitely mention William Morris' Odes of Horace. That's a very fine facsimile and the job they did representing the different types of metal leaf he used is very impressive. It's such a beautiful book.

And the two Blakes mentioned above are fantastic quality - they do look just like the original artwork, and that's very rare.

>23 SF-72: Regarding William Morris, I would also mention News from Nowhere. That's also a beautiful facsimile, printed on very nice laid paper. If it's printed letterpress or not, I don't really know, although it's described like that several places...

This thread finally made me cough up £45 for the Folio Press The Tower - been eyeing it a while…

>1 LT79: For myself, I do consider The Exeter Riddle Book to be fine press. It is a wonderful book, well worth owning.

>28 LT79: It is. I'm a fan of his work and second @Glacierman on the recommendation for The Exeter Riddle Book. It's very attractively made as well as a lot of fun to read and puzzle over.

The Exeter Riddle Book is reviewed at https://www.librarything.com/topic/291635

Do you consider Studies from Nature fine press?

>32 David_Mauduit:
I do.

>30 LT79: Congrats! Hope you enjoy.

>32 David_Mauduit: Absolutely.

>4 NathanOv: The Waste Land definitely feels like fine press imo.

>25 GusLogan: >26 LT79:
“The Tower” is an excellent start. And, given the interest expressed here in “The Exeter Riddle Book”, I’d recommend looking for the Folio Press “Anglo Saxon Elegies”.

>37 LT79:
Many fine press collectors do start with the Folio Society (or in the USA, with Easton Press). They go down the rabbit hole, find lots of side burrows (too esoteric, poor quality, not my style), back-out, head down again (to very expensive exotica), then retreat to a place where we feel comfortable with our purchases and collection, often keeping in touch with many different levels of publishing and styles we have encountered along the way.

My route was similar, but I started with the Heritage Club, then found the Folio Society when they still had the membership business model, but I already knew about fine press due to the library job I'd had in college which exposed me to Kelmscott, Nonesuch, etc. I could fondle them, just couldn't afford them! I still have 46 FS books in my library and 51 HCs as well as press books (including a couple of Nonesuch, but no Kelmscott!).

>40 LT79: Yes, exactly. I have started this adventure with the same attitude, although it is very easy to get side-tracked. The real shame is that some/many of my most beloved books have no fine press copy available for any price.

Many (or perhaps most/all?) of Folio Society's older books were printed letterpress at the same high quality presses as LEC and other finer books, eg. Joh Enschede en Zonen, Stamperia Valdonega, W & J Mackay, etc.

So where do we draw the line? I suspect the answer is paper and binding quality. I don't see the paper type mentioned in any of those standard FS books, but the few I've held felt quite bland. The bindings are equally bland and generally have not aged well.

Collectors always talk about the materials and production (letterpress, binding, etc.) making a book fine press but to me the concept needs to be fine too, without that it's not fine, even if the best materials and letterpress. Many experienced collectors also try to gatekeep the idea of what fine press is but it always seems to be on the materials and production side and they will let books through which are bland in concept. It's not for them to decide as everything evolves.

There's a fine line between bland and a book which is minimalist and elegant and it's something many collectors can't distinguish but when you hold the book in your hand you see it. Many of the older FS books are bland.

I was a member of the Folio Society for about 30 years (under their old membership business model) and have no interest in assigning any catch-all designation to the books they produced. Suffice to say I grew disenchanted and having recently sold my copy of Perfect and Imperfect Enjoyments, I now no longer have an FS book in the house.

>44 duncjl: Ouch... That's quite the indictment! Did you find a better edition of imperfect enjoyments, or did you just not care to have that work anymore?

I have 200+ folio society books and plan to keep most of those as there's nothing better to replace them with. Of course they aren't fine press (other than the fine press series), but they are good to read.

My only gripe with folio society is that I'm afraid to read them for wearing the spines, they'll quickly end up ugly (and worthless). So I'm planning to wrap them all in mylar to protect them.

>43 LT79-1: It seems like a fine line and quite subjective. I agree with you, and I can think of books printed letterpress on nice rag paper that game a bland design. (IMO). They aren't a joy to behold, but they are sufficient if there's no better edition available.

>45 rogerthat2: It had become rather an outlier within the broader collection, so when someone expressed an interest in acquiring it I was happy to accede.

>45 rogerthat2: Buying second hand FS books is a very savvy thing to do if you want to build up a big library of well illustrated and well made books on a budget. You can pick them up very cheaply in the UK (and US) if you shop around. They are great if you want a nice library for your kids too. I'm certainly not dismissive of FS. I think they're a great British publisher. But if you can push now and again to acquire more books from small presses I don't think you'll regret it.

>42 rogerthat2: Speaking of the letterpress Folios, I recently got a 'pristine condition' The Hobbit published by Folio Society - the one with quarterbound leather and cloth sides - 1980 second impression by W & J Mackay.

I have to say, in terms of print quality, this may be one of the best letterpress books I've ever owned (although I don't own that many compared to offset printed titles).

What first caught my attention is the amazing consistency throughout the 245 pages - on par with what I expect from high quality offset printing.
Maybe it's just my luck, but I've never been able to get any modern letterpress books of similar page count that are ever consistent in the tone of the printing. Some pages are always noticeably fainter or darker, and this always distracts me - as if the printer was running out of ink on the fainter pages, or was 'freshly loaded' on the darker ones.

The second part is what I consider the sharpness or fineness of the print. This may be due to the choice of typeface (11 point Barbou), but it comes across as distinctly sharp in this Folio's Hobbit. I'd be absolutely delighted if all modern letterpress printing can be at least of this quality and better.

I've been wondering if others have had similar impressions, and what may be the explanation as I usually expect the more modern technical quality to be 'better' (at least in most things where cost is not the bottleneck).

>48 Ibkay: I've never understood the idea that letterpress alone is enough to make a book fine press and everything else can be lacking as long as letterpress is crowbarred in to get it over the line, even if the letterpress is badly executed. Letterpress is just one of many other aspects. There are letterpress books which are not fine.

I think there are quite a number of books published letterpress every year which would be perfectly fine offset, especially when you have the texture of the letterpress in a book with no other texture. For me offset printed art mostly doesn't work with letterpress. The worst sin off all is when it's on a glossy page. I think offset art should combine with offset text most of the time.

With that said most of the fine press books I own have very consistent letterpress but I only collect shorter works up to novella length. The longer novels might be more prone to inconsistency?

>49 LT79-1: I feel the same way, but somehow the modern fine press community has more or less agreed that letterpress is mandatory before a book can be considered such.

I think it's safe to say that it's now near blasphemy to even suggest that an offset printed book is fine press. One might get excommunicated from the tribe.

More seriously, I believe that this idea has subtly coerced many fine publishers to nearly always use letterpress, even when high quality offset on quality paper is probably a better choice. So now we have 800+ page tomes that are letterpress printed (with accompanying inconsistencies seemingly endemic to the process), where offset will have effortlessly delivered a crisp, consistent result.

I think it's more than when you're spending that much money you want all the features. Due to the lack of large scale production of letterpress, printing has now become an exclusive feature and therefore desirable to collectors.

Being letterpress certainly doesn't instantly make it fine press, but it is one of the long list of available tickboxes that can be filled out to make it so.

On a personal level I think many enjoy the tactile look and feel of letterpress and I certainly think it's easier on the eyes. It's also generally a lot more involved from a human perspective, giving you extra personal touch and "handmade" feel.

It just shouldn't be an excuse to not try on the rest of the book.

>51 AstulTheShepherd: It's more that I see letterpress as a package not as a solitary selection to add in at whim. It's much better to have a shorter work and keep the package in tact than stretch it to 300 pages and marry letterpress with other jarring and unsympathetic elements. Even more so if lengthy works result in inconsistent letterpress.

Suntup collectors criticise FS books for their lack of letterpress but I think FS have the correct model for the books they produce. Most FS books are bulky and letterpress wouldn't add much value to the subject matter. A 300 page fantasy or scifi book with glossy artwork and letterpress wouldn't make much sense to me and would needlessly add to the cost.

I stopped collecting FS books a while back to focus on smaller letterpress books from small presses, especially where the letterpress is in an ecosystem that suits it surrounded with sympathetic art work and binding not just added in without regards to its surroundings.

But each to their own and many collectors don't mind this. It's also positive in that it exposes offset collectors to letterpress and then onto the smaller presses.

>52 LT79-1: Small can be perfect. I'm not convinced there is a single Suntup book for which I would exchange the following, for instance:

>52 LT79-1: I agree, I think that the whole point of FS is quality press not fine press. Not everything has to be top of the line. I'd much rather they keep prices down and focus on materials, and breadth of publications etc than try to do letterpress for no good reason.

It's funny that Suntup collectors criticise over lack of letterpress when it's a 50/50 if a Suntup books is letterpress.

I don't fully agree as I like what Curious King is doing with letterpress fantasy books. But the whole package has to be curated around that style, yes. Not just slapped on top.

>53 duncjl: That's stunning

>48 Ibkay: Funny, I ordered that exact same Hobbit impression last month for $60 CAD, apparently unread.

In my opinion, letterpress is a nice to have. I like the feel of the impression on the pages and it looks a bit nicer. But it's pretty minor. I mostly picked that Hobbit because I liked the binding a little more and I had a little hope I might actually receive the earlier edition, mislabeled by the large book seller. :-)

I think layout and paper are more important than letterpress printing, which is just the icing on the cake. In this regard, the Hobbit is pretty bland like most folio society books. Compare it to a LEC book and there's just no comparison. But it might be the best edition available if the Hobbit.

If you have any of their Fine Press series from the 80s/90s, I find those to be lovely books. I don't have an opinion on their LEs yet as I've yet to read one, though I have picked up several in auctions recently.

At the end of the day, it's pretty minor and we have to try to keep things in perspective The last 2 books I've read have been offset printed FS standard editions, offset print, and I had no trouble whatsoever reading them. There is actually an argument to be made in favor of bland books, that the book itself doesn't distract your attention from the story.

>56 rogerthat2: By "bland" do you mean paper texture? Because other than the paper being essentially textureless I'm unsure what you mean by it.

>53 duncjl: Coo! I've sold eight of these over the years and I have one myself, but despite all those I've never seen any rabbits! Beautiful.

>53 duncjl: who printed this beautiful piece?

>59 Taishan: The nuns of Stanbrook Abbey Press.

>54 AstulTheShepherd: Of course, this is all just opinion and different collectors have different collecting interests. I just use these discussions to hone my personal thoughts and focus on what's important to me. To keep costs from spiralling I need a system for collecting and these discussions help me build a collecting filter. It's indisputable that CK collector's editions are great value for what you are getting. The Hitchhiker's book was a no-brainer for scifi fans.

>53 duncjl: Lovely stuff, thanks for sharing! I collect Stanbrook Abbey.

>61 LT79-1: That's what the forum is about :) we all just say what's on our mind, that's what makes it so great.

I can definitely see the value in having a system to choose which books to buy. Sadly I'm not at a point where I need that, I have to weigh the pros and cons for every single book I buy. Which is why I appreciate FS as a "quality" press, I can much easier swing £50-£70 than £800. I simply don't have the funds to collect fine press in the same way many of you here do. Though it is the dream.

I feel there is some offset work which still qualifies as fine press. For example, much of the output of Copperhead Press. Though as with Suntup, it's easier to grant them a pass now that they also do letterpress work.

>60 duncjl: Stanbrook Abbey does gorgeous work, a very fine piece there.

I like Folio, and though it's not fine press it has art+slipcases+sewn binding Beehive Books, as someone without a lot of disposable income where $100 for 1 nicer book than mass market once or twice a year as a special purchase is nice to have as an option. Since my other option would be watching say Suntup The Haunting of Hill House going up and up in price on 2cdhand sellers. I probably wouldn't know much about fine press without it even if I was able to dabble in letterpress during college.

>3 ChampagneSVP: OPTION 1: GENUINE CURIOSITY FROM NEWCOMER
Thank you for these links - this is exactly the kind of resource I was hoping to find.
I'm relatively new to thinking about books as objects and not just content. As someone who just published my first books, I've been going down a rabbit hole learning about printing, binding, paper quality, typography—all the stuff I never thought about when I was just a reader.
The letterpress Shakespeare set is gorgeous. I didn't realize how much difference printing method makes until I started comparing different editions side by side. There's something tactile about letterpress that offset printing just doesn't capture.
Quick question for the collectors here: When you're evaluating fine press editions, what's the hierarchy of what matters most? Is it:Printing method (letterpress vs offset)?
Paper quality?
Binding?
Illustrations/artwork?
Rarity/limited run numbers?

I'm trying to understand what actually makes a "fine press" book fine beyond just "it looks nice."
Also - are Folio Society editions considered entry-level fine press, or are they respected in serious collecting circles? I've seen mixed opinions and I'm trying to understand where they sit in the spectrum.

Early FS books were printed letterpress. Somewhere in the mid-70s, I don't remember precisely when, they began shifting to offset and are considered by many as quality press, not fine press.

What constitutes "fine press" remains somewhat controversial, with some holding that letterpress is a must, and others, myself included, aren't so restrictive. High quality in design, materials and printing are the deciding factors.

Many of the handmade books of Tara Books of Chennai, India, are considered by some, including me, to be fine press, books such as their edition of Euripides' Hippolytos.

>65 lynchliteracy: I'm not sure that Folio Society are seen as the highest level of press, instead they are seen as a gateway in which people move from trade hardbacks to Folio Society and then to perhaps more expensive options. However, they do make some excellent books, and in some cases the best versions of a work that is available ('The Malay Archipelago' by Wallace, for example).

The Libanus press is a respected fine press (I am a fan and have nine of their works), however I prefer the Folio Society 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' from 2010, so it isn't always a black and white answer as to which press is preferable to another, but instead considering the book as a whole. The Letterpress Shakespeare from the FS is beautiful (it took me some time before I purchased one and realised it's qualities!) and I have came around to the view that this is currently the best option for Shakespeare (unless space is at a premium!)

ETA: My comment on the FS Shakespeare Letterpress being the best option for Shakespeare is only meant for a whole collection of Shakespeare. There are individual titles where I prefer other presses, for example 'Twelfth Night' I prefer the Golden Cockerel version.

>65 lynchliteracy:

Some collectors look at it in quite a reductive way:

Letterpress: Y/N
If Y proceed to fine press.
But a book could contain poorly executed letterpress with no other fine elements.

Some will look at it in terms of hierarchy:
Letterpress
Typography
Paper
Binding, etc
But this seems unbalanced to me with over emphasis on the part to the whole.

To me a fine press book is when the concept is fine and all the elements are considered and balanced in relation to this concept and executed on the practical level with the most appropriate typography, materials and handmade techniques to a very high level.

I'm early on in my fine press education but I'm learning to sweep aside received wisdom and build from first principles up. There are books I've collected where more experienced collectors told me they were not worth acquiring only to discover for myself the level of thinking which went into the book.

In short, try to build your own unique collecting philosophy and not rely too heavily on what others tell you. It's not binary and it's not hierarchical. It's a fun ongoing self education process.

>68 LT79-1: I don't think any collector, no matter how experienced can evaluate if you should buy something or not. It's an incredibly personal choice and they were wrong to say that.

I myself have a set of paperbacks I would never want to give up for sentimental reasons. They'd be worth nothing to you guys but are priceless to me.

Likewise, we all put the emphasis on different things. Some are paper snobs and others couldn't care less if it's on recycled school paper. Thankfully there's room for all.

>68 LT79-1: I doubt anyone here would have said a particular fine press book “wasn’t worth acquiring,” but more likely advised that certain attributes may be lacking, or better value could be gained elsewhere.

Regardless, it sounds like you’re content finding enjoyment in things in your own way. That’s good. It’s worth reflecting on when responding to other people’s preferences as well.

>70 What_What: The advice on this forum from experienced collectors has been exceptional and I'm very grateful for it. I've learned so much from their valuable insights. My main point above to new collectors is, sure, listen to the experienced but try to develop your own path and don't just absorb these reductive binary or hierarchical ways of thinking. Also, experienced collectors are not infallible and can have blind spots. There's no ready mix formula for collecting.

>71 LT79-1:

"Collect what you like."

That's it in a nutshell.

>72 Glacierman: I'd add the corollary "and can afford". Without it I would have significantly more books, but no home to keep them in.

>72 Glacierman: beautifully put!

The problem is I'm selling on a lot of what I thought I liked from the past few years! That's why I'm trying to think about it more and not get pulled into the dead ends. I've slowed down my collecting to think about it more.

I'll give you a specific example. In the past I would purchase a book where the cover doesn't quite gel with the interiors because both aspects were executed well just not talking to each other and I "liked" the book. Now I wouldn't dream of it. The book comes as a unity or it's out the door. I started a thread month or two back called "Disharmony in Multiple Edition Bindings". Until I verbalise these thoughts I'm prone to impulsiveness or trusting others on it. This is why I enjoy these discussions, I can hone in on the detail.

>74 LT79-1: I think you’ll find yourself pretty honed in on what you really want to own before too long. I collected for a few years before I had a very freeing moment where I culled my collection to a much purer core of the whole. A lot of fine volumes flew the nest as I realised they just didn’t get pulled from the shelves from one year to the next. My library is so much better for the big chop and my subsequent care and restraint in what gets added these days. I think that whatever the theme for one’s collection, a seriously important factor to be honest about is whether a book is actually going to be one worthy of taking down and enjoying rather than ticking some boxes and being a nice acquisition but not actually a volume you engage much with.

>75 ChestnutPress: That's exactly why I didn't by Lyra's The Alchemist. It was incredibly pretty, but the book itself didn't interest me at all. It would just have been eye candy which I simply don't have the money or space for. Maybe one day!

>76 AstulTheShepherd: I’d say do your pocket and shelves the favour of forgoing the ‘maybe one day’, unless your taste changes to actually being truly interested in the book. I think a fine edition that doesn’t interest the owner is a terrible waste in their collection.

>75 ChestnutPress: It's surprising too the books you return to more than others and the ones you deem "keepers". A member on this forum recommended a paper catalogue and I thought I would own for a short time to see which handmade papers I enjoyed then pass it on. But it's a truly glorious book and I couldn't imagine parting with it. I get it out quite often. I think it will be the same with some of the large typography books I'm acquiring. It's the range in these books which make them special.

>78 LT79-1: Sometimes there is no obvious rhyme or reason — a book just hits right, even if it isn’t the usual fare.

Perhaps even more so than the books on my shelves, I tend to find myself returning to ephemera collections. This could be from a specific press, like the Gallimaufry of Ephemera issued by Incline Press; or composite selections like those from the Oxford Guild of Printers as was. These are like eclectic type specimens.

Folios The Waste Land is half off right now. A newer letterpress folio. Even half off it's pretty pricey, but it seems like a really nice edition.

>81 kreekree: That book is the perfect example of why the Folio Society has pivoted to the popular books they now publish, much to the chagrin of folks in the FSD group. Limited edition, letterpress printed on fantastic paper, bound in vellum, gold edges, and even at $750 they can’t get rid of it.

Meanwhile an offset printed more modern popular book, smaller in size, flies off the shelf in days.

>82 What_What: A major reason for their obvious difficulties in moving The Waste Land is that they are limited to the US market. In most parts of the world, T.S. Eliot's writings will not enter public domain before January 2036.

That's true.

>83 supercell: There are 86 copies left. I suspect many of the Americans who would want one are already waiting for the No Reply Press edition. I know I am.

>57 AstulTheShepherd: By bland I mean the whole package, though paper quality is a big factor for me.

I was just fondling the Heritage Press edition of Eugene Onegin. It is printed on a lovely toned laid paper. Then I picked up the recent Folio Society edition... It is on glossy white paper that felt gross. I think I also prefer the binding and illustrations of the old HP edition. (Haven't compared translations yet.)

>86 rogerthat2: Sadly paper quality is just one of those things that's gotten worse with time. There's much less choice than there used to be and it's more expensive. Though none of my FS editions have glossy paper, it's always matte and textured.

>86 rogerthat2: I'm a great admirer of printers/presses who made their own paper. Henry Morris, of course, or Frances McDowall at the Old Stile Press (in the earlier days). But a particular favourite was Bill Taylor at his Palliser Press. The image below doesn't really do justice to just how tactile these papers are, like a sheepstor:

>88 duncjl: "Against Printers" - This is absolutely fascinating. Thanks for sharing!

Interesting discussion of letterpress vs. offset in this thread.

I prefer letterpress in every instance for the same reason that I prefer a beat up hardwood floor over an immaculate laminate floor. There's just more life in the hardwood – literally.

Can an offset book be considered fine press? I tend to think that "fine press" entails committing time and care far above and beyond what contemporary commercial technologies and mores require. At the moment, offset is the commercial printing technology of choice. An offset printing machine can print 20,000 sheets an hour. When extraordinary care is taken with offset, then sure, it's fine press ✓!. However, offset is a technology made so that extraordinary care needn't be taken. So... I think the instances of offset fine press are few and far between. Though my hat is off to any offset printer who treats their craft with the same care that a master letterpress printer does.

>50 Ibkay:

"More seriously, I believe that this idea has subtly coerced many fine publishers to nearly always use letterpress, even when high quality offset on quality paper is probably a better choice. So now we have 800+ page tomes that are letterpress printed (with accompanying inconsistencies seemingly endemic to the process), where offset will have effortlessly delivered a crisp, consistent result."

I think you're half spot on! There are definitely books out there that needn't be letterpress. I personally still prefer them to be (see the floor analogy!) but they ask readers to pay $100s more for a book than offset would have obliged, often without taking advantage of the peculiar delights for which letterpress allows.

However, offset doesn't deliver a good result effortlessly. The offsetting of the print doesn't undo all of the challenges and foibles which lead to mediocre letterpress. In fact, due to the much higher speeds, they likely lead to worse results given the same effort. You'll find exactly the same issues you'd find in letterpress in offset printing – especially in low run books. But not only: open any mass produced book and take a close look. (I just grabbed a random Everyman Library book, offset printed, off my shelf and opened to pages 152–153. One side is enormously muddier than the other, and there's a definite overprinting toward the edges. To say nothing of Everyman's horrible typesetting!)

What do people think of their latest offering? I wish there was a close up of the page to show the paper and print.

It says the limitation label is letterpress which makes me think the rest is offset as they specify this part is letterpress. Though under font it says "typeset" which sounds very letterpress.

https://www.foliosociety.com/uk/anna-karenina-limited-edition

>91 AstulTheShepherd: modern Folios are exclusively offset to the best of my knowledge. Limitation labels on limited editions are generally letterpress although, personally, I’d prefer an offset but bound in page myself.

>92 cyber_naut: There are two Letterpress FS editions still currently for sale, 2015's Rupert Brooke: Selected Poems of which there are still a 100 odd copies left. I grabbed a copy during the New Year sale and its on its way to me—my first letterpress book! I also managed to find its counterparts, Wilfred Owen and Edward Thomas from 2018 and 2017 second hand and have them on order. Admittedly Brooke is from 10 years ago.

T.S Eliot's Wasteland from 2022 is the other one that's still available albeit a North America exclusive due to rights issues.

2024's Tales of Mystery and Imagination Limited Edition by Edgar Allen Poe had an offset printed main volume and a separate letterpress printed volume of The Raven which is the most recent one they did. It apparently sold out in a few hours. And based on the FSD group's list it seems like 2021's Aurora Australis (the commentary volume accompanying the facsimile) and 2019's Fragments of Sappho were letterpress too.