Jane Austen: The Complete Novels, LE (09.ix.2025)

The first teaser from Folio of the upcoming LE of Jane Austen's complete novels has been posted on Facebook & Instagram:

https://www.facebook.com/TheFolioSociety/videos/1398869914630514
https://www.instagram.com/p/DJCAz34tNDq/

A collection like never before… ✨📚
To mark 250 years since Jane Austen’s birth, we’re creating the ultimate tribute – all six novels gathered in one truly spectacular limited edition.

With just 750 copies available, this set features enchanting illustrations by Sarah Young and a brand-new introduction, all crafted with exceptional care. A true celebration of Austen’s legacy and the art of bookmaking at its finest.

Just added the below after I went through frame-by-frame. You can gauge both the volume's thickness, and—teasingly!—see three other volumes in the background:



And the sign-up for updates is below:
https://www.foliosociety.com/row/coming-soon

---

The artisan collection features all six of Austen’s major novels — ‘Pride and Prejudice,' ‘Sense and Sensibility,' ‘Emma,' ‘Mansfield Park,' ‘Northanger Abbey,' and ‘Persuasion'. Each book is hand-bound in cotton and silk jacquard cloth. The fabric is in the style that Austen herself once wore and often described in her writings.

The aesthetic elegance encompasses a striking frontispiece from a woodcut, five full-colour lino-cut illustrations and fifteen vignettes, all by acclaimed artist Sarah Young. The typographic design is by Emily Benton, while calligrapher Ruth Rowland has crafted monograms for the set.

The six books are presented in a beautifully designed cloth-covered box, also by Benton, making this a showpiece worthy of any Austen devotee’s bookcase. Only 750 copies will be available, exclusively from foliosociety.com, starting 9th September 2025.

Source:
https://entertainment-focus.com/2025/04/30/the-folio-society-celebrates-jane-aus...

The Bookseller article is a little more precise than Entertainment Focus as to how many illustrations each novel will contain, as well as noting the silk-weavers and book-binders:

The design for the bindings is from watercolours by artist Sarah Young, and will be woven by Stephen Walters & Sons, the oldest silk-weaving company in Britain. Each novel will be hand-bound by Smith Settle in Yorkshire with meticulous care.

Each novel in the collection will be gloriously illustrated with a frontispiece from a woodcut by Sarah Young, in addition to five vibrant lino-cut illustrations and a further 15 vignettes dotted throughout the text.

Source:
https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/folio-society-to-publish-jane-austens-compl...

Artist Sarah Young:
https://www.sarahyoung.co.uk/
https://www.instagram.com/sarah.a.c.young/

Typographic designer Emily Benton:
https://www.emilybentonbookdesigner.co.uk/
https://www.instagram.com/emilybenton_bookdesign/

Calligrapher Ruth Rowland:
https://ruthrowland.co.uk/lettering-artist-welcome
https://www.instagram.com/ruth_rowland_lettering_artist/

If this one has the same illustrations as the standard editions, which I have, I will be so thankful to FS for going back to its old model of issuing the standard version first and thereby saving me oodles of money in not purchasing the LE.

If the illustrations are an improvement upon those in the current SEs (which I find to be absolutely terrible illustrations), I would consider buying the set.

No, I doubt if there will be a standard edition of this, which I think will follow the model of 1984; the perfectly serviceable current chick lit edition is still selling well, and there is no need to cannibalise that, and older Janeites will have their Joan Hassalls firmly anchored to their bedside cabinets.

This will be a nice Library Ornament for 750 quick-fingered newer Folio Fans with FOMO. And why not? Although the lack of a Shorter Works will mean buyers miss out on the magnificent Lady Susan, which someone (SP books?) did as an LE recently in Jane's 'fair copy' hand. I would very much like that...

https://www.spbooks.com/108-lady-susan-9791095457763.html

>4 CJDelDotto: I wouldn't want the illustrations of the current edition myself, but think it is a clever take. I prefer them to the unfinished Niroot Puttapipat set which for me are a bit soppy. But Joan Rools OK (as Alex Harvey would have said)

As a tribute to the author, based on the video, it will be lovely. I am fairly confident that the FS style of Limited Edition with all six volumes will be far beyond the normal Jane Austen reader's budget.

>3 podaniel: Illustrations by Sarah Young so, no, not the same as the current gold editions.

>5 red_guy: Copperhead Press also have Lady Susan out if someone wants to splurge. I don't have any of their titles so I can't comment on the quality.

https://copperheadpress.com/products/lady-susan

I ended up collecting all of the current set although I never intended to initially. I love the Balbusso illustrations for Pride and Prejudice so picked up that on the second-hand market but ended up picking them all up incrementally after that. I do like the illustrations in most of them except Persuasion, which is a pity as it's my favourite Austen. I also have the Joan Hassell set in blue leather which includes the short stories.

That second picture seems to suggest the books are going to be quite large. It reminds me of the Shakespeare Plays LE set with the use of patterned covers.

>9 assemblyman: I'm glad Lady Susan is getting some love at last. The film that was made from it (Love and Friendship with Kate Beckinsale ) is a delight as well. I did not discover it for many years, and assumed that it was unfinished. Yes, it needs polishing, but is a complete work and I imagine never made it to print as the heroine (?) is so immoral and an unrepentant baggage. Worth 40 mins of anyone's time.

The Copperhead Press looks sumptuous, but I am drawn to the autograph edition. Such lovely cursive. Also 14 x 10"

>10 red_guy: I recall telling a friend that essentially Lady Susan was the female equivalent to Wickham, both having essentially the same moral compass. But yes, it's been a favorite of mine for decades.

'That second picture seems to suggest the books are going to be quite large. It reminds me of the Shakespeare Plays LE set with the use of patterned covers.'

My thought, too.

The video clip included in >2 David_Mauduit: appears to show cloth being woven in a similar way to that used for the Shakespeare boxset. Which makes me think that the Austen set will be similarly large, heavy, solid, and expensive. And beautiful for those who are willing to splurge on it.

>8 Cat_of_Ulthar:

Noooo! Oh well, now I have to figure out where to put my second Jane Austen set (maybe next to the LE Shakespeare).

>12 Cat_of_Ulthar: If the mockups I saw at the Folio office are any indication they'll be around the same size as the gold editions. Of course, they might not be any indication :)

>7 jillmwo: That’s kinda the point, no?

This does scream Shakespeare LE and I'm happy because I still frequently admire the look of the latter. I can already imagine the feel of this in my hands.

Based on the video, it seems like the spines will just have the initials of the title? Blue is probably Emma, Red seems to be P&P, and yellow/gold is Sense and Sensibility. So far, these colors seem to more or less match the slipcase colors of the current gold editions, so it'll be interesting to see if that pattern continues. I'm not sure if they could pull off black for Northanger Abbey.

I'm psyched about the new illustrator and illustrations. The illustrations in the current Austen editions are either hit/miss/meh for me depending on the book, which is why I only have 3 (Mansfield Park, Northanger Abbey, and Emma) and none are particularly favorite editions.

I do see some of the books lined up in the background in the image below (EDIT: Just realized that FitzJames saw it first!). The green may be Mansfield Park, continuing with the pattern? It does appear that the same shapes/design repeats on all the books which feels a bit lazy after the unique motif integrated into the design of each individual Shakespeare LE volume, but at least they seem to look good together. (And anyways I could be wrong about the design not have unique elements across volumes because I can't see the whole thing.) I'm expecting a lot from the box/slipcase too!

Interestingly, The Folio Society remains the only company that consistently pleases me with their LE designs.

>15 What_What: Is it? Who do you or (if you prefer) who does the Folio Society see as being the buyer of these Limited Editions? How sizeable is that market?

There are only 18 copies left of the Rob Roy LE today when I look at the US web site. 18 out of a numbered run of 750. How long did it take to sell the 732 copies that are gone? Has it been three years? Granted that 2025 is an anniversary for Jane Austen, but the Folio Society is in business to sell their advertised product, not warehouse it.

Yes, the point behind a limited edition is to sell to a certain type of collector but speaking as someone with at least half a dozen sets of Austen here in my home (one of which is a Folio set), as much as I love Austen, this particular Limited Edition is still apt to be a pricey indulgence.

They look a bit too much like granny wall-paper to me, but I’m also not the target audience.

>17 jillmwo: Most of their LE's sell out quickly -- the last six have sold out within 48 hours (some of them within minutes). Rob Roy is more the exception than the rule as the artwork seems to have turned off a number of folks.

>17 jillmwo: I think a big reason why Rob Roy didn’t sell is that design and illustrations used did not match the story at all. Although I would agree the limitation was also too high. I can see the Austen LE selling out if done right.

>10 red_guy: I’m in the middle of a Jane Austen re-read but have never read Lady Susan so I’m looking forward to getting to it.

>21 johnny1991: They should have done Ivanhoe. Mindboggling that that one is missing from the collection...

>17 jillmwo: "who does the Folio Society see as being the buyer of these Limited Editions? "

I actually think Folio sees a few markets - people who love the work, people who like particular bindings, people who just collect Folio because that's what they do, and speculators that think the book will be worth more tomorrow than it is today, but aren't at all fussy about the actual product.

I think they have pursued that final segment a lot the last few years, but the winds of the market might be changing and the buyers they target will likely shift more towards the people who love the work. The super-fast sell outs have IMHO been driven by the speculators, and we are seeing that flipped copies of LEs are no longer commanding much (if any) of a premium on eBay when we look at actual sales.

>21 johnny1991: Oh, and Rob Roy is just one random book out of a set.

Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by set? Not series, right?

>1 FitzJames:
Giving five months notice for a new limited edition is also new. A long time to build up the resources to make the purchase.

>26 wcarter: I believe the Shakespeare LE had an even earlier/longer notice period! I found an old email from FS with the subject 'Shakespeare – The Complete Plays' received on March 5, 2023 for the LE which didn't come out until September 26.

>25 johnny1991: Yes, they have well and truly mishandled Scott over a long time, not just recently.

It's arguable that the likes of Austen are more popular on Goodreads, not so much because they are better works of Literature than Scott - I'd argue strongly that Scott far surpasses Austen as a writer (please note I think Austen very good), but because there has been a longstanding cinematic adaptation of her works, as the femininity and genteel rolling and temperate conditions are more pleasing to certain demographics, than the manlier, meatier, raw and more brutal landscapes of Scott's worlds.

I'd also put forward the case that Scott requires more reading investment: he is a prolific stage-setter of his theatre of narrative through his preambles. All the better in my opinion, and the Literature decisively richer. But for some folks this thoroughness is distasteful - persona non grata - and is just too taxing on more modern attention spans. The very ones who champion abridgments of Les Miserables, and arrogantly assert that the book is grander without such temporal inconveniences like the 'Waterloo' chapter, may fit the mould.

>28 LesMiserables: What's your favourite Austen book?

I think that the quick sellout of limited editions is relatively new, though recently it is the norm. I think they got the ball rolling properly in 2016 with the release of Mort and then followed it the next year with Call of Cthulhu. Before that the limited editions didn't sell out very quickly if my memory serves me right. I guess that marked the beginning of the deluge of sci-fi/fantasy. (Not to imply that sci-fi/fantasy is less worthy than more established literature. Today's genre fiction is tomorrow's classics.)

>30 billburden:
You are right. The fastest seller back before 2016 was the Candide LE which sold out in three weeks.

>29 PartTimeBookAddict: Probably, P&P. I should note that her output was minuscule compared to WS, so it's a wee bit apples and oranges.

>2 David_Mauduit: That's a great illustration of how involved the weaving process is. I believe they used the same/similar for the Shakespeare LE? Austen is popular so I have no trouble seeing this selling fast. There's a lot of options to pick from though even in FS own back catalogue.

May we in the future politely refer to this as the Laura Ashley edition?

>17 jillmwo: As many others have mentioned, you selected the rare LE which has had a poor reception.

It also sounds like you eventually answered your own question at the end of your post. LEs are targeted at a specific type of collector, at the expense of others.

>35 cwl: Indian sprigged muslin, which the design looks to be based on, was a popular fabric of the Regency period.

>37 red_guy: I’m well aware. Laura Ashley was a tongue-firmly-in-cheek comment, and her designs were very consciously inspired, or copied, from historic examples. This design might well be based on something floating around the Austen home, though I don’t know for certain. That said, it’s still wallpaper. ;)

I have added the below to the main post, along with links to the designers involved:

The artisan collection features all six of Austen’s major novels — ‘Pride and Prejudice,' ‘Sense and Sensibility,' ‘Emma,' ‘Mansfield Park,' ‘Northanger Abbey,' and ‘Persuasion'. Each book is hand-bound in cotton and silk jacquard cloth. The fabric is in the style that Austen herself once wore and often described in her writings.

The aesthetic elegance encompasses a striking frontispiece from a woodcut, five full-colour lino-cut illustrations and fifteen vignettes, all by acclaimed artist Sarah Young. The typographic design is by Emily Benton, while calligrapher Ruth Rowland has crafted monograms for the set.

The six books are presented in a beautifully designed cloth-covered box, also by Benton, making this a showpiece worthy of any Austen devotee’s bookcase. Only 750 copies will be available, exclusively from foliosociety.com, starting 9th September 2025.

Source:
https://entertainment-focus.com/2025/04/30/the-folio-society-celebrates-jane-aus...

The Bookseller article is a little more precise than Entertainment Focus as to how many illustrations each novel will contain, as well as noting the silk-weavers and book-binders:

The design for the bindings is from watercolours by artist Sarah Young, and will be woven by Stephen Walters & Sons, the oldest silk-weaving company in Britain. Each novel will be hand-bound by Smith Settle in Yorkshire with meticulous care.

Each novel in the collection will be gloriously illustrated with a frontispiece from a woodcut by Sarah Young, in addition to five vibrant lino-cut illustrations and a further 15 vignettes dotted throughout the text.

Source:
https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/folio-society-to-publish-jane-austens-compl...

>33 LesMiserables: "Pride and Prejudice" is on deck for me. What do you like about it?

Also, how does Scott require more reading investment? They're both public domain, no?

>40 PartTimeBookAddict: "Also, how does Scott require more reading investment? They're both public domain, no?"

I didn't personally take that as meaning a financial investment.

>40 PartTimeBookAddict: From memory, JA did a fairly good job at expressing the subtleties of relationships and how they are conditioned by temperament.

Not sure what - on deck for me - means. Can you explain?

Whether tongue in cheek or not, I'll bite: Scott normally has lengthy ground setting introductions to his narratives so that the reader has a well defined context for the ensuing tale. For example the introduction and preface to Waverley (A Magnificent book) runs to around 17,000 -18,000 words.

>42 LesMiserables: "On deck" means "up next." It's a baseball term.

"Reading investment" is not a term (so far as I can find). Do you mean "time investment"? As in, some of Scott's books are longer than some of Austen's?

Whether an author decides to take time to situate the reader in a historical story before the telling does not, for me, make it richer literature. I could be wrong, but most of Austen's stories had contemporary settings. There would have been no reason for her to situate the reader.

>43 PartTimeBookAddict: Let's not quibble around terms: we both understand what we mean.

Thanks for your insights on Austen.

>44 LesMiserables: I understand, and can explain, what I mean.

I still don't understand what this means:
"I'd also put forward the case that Scott requires more reading investment"

In my view anything one reads requires time invested in reading. One book doesn't require more than another. I was just confused about what you meant.

Also, just FYI, you can't use "persona non grata" for something like thoroughness. It is meant to classify an unwelcome person.

>45 PartTimeBookAddict: Thanks for all of your comments.

One book doesn't require more than another.

I'd argue that this is quite alien to the experience of most people who read across a variety of genres. Reading a Folio Society book on Philosophy, will usually take much more time/reading investment than reading a straightforward novel. Or are you saying that you can grasp the finer details of an exposition put forward by Bertrand Russell in a History of Western Philosophy, as easily as it is to understand a chapter of Anne of Green Gables?

I hope you get the point. I also do understand quite well, the English language, despite your numerous attempts at instructing. I'd wager that you tend towards quite literal or binary comprehension, and don't quite easily pick up on nuance, colloquialism, or dialectic in language. Or of course, you might just well be trolling.

All the best, and happy to leave this here.

>46 LesMiserables: If by "reading investment" you mean "comprehension" that's fine. You were using that term to say that it made Scott's work more Literate than Austen's. I did not understand what that meant and was asking you to clarify that statement. That's all.

Yes, I think the more knowledge one has beforehand makes various things easier to comprehend.
But then, wouldn't Scott's work require less "reading investment" since he explains the situation at the outset?

And yes, I like plain speaking and clear understanding. I'm not fond of word salad.

Comment removed after a friendly and nuanced private exhange with PartTimeBookAddict.

This LE looks beautiful with its delightful cloth bindings. It reminds me a little of the charming Folio edition of Jane Austen's Letters published a couple of decades ago in floral-patterned art silk. I won't be splashing the cash myself as I'm blissfully content with my FS Joan Hassall-illustrated set, also in assorted colour covers, but I'm confident 750 Austen fans will be very happy with this LE.

>49 cronshaw: I won't be splashing the cash myself as I'm blissfully content with my FS Joan Hassall-illustrated set

That's a "me too" but I wish Folio well wth the project and I hope the prospective purchasers will be as happy with the new edition as we are with Joan Hassall's sublime work.

This will undoubtably sell well, and if it contained the shorter works I’d be interested, but not as it is. I also have little confidence that white cloth will survive actual readings, but it will be lovely if effectively never touched. Leave me with my Regency-style leather and marbled endpapers.

>45 PartTimeBookAddict: "In my view anything one reads requires time invested in reading. One book doesn't require more than another."

I must admit, I'd totally disagree with this. I've read many books that I found easy to digest and similarly, many that were much harder work. As a long time Tolkien-fan, I'd classify the Lord of the Rings as the former, and The Silmarillion as the latter. One (The Silmarillion) just requires a lot more mental investment than the other. It simply isn't written in a mode that is especially accessible and there are many names to keep track of (and the same character will have multiple names).

>52 stubedoo: Yes, I just finished Titus Groan and Peake's use of language and metaphor was so rich, that I found myself reading nearly every page multiple times in-part...

>52 stubedoo: >53 HonorWulf:

Yes, and although my example above employed different genres, as >52 stubedoo: pointed out, it can be with the same genre and author!

>54 LesMiserables:

I disagree--I have found that Ulysses and Finnegans Wake require just as much mental effort as Year Round Things To Do.

>55 podaniel: This is to be expected if one only looks at the pictures. ;)

Okay. If we're using the term "mental effort" that is something I understand. Now that we're clear on the original post (from so long ago) we can debate civilly.

I don't think Walter Scott takes that much mental effort to understand. I've only read Ivanhoe and Rob Roy, but they were both pretty straightforward, if not a little bloated, narratives. I prefer Stevenson as a writer of historical adventure stories, but that might change when I read "Bride of Lammermoor" this year.

Austen's longevity is due to her sharp insights into humanity and her quick, witty dialogue. And, of course, the genteel rolling and temperate conditions she cannily added to her novels.

Her novels still feel relevant. Scott's are dated and a little corny. If the point is modern readers don't go in for raw, manly meat and have such short attention spans, I would refute that with George RR Martin and Brandon Sanderson. Sure, you don't need to know about the Jacobite Uprising, but there is a lot of lore to digest in those books.

>57 PartTimeBookAddict: I pretty much agree with all of this. In fact, I think Austen is more subtle than Scott, and that makes it a more challenging read for me. Maybe related to my own social awkwardness, though.

There's interesting competition from the new Cambridge University Press set https://www.cambridge.org/gb/universitypress/subjects/literature/series/cambridg...

This is the most interesting non-Folio 250th celebration I've found so far (it's only P&P though): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0847875911/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=ATVPDK...

>60 BooksFriendsNotFood: Also available through the BL shop and Amazon UK; thank you for the reminder.

>61 cwl: My pleasure!

>59 Mweb:

Is it really competition? With the current-day Cambridge University Press you can't even count on their books not being print-on-demand.

>60 BooksFriendsNotFood: , this looks intriguing.

Regarding the FS Jane Austen, my Mom ordered the set with the Joan Hassell illustrations. It has the maroon slipcase for my birthday. For $150, including tax and shipping, it’s way cheaper than the current offering on FS.

>64 Bibliophile-I: Agreed!

>66 BooksFriendsNotFood:, I can’t wait to start reading the JA set come my birthday on May 18th. I’ve had one volume editions, but, they are not reader friendly!

>67 Bibliophile-I: Happy early birthday! Individual book volumes are definitely the way to go, and from there the upgrade is an Austen title split up into 2-3 volumes :D

Enjoy your new Austen books!!

>68 BooksFriendsNotFood: I just made a FS account. Let’s see what “special treat” they send for my birthday. I’m hoping it’s a discount. There are three Georgette Heyer volumes calling my name. I’m undecided about Charles Johnson’s history of the pirates. I do know the FS published that volume decades ago, I think, in the 1960s.

>69 Bibliophile-I: The Heyer editions are gorgeous. As an FYI, if FS doesn’t email you a coupon for your birthday, you can always email them afterwards and request one (or at least, this is what I’ve heard).

Someone on the Facebook group uploaded an extract from the latest FS magazine which previews the upcoming Jane Austen LE.

>71 assemblyman: Thank you for sharing! Some thoughts I had while skimming —

- "Bitter, cruel, subversive" seems like as stretch, especially with no concrete examples. I adore Austen but at worst, I'd say she's realistic.
- Greatest female writer just sounds offensive.
- The illustrations seemed to get worse with each scroll. Either way though, the illustrations don't seem to bring anything new to the table.

Regardless, it's a must buy for me. You can't have too many reading copies of Austen (I say while in the middle of re-reading Mansfield Park).

>72 BooksFriendsNotFood: "Greatest female writer just sounds offensive."

In what way? She IS both female and a great writer (not to my taste at all, but is generally considered to be a fine writer). These are just facts. Of course, greatEST is purely subjective.

Anyone finding offence in this is looking to be offended, IMHO. There is no suggestion that she is better or worse than whoever the author of the article considered to be the greatest male writer. The other blurb simply states "one of the greatest writers in English", so I suppose you could take the two and draw a logical implication, but that assumes the heading was written by the same person as the blurb on the later page. I think any thoughts that this is a male/female comparison are purely in the head of the reader, really.

Also, if the author did think the greatest author was a man, I don't think that would be an issue.. someone has to be the greatest in any given person's mind

That said, the illustrations seem to add nothing and aren't to my taste. But neither is the material they are illustrating, so I may not be the greatest judge. I'm not in the market for Jane Austen, and never will be. Not because she is female, just because I have no interest in period literature of this nature.

>73 stubedoo: I can understand adding "greatest female insert whatever here" when talking about sports, for example, because men and women often have different physical capabilities and so different groupings make sense here.

With writers, male or female makes no difference* so either say she's one of the greatest or not, is my take. It's totally fine that I find it non-complementary and you don't. Overall though, not much in that article is to my taste**. Hopefully the new introduction doesn't read similarly (not that I often read those anyways).

*well, there's a historical difference with respect to opportunity, but it's a bit of a tangent

**gilded edges on a book glorifying the illustrations inside a book? I don't think so lol

>72 BooksFriendsNotFood: I don’t mind the illustrations shown so far. I will be interested to see the rest. They remind me a little of the original FS Joan Hassell ones.

Lovely as the covers look from the sneak peak we have so far, I wonder how enduring they will be with silk as the material.

>75 assemblyman: I'm glad you like them so far! I definitely like that it's a change from what FS currently has, even if it's not my ideal.

Shakespeare is still holding up great - although I read it wholly on a table, with the exception of one time when I risked reading it atop a pillow - so I have high hopes.

>71 assemblyman:, what’s the name of the Facebook group? I’d like to see if I’ve joined it.

>77 Bibliophile-I: Fans Of The Folio Society

>78 BooksFriendsNotFood:, thanks. I am forgetting which book groups I am a member of.

I'm not really loving what I've seen in the flyer. It was probably going to be out of my price range anyway. I did just buy a $10 reading copy of the Dutton 1976 Pride and Prejudice. My other copy is the annotated Belknap version, and it is just too big to read comfortably. The Dutton is pretty nice.

>71 assemblyman: Thanks for sharing the images. What a disappointment after seeing the charming, delicate design of the bindings. These illustrations look too cartoonish to my mind for Austen. Plus what's with modern non-serif font for the copy there? The whole feel is weirdly inapt to me.

>74 BooksFriendsNotFood: Agree.

Reminds me of The History of Tom Jones.

>81 cronshaw: I have no intention of getting this set which is why I think I don't mind the illustrations as much. I don't think FS have ever topped the Balbusso illustrations for Pride and Prejudice. I like the illustrations in most of others in the same set and quite enjoy the quaint Joan Hassall illustrations which I have in the blue leather set. More than enough Jane to give this one a miss.

>76 BooksFriendsNotFood: That's good to hear. I do wonder at the practicality of reading a book when it is is oversized and has a delicate binding. It could be just me overthinking it.

>83 assemblyman: 'I do wonder at the practicality of reading a book when it is is oversized and has a delicate binding. It could be just me overthinking it.'

Sir, you are clearly not sufficiently 'sophisticated'. You merely need to employ the appropriate servants to support the book in its feather-lined cradle while you peruse it at your leisure.

More seriously, the Balbussos do some wonderful stuff. If they had done all the gold Austens I would have bought them without a moment's thought.

Jane Austen has managed to cross the centuries, hence this edition. Why should we try to stick her back in a period box? Why not combine her times (the binding) with a more recent art style (the illustrations)?

>83 assemblyman: I have no intention of getting this set which is why I think I don't mind the illustrations as much. I don't think FS have ever topped the Balbusso illustrations for Pride and Prejudice. I like the illustrations in most of others in the same set and quite enjoy the quaint Joan Hassall illustrations which I have in the blue leather set. More than enough Jane to give this one a miss.

Please get out of my head. I could literally have written that word for word. Balbusso, Joan Hassall, blue leather. Yes, yes, yes. (With apologies to Sally).

Edited for spelling.

I think the best binding the FS has ever done for any Jane Austen book has to be the Jane Austen’s Letters volume edited by Deidre Le Faye and released in 2004. That silk moire cloth over board binding is excellent and, in my opinion, cannot be topped.

>84 Cat_of_Ulthar: 'Sir, you are clearly not sufficiently 'sophisticated'.'

I think if you remove the word sufficient it would be more accurate :).

>85 folio_books: I have no doubt it will still sell out without our help Glenn.

>86 Bibliophile-I: Agreed. A nice volume.

>88 LesMiserables:, that it is. A local bookseller I know has a copy somewhere in the numerous stacks of books that he has to sort through and price. We both know it’s there, the question is where? LOL!

Somewhat OT: fascinating / clear-sighted article about Jane Austen in the Financial Times:

https://on.ft.com/4jdbXy3

(This is a link for non-subscribers, hopefully it works)

>90 BorisG: Nyet.

Some illustrations from Sense and Sensibility on the FS Facebook page.

>83 assemblyman:
On the whole, absolutely agree, although I definitely wouldn't use the word 'quaint' for the Joan Hassall illustrations.
For me, these illustrations are too clunky - much prefer the delicacy of the Hassalls. I'd love a leatherbound set of that. One day.

>92 assemblyman: 3rd picture.

Vaping?

>94 LesMiserables:

Ha-Ha. The more I look at these pictures, the less I like them. I think FS made a mistake releasing these so far ahead of the purchase date. My impulse to buy these is going, going . . . .

Hassall is far better than whatever these are. In the third picture above, the girls look like they are doing something illicit. I wish the FS would’ve published a set containing all of Jane Austen’s Juvenilia and other works. A multi volume set would’ve complimented the seven volume novels and shorter works set nicely.

>93 Willoyd: If I see one in the wild I will let you know.

>94 LesMiserables: They are on the snuff again :)

These are not good.

I’ll be curious to see the books themselves. The illustrations don't give me much hope.

Easy pass for me. Considering I already own the earlier Hassall Folio Edition, a full EP red leather bound edition, and each of the LEC publications. I just don’t like the illustrations.

>100 UK_History_Fan:, agreed. Which FS edition do you have? Is it the one with the red color scheme in one slipcase?

There appears to be quite a number of publications that are just at odds with the taste of a significant number of FSDs on here. Subjectivity aside, I do wonder if *Mole* takes note, that this is a recurrent theme, and feed back to HQ?
I have a theory that some at Folio, especially in the area of commissioning illustrators, may well be infected with some modernist tendencies. How else can we account for the ongoing bizarre offerings that seem to be showing no signs of slowing?

>102 LesMiserables: "I do wonder if *Mole* takes note, that this is a recurrent theme, and feed back to HQ?"

I doubt they will care, so long as the books sell out. And realistically, they could put a turd in a paper box and there are enough people who will just buy it because it is there and because it has an artificial limitation.

>104 LT79: They certainly seem a bit juvenile to me. That can be appropriate, but I think Austen's books are more sophisticated than that. Still, if I had the scratch, I wouldn't let it keep me from buying.

I do think these images would be a lot more interesting with a plethora of color instead of the more monochrome style which is being used.

I'm not in the market for this set, but just wanted to note that the illustrations appear to be reproductions of woodcut prints from multiple blocks that have been hand inked and printed. See Sarah Young's website for examples:
https://www.sarahyoung.co.uk/collections/small-relief-prints/products/zennor-mer...
This technique isn't for everyone and I think it contributes to the perceived the lack of delicacy, realism, sophistication, and colour noted by members above.

>104 LT79: Sorry, I should have been clearer. When I say modernist, I'm not talking about some discrete art genre, but in the more philosophical sense: a lover of novelty, a break from tradition with the intent not to explore but to draw attention, through discord or lack of balance and harmony. Revolution, often perpetually.

Perhaps they have brought Morgoth in from the void and employed him as art commissioner.

>107 Folio_and_Fine: Yes, the description of the illustrations is as follows as per the below link: "Each novel in the collection will be gloriously illustrated with a frontispiece from a woodcut by Sarah Young, in addition to five vibrant lino-cut illustrations and a further 15 vignettes dotted throughout the text."

https://archive.is/20250430150330/https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/folio-soc...

Scrolling through the illustrator's IG, I find her paintings and collage/paper work interesting, but Folio probably preferred the more traditional medium for Austen. I fully blame Folio and not the illustrator haha.

EDITING to note that I am looking forward to seeing the frontispiece and vignettes and whether they differ in style at all.

>108 LesMiserables: "...a break from tradition with the intent not to explore but to draw attention,"

I think this is exactly it. There seems to be a desire to break from tradition in order to appear like shocking free-thinkers, unconstrained by convention. Unfortunately, it feels quite fake. And the results are (at least to my eyes) often quite unappealing. That said, art is always a personal thing.

>111 LT79: Ha ha. I didn't realise they wear making Adidas Kick back then.

No it was image 3, the one the two spiders are sharing a vape (well I think they are spiders, considering the number of eyes each head contains).

But image two, with the tortured torsos would no doubt give Laurie a run for his money.

>113 LT79: Well look you never know. Perhaps some of these curiosities will inspire a new wave of Folio ephemera. Folio 5-a-side shoes, Folio Vapes, Folio Hanging Spiders, Folio Manikins. The sky is the limit.
I'm sure The Omnichannel Department will be reading this and considering the plethora of marketing possibilities.
;-)

I am in the minority and find the illustrations pleasing. The style seems appropriate for the lighter tone of the novels and I think they are executed well. I do agree the faces are a bit too cartoonish for my taste but not a dealbreaker for me.

From what we’ve seen of the bindings I think they look wonderful. Though I have concerns about longevity of white cloth as others have mentioned.

I would be happy to own this set but am worried about the price. I was sure I was going to go for the Shakespeare LE, but immediately changed my mind when I saw $1500. Luckily the Shakespeare SE is a beautiful substitute. I wonder if this will be in a similar price range.

>115 PJ-Reads: I agree, especially if these are wood and linocuts. But Folio's been crushing it on art lately... John Howe on Mythago, Yuko Shimizu on The Great Gatsby, Anna Mill on Neuromancer, Angie Hoffmeister on The Lottery, Julian De Narvaez on Piranesi, Audrey Benjaminsen on Fire & Blood, Julie Dillon on Elfland's Daughter, etc. A huge breadth of styles that are putting them leaps and bounds ahead of most publishers in the space. They can't all be winners to everyone given the diversity of styles, but they're producing some amazing books lately.

>115 PJ-Reads: I like them too. I find the muted colour palette warm and appealing and reminiscent of sepia photographs (not that Austen would ever have seen such things).

They also remind me of making lino cuts in primary school although I don't think my efforts were nearly as good ;-)

>107 Folio_and_Fine: I'm not familiar with the art of Lino-cuts like some here, but I am a fan of the texture that comes through using this type of printing. In each of the example illustrations, there seems to be either woodgrain or some other texture that provides a nice contrast with the rest of the image besides color. Some of my favorite illustrations in old books clearly show the wood grain, which was a very conscious and intended element for the artist, such as the illustrations in the LEC's Uncle Remus (by Seong Moy).

>101 Bibliophile-I: Yes. Sorry for late reply. Traveling.

An update.

Illustrator Sarah Young gives Austen’s characters a fresh visual identity. Each volume includes a woodcut frontispiece, five linocut illustrations, and fifteen vignettes. Her work adds a folk-art feel that matches Austen’s 19th-century charm.

Each book includes a unique introduction. Notable authors such as Elena Ferrante, Sebastian Faulks, Fay Weldon, Val McDermid, and Siri Hustvedt offer insights into Austen’s themes and impact. Furthermore, historian Lucy Worsley contributes a newly written foreword, providing historical context and appreciation.

Every detail reflects the quality and care expected from The Folio Society. The volumes are bound in silk-and-cotton jacquard cloth, woven by Stephen Walters—the same silk maker who crafted fabric for Princess Diana’s wedding dress.

Only 750 sets are available, making this a rare and valuable edition. The books are printed on Munken Pure paper, with gilded edges and ribbon markers. Each novel uses the first edition text, ensuring a reading experience as close as possible to Austen’s original publications.

Production Details

- Limited Box Set: 750 copies
- Six volumes: Sense and Sensibility (392 pages); Pride and Prejudice (400 pages); Mansfield Park (476 pages); Emma (496 pages); Northanger Abbey (260 pages); Persuasion (268 pages)
- Each volume includes a 2pp frontispiece, five illustrations, and fifteen vignettes spread throughout the text, illustrated in full color by Sarah Young
- Full bound in jacquard silk-and-cotton cloth woven by Stephen Walters
- Printed 4/4 throughout on Munken Pure paper
- Gilded on 3 edges
- Presented in a box designed by Emily Benton, covered in blocked cloth
- Monograms commissioned from Ruth Roland
- Limitation tip printed letterpress
- Ribbon marker

Source:
https://theartsshelf.com/2025/07/12/folio-society-jane-austen-250th-limited-edit...

Personally, the descriptions just don’t sound appealing. If I were Ms. Omnichannel, I would’ve looked into a new set of the seven volumes with the Joan Hassall illustrations, and, a complete edition of Jane Austen’s Shorter Works, which, seem criminally neglected. As to binding, I would base it off the binding used for the Jane Austen’s Letters volume.

The price has been released as £925.

Source:
https://www.thebookseller.com/news/sales-and-sensibility-jane-austen-sees-best-s...

Somehow I don't think this will sell out as fast as "It"!

>122 FitzJames: IT was £740 (ROW), quite a markup from the £590 (UK), so wouldn’t be surprised if this one will be £1100 (ROW) or more…

>124 Dr.Fiddy: Meh. Not interested. Too expensive and not a fan of the art. ;-)

Pictures freshly out in the world of the Jane Austen set, tho' sans the cloth-covered box at present. Also, pedantic, but once again ciphers, not monograms:





Source:

https://entertainment-focus.com/2025/08/06/the-folio-society-celebrates-jane-aus...

No. Happy with my red set. Hope they help make Austen fans of a younger generation :)

Definitely prefer the set with Joan Hassall’s illustrations.

I like the design. Not sure I love it for £925 though

>129 foliolibrary: I agree, I quite like it. I have a feeling the US price will make up my mind for me though.

>120 FitzJames: Wow, Ferrante as an introducer. That's a big get.

I think they're lovely but I'm not yet convinced that the value is there, especially at what I assume will be the US price (somewhere between $1250 and $1500, presumably).

I’m definitely not a buyer but, if I was, I’m not sure I’d like the vertical slipcase/box arrangement.

Depending on the height of the books, it looks like they’d need a very tall (or top) shelf to allow the box to be opened and volumes removed. Or you’d have to remove the whole (heavy?) box off the shelf entirely to get at the books inside.

>131 Shotcaller: Yes! One wonders who the other poor introducer is, if Elena Ferrante, Sebastian Faulks, Val McDermid, and Siri Hustvedt are mentioned (w. Fay Weldon earlier so) but they are not.

Foreword: Lucy Worsley
Introductions: Sebastian Faulks, Elena Ferrante, Siri Hustvedt, Val McDermid, Fay Weldon, and ? ...

Edit >134 A.Nobody: I am evidently tardy, let's fix that.

>132 Shotcaller: Folio confirmed $1,250 for the USD

>136 FitzJames: Thank you! Glad to see it was the lower edge of my guess.

<136, definitely makes it easy to pass. Hoping the younger bibliophiles enjoy it though.

This is ... ugly?

That slipcase/storage box scares me. As a book collector, I would be scared to take it off my shelf lest I drop it and break something, like my foot.

Also, I received a FS Jane Austen set for my birthday back in May. It cost $150 and was gently used. That’s a savings of $1,100! LOL!

The case for the Jane Austen LE is the same styue as that for the Philip Dick short stories LE, and that seems to work quite well for me.

It seems to me that Folio collecting has just gone mad. The prices for this set and the recent Homers are stark staring bonkers. They're certainly very nice volumes, but THAT much better than others available including Folio's own SEs? I remain a fan of earlier editions (and am a total Janeite), and love the Folios I've got, but to me these are just pure madness.

I agree, but I guess as long as people can't wait to pay these prices for (some of) their books, they will go on like this. It failed with the LE Bond, but otherwise it seems to be working well enough with a certain segment of their buyers. Probably those who can't really compare this to the quality and prices that used to be the old normal.

>139 turkish_delight:

I think they are hideous, but that seems to be a minority opinion on them, tbh.

I don't think the covers are hideous, just out of kilter with the books inside them.

Edited to add: I was too lazy to check on my set, but the honored Mr. Carter has saved me from my sloth and shown that I have the 1996 edition, with illustrations by Joan Hassal. These volumes seem to be all I could ask for. No further edition will arrive at my doorstep.

Is this the right link? Has it not gone live yet? It's been a while since I ordered a FS LE but geez.

https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/jane-austen-complete-novels-limited-edition

>147 BooksFriendsNotFood: Yes it is, I'm just spamming refresh

>147 BooksFriendsNotFood: It's a little odd - they're usually up before the specified time.

>148 wongie: Still not live. This is quite stressful

It should be up now, just snagged one.

>151 wongie: Same!

>149 foliolibrary: I definitely prefer it being up 10 mins early instead of 10 mins late!

Live now, just placed my order.

I think the It LE was a few minutes late going live, too.

Just placed my order. Looking forward to receiving this on Thursday!

Ordered. Blown through 150+ in ten minutes. This will go fast!

. . . And it's on ebay for £2,046.68. But when you click on it, it's already down to just £1,893.68 or best offer! Hold hard! Just refreshed . . . and now it's a mere £1,536.68.

Nearly 1/3 sold in 20 minutes: 515 copies available at present. 08:41 PDT.

115 Pounds on top of the actual German tax. FS can put that in a deep crevasse in Lancre, Discworld, I certainly won't buy from them while they're ripping people off like that.

>159 SF-72: I like that reference.

At nearly the 60 minute mark, Folio web site shows 499 copies remaining. We are officially at the one-third mark, and with the frenzy having concluded it is safe to say there will be plenty of time for those who want the brick to buy it.

I'm not sure how reliable that counter is; it's showing 475 copies left for me. But I agree the initial rush is probably over. This might take a day or two to sell out rather than hours.

Just shy of three hours in and the counter rests at 425.

>160 FitzJames:

Thanks. I'm trying to be polite and still express my feelings. ;-)

Not my bag, but the ROW price really is taking the piss.

>165 stubedoo: Agreed & agreed

Not for me. Pass on this set for me.

I quite like it but I simply can’t justify $1350 with shipping and taxes. I will hope for a standard set although these bindings are beautiful in my opinion.

Only five illustrations per book. Why are they always so stingy with illustrations?

Just over half sold now: 373 left, if the counter's accurate.

This LE could last a couple of weeks before selling out.

The more I see pictures and video of these books, the more I like them. For the sake of my wallet (which is currently being hit hard by veterinary bills due to a dying 16-year-old cat), I'm relieved that I just don't care that much about Austen, certainly not enough to spend USD 1,250 + S&H on this set.

>172 CJDelDotto: To put it in perspective for some, in the US with 9% sales tax and shipping added on top of the price, assuming 20% total selling cost (fees, materials, postage), I would have to sell this set for at least $1800 to get my money back...

For me value proposition is poor here; period. Market is already saturated with great Austen's editions (Easton Press's red leather volume being my favorite) and if recent fine presses' efforts are any indicator, it may be possible to create a unique standard letterpress edition of Austen's works with similar number of illustrations (simple monogrammed slipcase would suffice) for around $2500...

This may prove to be first crack in Folio's newly found shining armor-of-a-strategy. Shrinking discretionary incomes for many mean fewer such pricey purchases. Folio may soon decide to get Klarna or the like onboard to make it easier for its younger customers, perhaps unburdened by mortgages, rents, utility bills etc., to keep splurging like that...

I am actually grateful that this is not selling out in minutes and hope that Folio does not interpret this as a failure. If Folio wants every limited edition to sell out ASAP, the easy path would be to publish sci fi/fantasy/the most popular genre fiction of the day. (Joe Abercrombie's works all seem to sell out in minutes. Folio could do his entire catologue in limited edition and it would all disappear in seconds.) This is going to sell more slowly because of the high price point and the existence of so many nice Austen sets out there.

>174 howtoeatrat: With the exception of The Hobbit, all of their limited editions that have had a limitation of at least 750 copies have taken months to sell out over the past two years (Shakespeare, Hitchhiker's Guide, Angry Planet) and many of which have gone on to half-price sales (Beowulf, Casino Royale, The Moonstone, The Peloponnesian War, 1984), so this is very much par for the course.

>169 nau2002: Not quite that stingy; each volume includes 'a woodcut frontispiece, 5 linocut illustrations and integrated vignettes'.

How many 'vignettes' remains to be seen.

>175 HonorWulf: Indeed. If this takes a few weeks to sell out, I don't think Folio will be disappointed.

And I don't think the price is outrageous, at least not here in the UK. It was £590 for a single volume (albeit an 1,100-odd page brick of a volume); The Iliad and The Odyssey was £750 for two volumes. £925 for six volumes clad in custom woven fabric and housed in what is hopefully a sturdy box doesn't seem too outrageous in comparison.

We'll get reactions from customers soon enough.

>169 nau2002: >>176 Cat_of_Ulthar: Fifteen vignettes for each volume plus four larger colour illustrations, which may even be more pictures than dear Joan's version.

The illustrations have grown on me the more I see of them. It often seems that Folio undersell their LEs in pre-publication publicity. People seem pleasantly surprised when they are in their hands, after enjoying a good old early moan.

>177 Cat_of_Ulthar: I agree, the price-point is not outrageous. It amounts to $210 USD per volume, which for a LE is acceptable. That said, there are a few "things" in play here.

1)The global economy is not doing great. Lots of volatility, so many people are opting to spend less.
2)My book budget is limited, and in general I find much more value from purchasing books from Suntup and other fine press publishers that typically are letterpress.
3)If they release a standard edition, as is par for the course with most FS LEs, the question becomes what exactly are you getting here that is worth 2-3 times the cost of the standard? For instance, gilded edges are nice, but not worth the extra cost in my opinion.

All that said, the covers and illustrations are lovely. Also, this is the first FS LE in years, where they haven't raised the cost for USA costumers. £925 is $1250.

>179 astropi: The second behind last month's Homer box set, but it's nice to see and I hope the trend continues!

>179 astropi:

They're now ripping off ROW instead of the US, at least for countries that don't have a huge tax on books. I really hope they will go back to calculating it correctly. Having a working system and replacing it by this is a really bad joke.

>181 SF-72:

Indeed - most ROW countries are between 5 and 15% tax. Folio charging all of them 25% is shameless profiteering. ROW buyers who suck it up and buy anyway are part of the problem, tbh.

>182 stubedoo:

Definitely.

Counter is showing 316/750 remaining, four hours short of a day since release (or the intended release hour, that is).

My copy arrived earlier today over lunch time. Unfortunately I can't enjoy my copies any time soon as a corner of the case on my copy arrived with a nasty dent so I need to wait and see how Folio resolve this. My initial impressions of the set itself are rather positive though; I'm happy they went with a smaller format, the same as the original FS Austen set from the 60s, making them so much more comfortable in the hands; the gold editions I think were on the upper limit of comfortable size. The silk fabric does feel rather sturdy and not delicate but I do wonder how well it'll hold up to physical rubbing when taken and put back in over the long term as they do fit the case together rather snugly.

Overall I think this LE comes off more of a modern take on the 60s editions with the silk and woodcut illustrations and much more understated compared to the, imo, garish gold editions. Once I manage to read them all I might be able to decide if they beat out the 60s editions but besides the fantastic woodcuts from Joanne Hassell mine are all first printings which took me a while to hunt down so I'm not sure if it'd be an unbiased comparison in the end.

Here's some snaps comparing the size of the 3 editions and a bunch of close ups of the silk and stitching.

>186 wongie:

Just the case is damaged? My guess is they'll send you a replacement. My Darwin LE arrived with some fairly minor damage to the slipcase, and after I contacted customer service they sent me a new slipcase.

>187 Aiglos: yep just the case, I had assumed a simple replacement would be sent but the customer service agent I got responding to my email somehow misunderstood my message and photos of the dented case and said they'd "have a new copy of the book made up" for me and that in the mean time due to ensuring the integrity of limitation numbers out in the wild i'd have to send my copy back to them first before they could issue the replacement which all sounded downright bizarre and somewhat funny. They must surely be new there, anyway I just asked for a replacement from the remaining 300 odd copies and last I heard a couple hours ago he escalated it for me.

>172 CJDelDotto: Sorry about your cat, I hope that goes as well as it possibly can.

>186 wongie: Very nice. I didnt realise their size until I saw your photo. Yes, the smaller format is better for this set.

Having also received my copies today, I must say I’m very impressed with the overall quality of this edition, particularly the cotton and silk boards. The Shakespeare LE cloth was impressive, but the varied and delicate shades of the silk in this are beautiful to behold. And after all those paper-covered bindings it’s heartening to feel a top-notch cloth edition in one’s hand.

As I think Folio have mentioned in their promotional material, this LE does combine classic elements with the more modern, for example in the stylized motifs of the covers which yet suggest the designs of the Regency. The illustrations are growing on me, and while I’m firmly in the Hassall-can-do-no-wrong camp, these more simple cuts still echo that tradition.

For reading, the books are a handy size and not too heavy. The paper is thick and fairly smooth (but in no way glossy). The pages open out easily, too, unlike the super-tight bindings so often encountered these days.

At least at the UK price, I think this set of six books is worth the outlay.

>189 TonjaE: Thank you. Our cat, Potato, almost certainly has cancer of some sort: we took her to a veterinary cardiologist who conducted an EKG and found a tumor in Potato's heart the likes of which she had seen only ever once before in her career. So, my wife and I know that the spud is on borrowed time. At this moment, she is LITERALLY dozing in my lap. Ironically, one of the positive outcomes of Potato's weight loss (~20 lbs to less than 10 lbs in a 3-month span) is that she's much more assertive in curling up and cuddling with me and my wife and climbing all over us for attention and affection. My plan is to provide the best quality of life (i.e., palliative care) for her for as long as possible.

>186 wongie: Thanks a lot for the pics. Had a question - How do the fonts (size) and line spacing compare to the gold editions?

>193 venkysuniverse: I'd say spacing is one aspect the gold edition without doubt wins out on when side by side that its larger dimensions affords it. Here are some snaps of them together, sorry for the late night orange tinge from my desk light. I've also included one with the original 60s edition which I found easily the worst of the 3 editions in terms of font. The LE always starts chapters on new pages, and for those chapters where both editions align they appear to cram near identical amounts of the text on the same page. The LE still provides a perfectly comfortable font size and reading experience for me, there wasn't anything about it that gave me pause for thought when I first flipped through the pages.

>192 CJDelDotto: Potato is lucky to have you both. The prettiest book in the world doesn't come close to beating cat cuddles. Sending hugs.

>194 wongie: Thanks a lot for the pics as very helpful/useful to compare them side-by-side. I have the gold edition and line spacing and font plays an important role in my decision making-process and your photos helped me take my decision (i.e. skip the LE).

Seems to have totally run out of steam in terms of sales.

>197 stubedoo: I think it took Mythago Wood five or six days to churn through 500 copies and my guess is this'll be close to that. The final 250 copies, however, are going to take months as it did with Shakespeare, Hitchhiker's Guide and other expensive, high limitation items.

>186 wongie: Their size is rather pleasing, and the pairing of the cream cotton and the green cloth-bound case is very handsome indeed.

The 2025 Jane Austen edition notice page appears in its specificity:

Printed on Munken Pure paper by L.E.G.O. S.p.A., Vicenza, Italy, and bound by Smith Settle, Yeadon, West Yorkshire

...to match that of the 2023 Shakespeare LE's edition notice page:

Printed on Munken Pure paper by Northend, Sheffield, and hand bound by Smith Settle, Yeadon, West Yorkshire, in jacquard cloth woven with a design by the artist

...who it must be noted did of course later see an SE in 2024.

I rather hope these eventually become an SE set: there is something in all possessing the art of the same artist that I like much more than a set illustrated piecemeal. I must also admit to being oddly attached to the Folio colophon on the spine, and a dislike of anything but slipcases to house a volume.

>199 FitzJames: I must also admit to being oddly attached to the Folio colophon on the spine, and a dislike of anything but slipcases to house a volume.

I share your attachment to the colophon. Long may it remain. I also share your preference for slipcases, with the exception of LEs which, imo, properly belong in a solander.

>199 FitzJames:

Surely it is a "device", not a "colophon".

The colophon is the statement of printing information.

>201 stubedoo:
Confusingly it can mean either:-

colophon ▸
noun
1. a publisher's emblem or imprint, usually on the title page of a book.
2. a statement at the end of a book, typically with a printer's emblem, giving information about its authorship and printing
– ORIGIN early 17th century (denoting a finishing touch): via late Latin from Greek kolophōn ‘summit or finishing touch

From Oxford English Dictionary

ABC For Book Collectors by John Carter:

COLOPHON:
The finishing stroke (from the Greek word meaning: summit): a note at the end of a book (sometimes accompanied by a device or mark) giving all or some of the following particulars: name of work, author, printer, place of printing, date. (See also IMPRINT.) In very early books most of these particulars may not be found elsewhere, and when inspecting the credentials of an INCUNABLE it follows that one begins by turning to the last page, not the first.
In its elementary function of identifying the edition, the colophon has been generally superseded, since the early sixteenth century, by the title-page; and during the transitional period, when both were in use, discrepancies may be found between the two, when for instance, a reprinted title-page is combined with an out-dated colophon.
The colophon has persisted to the present day in books whose printer is thought by the publisher (or thinks himself) important enough to justify the formality. And the word is sometimes, but wrongly, used of the printer's - or even of the publisher's - DEVICE on the title page.

>202 wcarter:

I thought usage 1 was generally considered incorrect. So is in the OED because people do use it for that, but generally considered to be an ‘in error’ usage. Kind of like ‘literally’ having two definitions, one of which is completely absurd.

>204 stubedoo:
The OED reflects usage and not correctness.

>205 wcarter:

I know. That's what I said.

Sales seem to have dropped to none or one per day now. I think Folio perhaps went with too greedy a limitation again. This will sit for a very long time.

That said, they already have £400,000 of revenue from this edition, so I doubt they will be concerned.

I wouid probably buy it if it ends up in a 40-50% sale (I think!)

>208 BorisG:

Yeah. I suspect some scalpers have returned copies as the count went up by a few. At least this means that buyers are people who actually want the books.

In the USA store, there are 275 sets left. That’s still a lot left over when you think about it.

>210 Bibliophile-I:

It is a lot, given the number isn’t really moving. I guess the market of people what want the set at RRP is sated at this point.

>211 stubedoo:
How many want yet another Jane Austen set? I'm a fan, but certainly don't. Problem is that this is all FS do with classics nowadays - churn out the same old titles, usually only as overpriced LEs nowadays.

>212 Willoyd: Half the people say that they are printing too many new, flash-in-the-pan titles, and now you're saying that they only print the same old titles.

>1 FitzJames: Greetings from south africa. I have a "Collected works of all six novels published by Octopus in 1980 ISBN 706411501. will this new "collection" be of any different wording ??
REgards Derek T. Rowswell
PS: Jane Austen happens to be my 17th cousin 4 times removed

>213 Cardboard_killer:

There are classics they haven't published, but they go for ones that already have a large number of editions. It's a safer bet than something original / unusual, but kind of boring if you've been around for a while.

It shows with their very nice Bronte editions - instead of finishing it, they only picked the three most famous ones and that's it.

If this had a limitation of 500, it would have sold out within a week -- FOMO would have sucked up the remaining copies -- and we'd be singing a different tune. However, the 750+ limitation hasn't led to any rapid sell outs in years for Folio except for the Tolkien books and, with the high price point here, it's hard to see how this would have been different.

Additionally, like last year's 1984, this is another case of Folio competing with themselves as the standard Gold editions can be had at a fraction of the cost and are arguably more aesthetically pleasing to the eye on the shelf. The design and artwork on the limited edition just doesn't push the needle enough, imo, although I'm sure anyone who bought it would be happy with the result.

At the end of day, I'm sure Folio is satisfied to have moved 483 copies to date -- that's a nice chunk of revenue -- and the remaining copies will obviously sell over time. I just don't think there's much that you can read into it, and I can't imagine it'll change their publishing plans any outside of the limitation number.

I think with something so iconic they can just sit back and let it sell at its own pace.

Having a really good limited edition of mass appeal available on the website is no bad thing. In fact I think they should try to manage 2-3 such cases at any time.

>212 Willoyd: How many sets do you have? How many do you want? Is Folio's set nicer than one you already have?

I have my Penguin omnibus paperback from the '80s which has a strong sentimental appeal but my only really nice editions are Folio's gold set and the LE, which I think is gorgeous.

They'll do me.

>213 Cardboard_killer:
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that what classics they are publishing are just the same old same old. They are also publishing far fewer than they used to, having gone more over to those "new, flash-in-the-pan" titles, although I don't feel that's a fair description of many of those. They are certainly publishing more genre titles, especially fantasy/scifi, but, whilst I personally have very limited interest in them (aside from the very occasional) I can understand what they are doing there. I just wish that given the range of classic titles is so limited now that they showed rather more imagination and creativity than, for instance, publishing their 7th (or 8th?) Christmas Carol edition, or yet another Jane Austen set. Non-fiction titles seem to have got pretty heavily squeezed too (and I'm not wowed by what selection is left either!).

>219 Willoyd: Just so. Nice summary of how I see the current FS. I imagine one influence on how we see things now with Folio, emerges from how far back our Folio relationship stems. I recall a far greater and more respectful attitude towards a core customer base which might have been the basis for a remodelling of their business model rather than the ruptured experience many felt.

i've encountered some issues with my Jane Austen set and wanted to post them here to see if anyone else has similar woes

the most glaring problem in my set is that all the books, to varying degrees, have apparently been flattened or pressed together so tightly that the bookmark ribbons have left these impressions/indentations in the pages. here are the three most prominent ones:



i've purchased plenty of other FS books with bookmark ribbons that didn't have this issue, so i dunno what's going on. i reached out to customer support about a week ago and asked if this was normal but haven't yet received a response

some other issues in my set:


some streak/scratch on the box, which normally i wouldn't mind but because it's on the front side it's very noticeable and distracting


this blemish on the front cover of MP


idk what this is, a stray thread or something that ended up getting glued into the endpaper??


whatever this is that i couldn't rub off with an eraser

some of these may seem like trifles, but considering how much this set costs (and i paid ROW prices on top of a hefty £80 import fee), i am going to have significantly higher expectations. mainly, i just want to know whether this bookmark problem is an anomaly or if everyone else's are also like this

>221 Korius: this happened with my copy of Shakespeare Complete Plays. The slipcase was too narrow, forcing me to squeeze the books in and inevitably causing the ribbons to imprint/damage the paper. I didn’t complain on this occasion as it was “only” a SE but I absolutely would get your copy replaced.

My Jane Austen set is also very snug - fortunately, I have not encountered this issue but it’s worth ensuring that the ribbons are also not pulled too tight when the end of the ribbon is wrapped between the pages

>221 Korius: Really the books shouldn't be packed or kept with a ribbon marker among the pages. It should be stored inside the front or back cover when it's on the shelf.

>221 Korius:

I don't have these specific editions, but reading ribbons leaving a mark is not unusual in my experience. But I'd be really frustrated with all those outside blemishes, especially at this price.

>221 Korius: Agree with >224 SF-72: that ribbons often leave a mark. I have a number of books where it has happened and, personally, it's a thing I can live with quite happily.

But I think that, while I wouldn't be bothered by one or two of the things you've pointed out, you've got so many faults at once that it warrants some action from Folio.

>223 TonjaE: Does the book come with a care guide? No.
It’s common sense among the general population to leave a ribbon in exactly the page you want to go to.
If this marks the page then the manufacturer is at fault not the owner.

>226 LesMiserables: That was my point - the manufacturer shouldn't have packed the books with the ribbon inside the pages.

And you know, common sense also says that if you squash anything inside the pages of a book it will eventually damage or mark it in some way.

That’s a lot of faults for the price point. Typical Folio LE…

>221 Korius:
I was fortunate as my set is perfect without any stains, marks, loose threads or ribbon impressions. Beautifully done and most impressed.
>227 TonjaE:
Every fine press book I have ever bought new with a ribbon has had the ribbon tucked into a random page, never just inside the cover.
>228 stubedoo:
I have bought virtually all FS LEs and only one presentation box had a minor defect (quickly replaced by FS), all others were perfect.

>229 wcarter: If they did put the ribbons inside the cover the thicker end papers would protect the pages from damage like that in the photos above. Especially in a box set where the volumes are often packed tightly together.
It's probably not an issue with a lot of books although these volumes look to be printed on a quite loosely textured paper which is already prone to indentation because it is less dense than other types of paper.

>228 stubedoo: That's a gross exaggeration.

There have certainly been problems with a minority of LEs (LoTR and Hobbit being the most obvious examples) but, of the several dozen I have acquired over the years, I've never had to return one.

thanks everyone for the replies!

at least now i know that it isn't unrealistic to expect a pristine set. or maybe wcarter just gets special VIP treatment for all his contributions to the FS community 🤭

>228 stubedoo: >232 Korius:
Same as >229 wcarter: and >231 Cat_of_Ulthar:: plenty of LEs over the years, never had a blemish. Given that FS are usually exemplary on customer service, I'd follow up your 'reaching out' and give them a ring.

>231 Cat_of_Ulthar:

Unfortunately the ones with problems have been in recent times. I was caught out by both LotR and The Hobbit.

My Gormenghast was a mess, with two out of three volumes either stained or with a very visible pulled thread in the cover, and then it took two tries to get one of the damaged volumes replaced. I think it's actually the last limited edition I bought from them, unless the Thucydides was later, I'm not sure there. Their quality control leaves a lot to be desired, but when something goes wrong, their customer service really is exemplary.

Individually those issues are things you could probably look over, but together they do spoil a very expensive set of books.

>192 CJDelDotto: sorry for the late reply but as a fellow cat person also wanted to say hugs to you and Potato and I would also prefer to give them all the care. Give Potato a good chin scratch from me ;)

>235 SF-72: oh that sounds awful! I mean it feels off already that you have to pay the extra for ROW and then you get a damaged copy, wonderful.

>238 woodstock8786:

I suspect part of the ROW uplift is to cover the extra cost of fixing issues. They seem inclined to provide replacements, rather than just quality-checking their books before sending them out and weeding out the - often - obviously faulty copies. They let the customer do the QC.

Is this good customer service? I don’t think so. Good customer service is dealing with rare and unexpected shipping damage that was unavoidable. Fixing shit that should never have been sent out is not good customer service - it is the legal minimum.

The QC has been a growing worry. Most definitely over the last few years if anything is accurate on these threads, but most worrying is the QC creep into the realm of LEs.

>239 stubedoo:

True. They should really take the time to check these books. In the long run, it would save them a lot of money - and their customers a lot of frustration and hassle.

>238 woodstock8786:

I really couldn't believe it. Out of six books, three were obviously faulty. It really makes me hesitate to buy limited editions from them these days. It seems to have become quite common that those have serious quality control issues.

Folio no longer does their own fulfillment -- they outsourced that to EC Group about a decade or so ago. My guess is that printers are shipping the books directly to the fulfillment center pre-wrapped, and the fulfillment center is only inspecting for obvious damage that is visible without removing the wrapping.

Given the rise of QC issues over the years and factoring potential issues during delivery you'd think they might have easily ordered few more slipcases than needed to act as replacements at the ready. I was told nearly two weeks ago I should have gotten one last week but haven't heard a peep from them since, maybe I'm just being impatient.

>243 HonorWulf:

This was my assumption with The Hobbits in particular. No one that knew anything about books seemed to be involved with checking, numbering and sending out replacements. Pretty sure it was just warehouse staff with no knowledge that were given some basic instructions.

Nineteen days since release, the stock counter sits at 250/750 remaining, with Folio finally achieving two thirds sold.

>246 FitzJames: "Nineteen days since release, the stock counter sits at 250/750 remaining, with Folio finally achieving two thirds sold."

I know it's been said over and over again, but this is a phenomenal success - most publishers could only dream of shifting 500 copies of a £925/$1,250 LE in less than three weeks. Particularly an LE of classic works that are centuries old and have been published in countless editions over the years - this isn't some pop-culture icon like a Stephen King, and yet it's cleared almost half a million pounds in sales for them in less than a month.

There seems to be an increasing perception here that unless something sells out within 24 hours it's a complete disaster. FS LEs used to take literally years to sell out - a few more than a decade. The Queen Mary Atlas took 14 years! There were dozens for sale at any one time because the unsold back catalogue was so great. They even produced LE brochures containing all their current offerings. There are now only five available on their website (or six if you're in the US), four of which are marked as "last chance". There are certainly arguments to be had as to how the nature of LEs has changed over the years, but whatever the recent LEs have been, sales failures they are not.

>247 PeterFitzGerald: it may be a phenomenally successful commercial venture, but there are successes that are both profitable and interesting.
My own take on this is that Folio have produced yet another set of some works that have been beaten to death ad nauseam.
It is so very boring.
For a company to brag about record sell out times is for many a record of their sell out.

>248 LesMiserables: lol

I believe it was Jerry Garcia who replied to the question of whether his latest album was a sell out with, "I would have sold out a long time ago but no one was buying".

I got the 7 Volume Red set for £20 inc. Delivery.

>251 LesMiserables: A steal. Well done.

I think the point is that Folio themselves hype up releases selling in 15 minutes, so when they don't sell out fairly rapidly, it is worthy of comment. They can't really play it both ways. No doubt they will be happy with how this has sold, though. Old out of copyright work with a hundred editions already available, wrapped in old curtains for £1000. Hats off to them for finding a market for the product at that price point, tbh. It is pretty niche.

They seem to be slowly trickling out. I doubt it will need a sale to sell them.

>253 stubedoo: this did make laugh… I must have a penchant for old curtains.

For me, the covers fit Austen’s works perfectly: the floral pattern and the use of pastoral colours blends the traditional with the modern, further complimenting the themes of the each novel itself. The jacquard cloth is luxurious and the paper stock (Munken Pure) is a good thickness. They’re not bound too tight, so they open perfectly. And I really like the monograms.

The endpapers are plain, the case is a little too snug and the illustrations feel too sparse (1 woodcut frontispiece, 5 linocut illustrations and a dozen+ vignettes). The introductions are great, but it's worth noting that most of these were commissioned back in 2015. For UK customers, at £154 a volume, it's expensive but hardly exorbitant.

The real disappointment are the illustrations themselves. The frontispieces, I think, are actually excellent and deserve more recognition. But the linocut illustrations are a mixed bag. The illustrations in Emma are very good, but the others are inconsistent: some of the illustrations in Mansfield Park are uninspired, while there are a couple (specifically, the scene captured in Sense and Sensibility where Marianne is snubbed by Willoughby in London & Elizabeth and Lady Catherine de Bourgh's tête-à-tête in Pride and Prejudice) which are quite bad.

I’m satisfied with my purchase, especially as I am not fortunate enough to possess the earlier and, I'm told, superior editions of Jane Austen's works. Furthermore, I can't see any other small press publishers releasing a similar set (I will never warm to Easten Press), so this was an easy purchase for me in the end.

225 left. Would probably pass even at the eventual half off sale.

>221 Korius:

just wanted to add a little update after receiving my replacement copy which is in fine condition except for the ribbons still leaving impressions, more prominently than before, unfortunately



i'm not going to bother e-mailing FS about this because at this point i'm convinced that the majority of copies are going to have this problem, so i guess it is what it is

not sure what to do with my first set now, so if anyone wants it for half of what i paid let me know i guess? (sorry if advertising forbidden here)

> 255

Personally, I'd give that set away, not sell it.

I know that publishers can get really difficult about replacements when that kind of thing becomes too glaring, understandably enough.

>257 SF-72: alas, i don't have any friends/family who care about jane austen, but i guess i'll just hold onto the set until one appears

The House and Home section of this past edition of FT Weekend (paywall) carries an extract from Lucy Worsley’s introduction to Mansfield Park. She claims the central theme of the book is finding a home, and links that idea to some of the principal events of the story. The FS LE is credited as the source of the piece.

The same section carries a piece on the country home of the Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, and how he uses it as an instrument of soft power. He uses the library as his office, photographed for the piece, and the compulsion to look at pictures of other people’s bookshelves reveals a significant holding of FS books. The Gibbon, Galsworthy, and George Eliot sets are distinguishable even in a small image on newsprint. Sikorski was Oxford educated, and is married to Anne Applebaum, so the existence of this kind of library in rural Poland is perhaps not so odd.

>258 Korius: PM’d you

>258 Korius:

I give books away to a friend (who has often bought the exact same book, so it's not always an option), or ask students if they're interested. I'm in a lucky position there, admittedly.

Nothing at all wrong with selling a faulty copy, so long as the faults are disclosed and Folio have told you to retain/dispose of it as you see fit. If you want to sell it, sell it.

If Folio wants it back, they have that option. Once they choose to not exercise that option, it is yours to do with as you please without judgement.

>262 stubedoo: Indeed, people can do whatever they want with it. But the few times I had a replacement, Folio asked to donate the book. I don’t know of they still do though, it’s been a while since I needed a replacement.

>263 Nerevarine:

Folio just want you to dispose of it, so they don’t have to. They don’t have any say in how you do so (and nor should they). They clearly aren’t going to suggest you sell it…

I know sellers who stopped being generous (or even just decent) with replacements, required returns (at one's own expense at times) and other less than pleasant reactions due to damaged books being sold. I don't want to see that with FS if avoidable. I was always asked to donate or give it away, but it's been a while since I needed a replacement.

edited to add: None of this is to make the seller here feel bad or attack them. It's just a realistic worry based on what other companies have done as a result of this kind of thing going on.

>264 stubedoo: Here is what Folio asked me to do with replacements (it’s been 2+ years since my last one, so maybe they don’t ask it anymore) :

« There is no need to return the damaged book, you would be more than welcome to keep the books or donated it to a local school or library if they are salvageable. »

Of course it’s up to us to follow through with that request or not. Nothing stops us from selling or use the books as a doorstop or do whatever we want with it.

You said in your previous post that it was okay to sell it as long as « Folio have told you to retain/dispose of it as you see fit ». I’m simply responding to that part of your comment. In the past, they didn’t ask us to dispose of it as we see fit. That’s all.

My last replacement was for a Henning Mankell Dogs of Riga which had the frontispiece missing. I was asked to photograph the gaping void (the illustration must have been bound in separately) after which Folio, amid profuse apologies, sent me a post paid shipping label for the defective volume. This was in September 2024. No Ebay high jinks for me.

>267 Nerevarine:

‘keep the books’ implies they are now the buyer's to do what they want with. I think you are reading far too much into Folio’s wording, just because they don’t say ‘go ahead and stick them on eBay’.

In normal circumstances, the number of replacement copies should be tiny. If it isn’t, then there is a bigger problem.

And whether there is an intent to guilt the OP, that is the result here, and it is wrong. His book, his business.

Edit: Also, do you suggest that in giving the book away, the buyer applies their own set of (unenforceable) conditions on the person/organisation they give it to? Of course not -- once gifted, it is the recipient's to do with as they will. Folio don't care - if they did, they would spend the postage to get the set back and destroy it/put it in the seconds sale (and sometimes they do). They aren't spending that money to recover this particular book/set, ipso facto the fate of it isn't a significant concern to them. And no, it doesn't impact Folio's ongoing responsibility to provide an undamaged product to the customer -- that is governed by numerous consumer laws. Folio are a business doing business things - they aren't your friend that you need to protect. I've never sold a defective book personally (and I've had many), but it boils my blood when people try and guilt-trip others on things like this. I've seen the same comments several times on the Folio FB group, essentially engaging in veiled attacks on people who onsell their damaged goods. Unless an activity is law-breaking, it ain't your business and it ain't mine.

The stock counter now sits at 200/750 remaining.

>269 stubedoo: Edit: Nevermind, you’re not worth my time.

And who is protecting Folio and guilt-tripping? You’re off on so many levels lol

>269 stubedoo: engaging in veiled attacks on people who onsell their damaged goods

it give me sooo much joy everytime they are called out.

Folio Society LEs are so expensive nowadays, I cross my fingers and hope I’ll get a damaged copy every time I buy one. That way I can sell it to help recoup the cost.

>273 What_What: I have the same flash of thoughts lol.

Luckily (or unfortunately depending on how you see it), the few times I bought LEs they were always in acceptable condition.

I have purchased dozens of LEs and none have ever been damaged.

>275 podaniel:

I had a streak of bad luck back in 2016 or so, when I got Mort LE badly scratched, as was the first replacement, then the vellum of Alice in Wonderland LE was creased and the gold stamping partly missing as a result, and after that there were scratches on several pages inside Illustrations of Birds Drawn for John Gould by Edward Lear, like someone had drawn scissors over them. Back then, they wanted me to basically tear these books apart, but I asked them to please let me return them instead and let them know that it wasn't expensive at the time (pre-Brexit). Thank goodness they accepted. Everything else was fine at the time, and I bought a large number of LEs back then.

But I've got the impression that there have been more issues with quality control recently. I needed altogether three replacement copies for my Gormenghast set because two books had stains or pulled threads on the covers. And what one has read about the Tolkien LEs on here doesn't create trust.

>276 SF-72: Knock on wood, this year appears to have been pretty positive from a quality control perspective. Don't think there were any widespread issues with any of the LE or SE releases to date.

Just started reading Pride and Prejudice from the 2025 limited edition set. The gilding on the page edges is so thick that the pages are stuck together and quite hard to separate which significantly slows down the reading. Solved the problem by bending and fanning the page block. Does not seem to affect any of the other volumes in the set and something I have not come across before.

>278 wcarter:

I wouldn't worry too much, Warwick. In my experience, gilded page edges, e.g. in bibles, often come slightly stuck together. As long as you're not rough with the pages and don't try to yank them apart, they should separate quite easily. Gentle fanning (from the corners, I find best) is a quick and easy way to begin. Once separated, they won't stick again. I went through the Jane Austen set as soon as I got it, mainly to check that there were no printing errors, and encountered the sticking gilt phenomenon on parts of some, but not all the volumes.

Two months and five days post-release, the stock counter sits at 150/750 remaining and Folio has achieved four-fifths sold.

I reckon they will be pretty happy with that.

>281 stubedoo: I feel sure you're right, and as December commences a very neat 100 copies now remain.

And down to the final 10 percent, with 75 remaining.

>283 FitzJames: I don't think FS has ever had a year where they've sold out of all of their LE's in the same year of release, so it'll be interesting to see if they can get there between now and the end of the month. They came close last year, but had around 150 copies left of Darwin and 200 copies of 1984 that they ended up clearing out during the winter sale.

Down to the final 42 copies.

>284 HonorWulf: I had my doubts, given the pause over Christmas taking out quite a few days, but it's down to 36 copies... could they do it?

If they do, I very very much hope it makes it as a SE. There has been a flood of Austen sets this year from multiple publishers, but none that have in any way tempted me as being quite right.

>286 FitzJames: Down to 21 now...

>287 HonorWulf: Down to the final 10...

I expect they will have another Austen set in the works, if you miss out.

panem et circenses

>288 FitzJames: Only 4... might not last the day!

>290 HonorWulf: And you were right!

Three months, 11 days, and now: OOS.