Artificial leather, artifcial silk?

Looking through Folio 60 yesterday I saw on p.400 an illustration from 1308- Celtic Myths and Legends (looks like Frodo and Sam riding a big fish tho it's not)which I have, and in reading the biblio info I read the phrase 'red-brown series binding(see item 724)'. So I looked up 724-Herodotus, The Histories and the biblio info states ' bound by Hunter and Foulis in quarter red artificial leather....' Then fifteen other books in the series are listed by their Folio 60 reference numbers. I don't have the earlier books but I do have The Icelandic Sagas thru Celtic Myths...' and the imprint/copyright pages all state 'quarter leather'.
Then I began to look up the other quarter leather bound books I own and I discovered that, while Paradise Lost, Faust, and Inferno do have real leather bindings, Folio 60 states the the boards are bound in 'artificial silk' or 'artificial moire' silk'. The copyright pages say ' moire silk sides'.
So then I looked into the silk bound volumes I love and discovered that 809- Wind in the Willows(full moire taffeta silk), 1056- The Nile(full moire silk), 1284 A Nervous Splendor(full Bengaline silk) all say 'artificial moire silk'. 1175 Citizens...(crushed red art silk) and 1251-The Spice Route(two-tone art silk) are both supposedly artificial silks, tho I wonder if there was some confusion between 'art' the word and 'art.' the abbreviation.
Thankfully, the Folio Poets (leather) and the Folio Fine Editions 1988-89 (silk) are safe in this inquiry as their copyright pages and Folio 60 match.
I don't ever remember seeing a description in a prospectus stating artificial silk or artificial leather, so I have to question the bibliographer's research and I intend to contact The Society this week about these discrepancies in descriptions.
Has anybody else found differences between their volumes' copyright page descriptions and what is listed in Folio 60?

That is indeed very interesting, and somewhat disheartening if I have been paying 80-100 a volume for these higher-priced books if they are not even leather

>1 olepuppy:

We had a lengthy discussion of the ambiguities of leather/artificial leather bindings--in regard to the Fagles' Homer translations, as I remember--and did not come to any conclusion. There is a definite discrepancy between the descriptions in the Folio 60 and the information on the copyright page of some of the Folio editions.

If you find out for sure that any of the books do have artificial leather, I'm sure many people here would like to see a list. (Both those that want to avoid fake leather and those who want to avoid real leather! :)

2,3,4>

Well, I've sent an e-mail to The Society about the Classics and myths series bindings and I hope they'll respond this week.

I've been looking through my various myths and legends and, leather or no, they are beautiful volumes. Large size gold lettering on the whatever backstrip, sometimes hand lettered,
cloth boards with interesting and sometimes striking decorations, great artwork by Jane Ray(full-page, no border), Simon Noyes, John Vernon Lord, and Simon Brett with plenty of illustrations, fine paper and presswork, all put together as homes for the foundation stories of different cultures as one-of-a-kind editions. I recall, as a new member, the thrill of sliding Icelandic Sagas I from its' slipcase and saying out loud," I have never seen a book like this, I +#*! thee not!"

I also noticed when examining the various myths that the older ones have spine sag, I'll have to bottom support them or turn them sideways.

> 5

The Myths and Legends are a beautiful series. In particular, I love the Legends of the Grail and Legends of the Middle Ages volumes. I would love to obtain the Icelandic Sagas - translations by Magnus Magnusson, I believe, well known on this side of the Atlantic as a high brow gameshoe host (Mastermind).

I will be interested to hear what the Society has to say about the bindings. I find it difficult to believe that they would describe something as leather when it is not.

While the Myths series is indeed quite nice, if they are using artificial leather it should be stated as such. I do not think I would have purchased some of the series if I knew they were using artificial leather and the books themselves make no mention of it.

> 5: I am also seeing spine sag on some of my Myths books. Right now I have them on their sides but am planning on making supports for them.

My take on the artificial leather issue:

Even though I would love to see a clear explanation of what FS uses for its covers, it has become less of an issue for me than it used to be.

There seem to be so many different ways of 'creating' leather these days I've given up on trying decipher them. I have only two criteria: If it feels good when you run your hands over it and it smells like leather - it's leather. Everything else is plastic :-)

Similarly for silk - I don't really care if it came from the behind of a mulberry leaf eating worm. As long as it's durable and feels good to the touch, I'm happy.

I've just bought a copy of the Odyssey on e-bay. It's in excellent condition, and I can have no complaints about the supplier but.....

The leather used is remarkably sticky to the touch - not something that I think real leather would ever feel like. This is not a characteristic of any of the bindings that I already have, and I must confess to some disappointment.

Anybody else noticed anything similar?

> 9 Check out this thread:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/11222#120743

> 10

Thanks much for playing with the thread, Cat. Whether it is now recommended or not I think the leather conditioner sounds worthwhile, especially for less handled volumes and more dry environments.

I don't know if the stickiness problem has to do with artificial leather. My myths volumes were and are not tacky.

I had two e-mails from The Society confirming receipt of my inquiry last Tuesday but nothing since. I re-sent a bit ago and we'll see.

I had an idea yesterday and sought an answer at Oak Knoll but they were unable to help as they no longer have a Folio 50, which I believe is the same bibliography as Folio 60 minus ten years and plus several essays, I'll have to get one just for them.
I wondered if 1992's Herodotus, The Histories bibliographical description in '50' also says 'quarter dark red artificial leather' and what the next editions in the series say. Has anyone an answer, please?

All in all, I'm becoming a bit depressed about the whole question and the lack of a quick response...but hey, chin up!

The Herodotus and the Thucydides were artificial leather, but exhibited none of the tackiness of the green ersatz leather binding on The Odyssey. The Society exchanged my tacky Odyssey for one with a bluish cloth binding in identical style. The quasi-leather matching red Iliad has no problems. I suspect the tackiness was peculiar to either the simulacrum composition used in The Odyssey or the chemical effect the green dye had on it

> 12

Do you mind, Django, how do you know about those editions?

>13 olepuppy:

By right of possession.

The Folio 50 and Folio 60 entries are almost exactly the same for Herodotus (Item 724). Of course, with the exception that the Folio 50 doesn't know about the books published in the series after 1996. So the list of items in the series is longer in the Folio 60.

They make no mention of the tackiness issue. i wonder if that affected a whole printing? There was a second printing in 1993 and then a third in 1996. The third was printed and bound by the Bath Press and had cream endleaves instead of the pale orange endleaves of the earlier printings.

Ersatz, quasi, faux, pseudo, "leatherette", artificial, immitation, "bonded" leather, etc. - It's all Greek to me. ie: FAKE as a Trojan Horse! Unless a four footed dinner special was skinned and dried, it ain't "real". I agree with MadA63 in message 8.
If vinyl is good enough to side houses with, I guess it's OK for book spines. I tend to favor the genuine article for some titles, but am more flexible on others if the design is very appealing as many FS volumes are. Being a fickle collector however, sometimes I later change my mind and get the Easton Press or Franklin Library equivalent. Variety is the spice of life!

15>

As I mentioned, the tackiness issue only came up on the Fagles translation of The Odyssey, which leads me to believe it had something to do with the dye used. The matching Iliad has no problems. The quarter bindings on my other volumes in this format (which are bound in what is described on the copyright page as "bonded leather,") likewise have no tackiness at all. I had to return my Herodotus for other issues, and the replacement volume was entirely buckram bound without pictorial boards, so I can't verify any other details.

Incidentally, the tacky Odyssey also suffered from transfer of the green dye to the slipcase (and my hands).

> 14,15

Thanks for your responses.

>15 jveezer: The reference to 'bonded leather' suggests there may be two bindings. This wasn't mentioned in the earlier threads on this subject. All seven of my books of this series and this vintage refer to leather on the colophon, not 'bonded'. And none - not even the Odyssey - has any trace of stickiness. They are all first printings, in the original binding colours.

> 16

The problem with all these terms is that they are not clearly defined, so you have to depend on the honesty of the manufacturer. For ex. for some "bonded leather" is any real leather they treat with a layer of protective chemicals, in other cases in can be over 80% vinyl with a few cast-off leather strips thrown in.

Every manufacturer seems to have their own "Real Leather TM" superior to the competitors'. The next time you go shopping for a leather couch, try to get the salesperson explain what it's REALLY made of. You'll come away knowing less than before. And couches have a big explanatory sticker attached - unlike books.

Luckily I have never had any problems with tackiness etc. with FS volumes, so I call them "leather". Same with Library of America's bonded leather - it's a bit too smooth to be wholly real, but feels and smells great.

I have had the tackiness issue with The Odyssey, but also with Metamorphoses. If anything, the latter was worse, making it difficult to remove from the slipcase. Both are apparently first printings and both refer to "leather", without further qualification, although, as has been said, Folio 60 makes it clear that the series was bound in artificial leather. Certainly, I can discern no leather smell whatsoever. On both these books, colour has transferred to the inside of the slipcase. However, on the bright side, they are now, after 16 years or so, much less tacky than they were originally.

>21 boldface:

boldface, I have a 57 year old Heritage Press edition of Proverbs in this ersatz leather--bits of leather mixed with vinyl in a hopper--and it looks like new leather, except for the very slightest bit of tanning on the spine (I'd have to point it out to you). It has held up better than some of the genuine leather bindings on a few of my LEC volues.

I am posting this message on behalf of Paul W Nash:
Dear Folio Society members and collectors,
I have been shown your interesting thread about whether some of the bindings used on Folio Society books are of real or artificial leather and/or silk. When I was working on Folio 50, and on Folio 60 (which is more up to date than Folio 50 and includes a great many corrections and additions), I was determined not to take anything I read in the colophons of the books themselves, or in the Society’s advertising, at face value, and to test all assertions there as far as possible. When a book claimed to be bound in leather, I both examined it and the production records (when these survived) to see whether that was the case. Likewise for silk. In many cases, there was evidence that what was described as “leather” in a colophon or elsewhere was an artificial substitute, made from treated plastic or paper, and not from an animal skin. When I had such evidence I stated “artificial leather” (or whatever was appropriate) in Folio 50/60. In some cases I had no clear evidence, and had to assess the material on appearance alone, and by comparison with samples and other books; I was usually confident in making an assessment about the material involved, but I am as fallible as the next man, and may have made errors in some cases. Some lower-grade, heavily-treated leathers can look very like good quality artificial leathers. When I was really not sure, and the material was described as “leather” I gave the colophon the benefit of the doubt. The same is true of silk, although silk is a slightly easier case because true silk (for which the poor worms suffer considerably) is both very expensive and difficult to colour in such a way that it does not fade, so that true silk was rarely used by the Society. I say, for example, that “The song of songs” (item 235) was bound in true silk, and that may be so (though I have my doubts). Almost every other book, except for some of the Fine Editions, that was bound in “silk” was actually bound in “artificial silk”.
I think there are two small further points I would like to make about this. In the first place, the Society was not necessarily trying to deceive people by saying “leather” when the material used was artificial (although in some cases, they may have been (see below), and the term “art leather” and “art silk” were used on purpose to give the impression of an artistic leather or an artistic silk – in fact the word is an abbreviation for “artificial”, as a look at specimens of book-cloths of the period will show). In some cases, the colophon may have been set and the book printed before the decision was made to downgrade the binding material from true to artificial leather. The other point is that, to my mind, the actual material is of little importance. What matters is the quality of the finished book, the design, the style and the overall feel and look of the thing (and the text and illustrations too, of course). This is particularly true of the “art silks”, which I think are at least as attractive to the hand and eye as true silk, and are also easier to look after and kinder to silkworms. Sometimes the Society was diffident about making this point, and was (and perhaps is) inclined to oversell their products with talk of leathers and silks which did not truly deserve the name, and also to suggest that the editions are small when they are often not, when they should allow the overall quality and style of the books to speak for themselves, and to say not “look at this rare book bound in leather”, but “look at this beautiful book, produced with all the care usually lavished upon limited editions and produced – a miracle! – in an edition of 10,000 copies”. However, I am afraid that, in the past anyway, the Society has not looked at its books in that way, and this has given rise to the occasional example of “puff” or “spin” in their literature and colophons.
Yours sincerely
Paul W. Nash
Compiler of Folio 50 and Folio 60, and Honorary Librarian to the Folio Society, 1994-2007.

>23 alison_felstead:
Alison, perhaps you'd be kind enough to pass thanks on to Paul Nash for such a comprehensive and illuminating answer to the questions raised on this thread.

So do we now have a better idea about what causes the stickiness, anyone?

> 23
While I've had no great interest in this debate, I found Paul's response both informative and, more importantly, delightful. It is interesting that he also appears to have a little difficulty with the way the FS occasionally seeks to sell its wonderful publications, rather than let the publications speak for themselves.

And thank you Alison for introducing me to the wonderful forum for those who love both cats and books (as well, of course, for posting this commentary by Paul Nash!!

>23 alison_felstead:

Thank you, Alison, for showing Paul's message. As the rather frustrated originator of this thread I can hardly describe the relief I felt when I began to read and realized that a complete explanation was being given by the man who wrote Folio 60.

Paul, I see now that I did my questioning poorly. I didn't doubt your work and the Society's production equally, and then I sought an answer about your work from the Society and not from you. I should have tried to find you and ask you directly. I'm sorry. I feel doubly stupid because last month on a Folio Fine Editions thread I recommended your illuminating article in Parenthesis, April 2000. So, thank you very much for illuminating us once again!
And yours sincerely,
Paul Baldwin

Dear Mr. Nash,

I'm sure all the members of this group echo these thanks, and I am in total agreement with your statement: "to my mind, the actual material is of little importance. What matters is the quality of the finished book, the design, the style and the overall feel and look of the thing (and the text and illustrations too, of course)"

This is what we used to say was putting the cart in the proper spatial relationship to the horse.

(By the way, is it just a co-incidence that your name is the same as the great book illustrator's.)

> 22, 23, 27

May I add my thanks to Mr Nash for his gracious response.

Django, I was not really complaining about the leather being artificial as such. I agree that it's the whole book that matters, and I'm very pleased with the ones we've been discussing. What I don't like, is to find slipcases and my fingers sticking to them!

Thank you very much, Mr Nash, for your excellent and informative response, and Alison for acting as go-between. (I shall go and inspect Song of Songs very closely.)

Thank you Mr Nash. I wholly agree with you that it is the look and feel of the finished book in its totality that counts. I hope you feel able to make more contributions to our forum in the future.

I disagree that the material is of little importance.

I agree the quality of the finished book is paramount. However, I feel that if a book is described, by the seller, as bound in true leather, the buyer has a right to expect true leather and not a plastic substitute.

It's an interesting point for the British lawyers in this group to debate whether the appellation "leather" in sales materials constitutes a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act when applied to faux leather, bonded leather, or w.h.y. I have a bibliophile friend who was until fairly recently Doncaster MBC's Chief Trading Standards Officer - I shall canvass his views and report back later this week.

If anyone has any of the catalogs, prospectuses or sales literature put out by the Society when these questioned books were marketed that refer to the binding materials as unqualified "leather", please let me know. Colophons don't count since they are not "trade descriptions" within the meaning of the Act. I'm not looking to cause trouble for FS or institute a retrospective prosecution - but the FS moles may learn a useful lesson they can pass on to the marketing department. British law is actually quite strict in these matters and FS may need to sharpen its act.

>31 JamesIII:
1. When deciding to buy or not buy an FS edition, the issues of leather or imitation leather and silk or imitation silk is unlikely to be a major factor for me, as long as the standards of production and materials are what I've come to expect from FS.

2. Regardless of what I said in 1, above, I expect to receive the volume as advertised, and I expect the publication details on the colophon to be truthful, regardless of what publisher I am dealing with. If for no other reason, this is important because there are many booksellers who will advertise an FS edition and use the colophon information to describe the book. Their reputation and sales are at risk if their customers receive a book that does not live up to the description.

3. I'd rather have a quality imitation silk than the real thing anyday. As I've described on other FS threads, I have several volumes with silk endpapers which have faded around the edges over the years. If imitation silk resists fading, I'm all for it. But I don't want to be misled about it.

Os.

I looked at Song of Songs; it is bound in a very fine, loosely woven pale salmon-pink fabric with irregular thread, and is quite worn round the edges with rubbing against the slipcase (which must have been very tight at first but now is split at one end). Because of the irregularities of the thread I would suspect that it is real silk, but there are some frayed ends that are quite fluffy (I imagine frayed silk to be more fibrous), so it really is hard to say. It is warm to the touch, not cold and slippery. The spine is very faded. But real or artificial, I don't really mind.

As for the tackiness problem, I have only come across it in one book, a copy of Thomas Hardy's poems published by Heron Books in 1974 in that fake leather they used for all their sets. The back cover is practically dissolving. I put a sheet of greaseproof paper over it and wrapped the whole thing up in that sticky plastic stuff they use in libraries; otherwise I would not have been able to put it on the shelf next to other books. Really I should throw it out but it has a message from my dad on the inside front cover so I don't want to part with it.

32 OMG this group is gonna make some waves :-)

> 33: I am in definite agreement with your second point. Like most, if not all, of the members of this group, I am a big fan of the Society's production values. I also find their customer service to be excellent. However, they simply should not state a binding is "leather" if it is "artificial leather". Doing so is lying to the customer.

Personally, I would prefer they used some other material rather than artifical leather. If true leather brings the cost of the book beyond what they feel their average customer will pay, use cloth or paper (for example). I would not buy a book if I knew it was bound in artificial leather.

>36 JamesIII:

Why be prejudiced against artificial leather? Unless you had a prejudice against buying a book bound in any part of an animal (which I can understand), how would an artificial product be any different from a book bound in, say, a man-made cloth?

I'm sorry you're confused by my question, Rochefoucauld: James III stated "I would not buy a book if I knew it was bound in artificial leather" so if he KNEW, then he wasn't being deceived. My question to him was intended to ask him why, if the book were advertised as being bound in artificial leather, would he not buy it if he would buy one made of real leather.

I hadn't thought it necessary to s-p-e-l-l it out so laboriously. My mistake.

I am sure that I'm not the only person scouring their Folio 60 for differences between their copyright page and the bibliographical description. For those who do not have a copy,this bit of research may be interesting.
There is a series of selections 1251, 1251.5, 1252, 1253, and 1254. I purchased these for roughly 300-350 as they were published, with discounts. 1251 is The Spice Route with the deceptive 'art' silk. 1251.5- Trafalger copyright page states full printed cloth while Folio 60 says full white artificial cloth....1252 is Epics of the Middle Ages with leather/artificial leather. 1253- Faust is the folio size quarter leather and moire silk/artificial silk.1254-John Donne is of the proven leather Folio Poets.
I enjoy the reading and the illustrations and the unique bindings, but these qualities do not stop me from believing that I was misled 4 of 5 instances right here, not including many others, and I wonder if the Society made more of a profit accordingly.

I imagine if I started a new thread 'artificial cloth' some devotees might say they didn't care whether the product is dead flax plants or recycled cereal boxes as long as it looks and feels great. 1232-1235, the F. Scott Fitzgerald series, pale blue artificial cloth. 1245, the magnificent complete tales of Hans Christian Andersen with the stupendous front covers, full pale blue-green artificial cloth.1264, Memoirs of a Fighting Sea Captain, full dark blue artificial cloth. I don't know the copyright page description for 1232-5, little help?, 1245, 1264 say full cloth. Is artificial cloth stronger, more durable than the various other cloths? Is it really paper, like hospital gowns and dish rags? I don't know. I have depended upon the Society descriptions. We all know Folio books look great and feel good, those are major selling points, but now I doubt the product for which I'm paying because the prospectuses and the flyers I received for 10 years sold goods that never mentioned artificial anything.
I think it's a shame, because the Folio 60, my library, and y'alls libraries are chock full of great cloth, leather and buckram bindings, tons of them, sold straight up as they are. Why go another and lesser way?

>40 Rochefoucauld:

Acquaintance. Perhaps I better make it simpler.

I'm not trying to sway anyone.

I'm not advocating misleading advertising.

I'm merely asking whether JamesIII is saying he would not buy a book bound in artificial leather EVEN IF WERE ADVERTISED AS SUCH, as in "This copy of __________ is bound in artificial, ersatz, simulated, FAKE LEATHERLIKE substance that has more of petroleum than proteins in its makeup."

I hope I have made it clear (and would appreciate a response from James III without benefit of other advocates.

I'm confused by the term "artificial cloth". On wiki, cloth takes me to textile, defined as "a network of natural or artificial fibres". So is artificial cloth some other substance, such as paper, textured to imitate cloth?

Django: I understand what you are asking. Before answering, I want to reiterate that I do not feel great production values replace the fact that the Society has been untrue when advertising artificial materials as the real thing. No matter how good the book feels in my hands, I have still purchased something based on an untruth.

Regarding my statement that I would likely not buy artificial leather, it is merely down to preference. Artificial leather does not age as well and I prefer natural products to plastic ones. As i said, if they do not want to use real leather I would rather they used some other material than an artificial one. The only reason they would use artificial leather, as far as I am aware, is to cut down on cost (unless they are vegan, which is not the case with the Society). So, if I can get the book bound in cloth for the same price, I choose the cloth edition.

To use another product (and admittedly a very different one) as an example, when purchasing a leather chair, I would not buy one that was made of bonded leather.

As to man-made cloth, I have never thought much about it. I can say I avoid things like polyester and other cloths I know are not natural.

>44 overthemoon:

overthemoon, I suspect that it is just a way of saying "a cloth made of artificial material" as opposed to cloth made of natural fibers. Polyester would thus be an artificial cloth and silk or linen a natural cloth. Probably one of those instances where using more words would help clarify meaning.

I suppose if one wanted to be picky, you'd say ALL cloth is artificial, in the truest sense of the word, as cloth per se doesn't occur in Nature.

>45 JamesIII:
Thanks, JamesIII, that was what I was wanting to determine. I absolutely agree with you that misrepresentation of a product is not to be condoned, and I am frankly quite surprised that the Society would do so deliberately.

I have to say that we differ when it comes to an innate prejudice against artificial leather for books. As I have said before, I have a few books from the Heritage Press that are bound in artificial leather (which contains a percent of real leather, so that doesn't exempt them from the prejudice of vegans) that are over 50 years old and look and feel like the genuine item--and yes, the Press was very forthcoming about the composition of the binding, even describing in detail how it was manufactured. On the other hand, I acquired a few of the Heron Press books a year ago, and they do not have a good feel--possessing the dread tackiness. I suppose it all boils down to how good the product is, but I would not eschew binding of artificial leather in toto.

But I agree it is a matter of personal preference--just as I used to avoid all Hawaiian shirts made of polyester and seek out ones made of old-formula rayon or silk.

There is no such thing as 'artificial cloth'!
Cloth can be woven out of any material, glass fiber or steel wire, it is still cloth.
Some times you people amaze me with your petty complaintes.

>48 rbott: It is a very pertinent and interesting discussion. Sometimes you amaze me with your spelling.

> 48: I am not sure what petty complaints occur in this thread that cause you such amazement.

Also, I assume that most people here are focussing, like me, on the word "artificial" when thinking about "artificial cloth". While I know cloth can be formed using all kinds of material, when someone says artificial cloth to me, I interpret it as cloth not made from natural materials (i.e., silk, cotton, wool, etc).

>48 rbott:
Some times you people amaze me with your petty complaintes.

Addressing others as 'you people' in a group like this seems a poor choice: we're all members equally, and there shouldn't be any divide with you on one side and everyone else as 'you people' on the other. Posters seem to be varyingly concerned with the standards of honesty we should be able to expect from Folio, with the details of which volumes have been incorrectly described, and with the quality of the various materials in question. Certainly from my viewpoint, there is no monolithic group of 'you people', just a number of individuals with intersecting concerns.

>48 rbott:
Have to agree with you on this. While the original posting and the first few replies were good it quickly got very personal.

>49 PeterGreen: Not all of the world has English as a first language and your silly posting barely merits comment.

>52 N11284: You are right N11284; I now realise that my post was childish. I am grateful that you did actually feel able to post a comment in reply. I did not know that rbott 's first language is not English, I thought he just could not spell. I apologise to rbott for thinking that his post was an insult to those discussing an important topic. I now realise that he was being profound, so will you people please stop worrying about whether your leather and silk bindings are artificial - or not.

This has turned out to be rather a touchy subject, and all the more amusing for being so!

My two cents: rational or not (& I tend to think it is), people will generally pay more, substantially so, for real than artificial leather - describing synthetic leather simply as leather is doubtless misleading, and I reckon deliberately so. The motive is profit, the legality dubious, the ethics lacking.

>42 Rochefoucauld: Well then, you are very welcome, Rochefoucauld.

>44 overthemoon: Yes, I think you're right, overthemoon. As fibers of any kind can be woven into a cloth, it follows that an artificial cloth is a material that looks woven yet isn't. It seems as if coated paper may be made to look like cloth or even snakeskin.

In Folio 60, 1069.5 the George Orwell 5-set says full plasticised white paper. Colophon states cambric grained material, indicating the appearance of a fine weave. To the eye the covers looks bound in a cloth of fine threads; under a magnifying glass rather uneven rows of dimples mimic the the over-and under contours of weaving. 1057-Roald Dahl's complete tales of the unexpected says full yellow plasticised paper with a snakeskin grain, the colophon says snakeskin grained material, and the appearance is a slick, scaly surface.

Anyway, I imagine it is the supplier who provides the name/description of the material used for the binding, not the FS.

Follow up to my message at #32 above - I spoke last night to Robert Grice, former Chief Trading Standards Officer for Doncaster MBC, and we discussed the "leather" saga. The books that have been described as being bound in artificial leather were sold at a time when the relevant applicable law was the Trading Standards Act 1968.

In lawyer-speak the offence (since it is part of English law I use the English spelling for offence) is largely one of strict liability - that is, the intention of the seller is mostly irrelevant. The offence is committed when a person, in the course of business, applies a false trade description to any goods.

A "trade description" is a direct or indirect indication by whatever means given of certain matters with respect to the goods or any part of the goods including (inter alia) their composition or physical characteristics.

So far, so good. A statement that a book is bound in "leather" is an indication of the composition or physical characteristics of part of the goods and thus is within the contemplation of the Act. A person applies the trade description to goods if he mentions it in advertising (s5) or if he (inter alia) "marks it on on or incorporates it with the goods themselves", e.g.a colophon, (s4(1)). So here the FS seems to be caught twice over.

The penultimate obstacle to a prosecution is the requirement that the trade description should be "false". There lies the rub - s3(1) requires that the description be "false to a material degree" or, by s3(2), if not false is a description which "is misleading, i.e., likely to be taken for such an indication of the composition or physical characteristics of part of the goods as would be false to a material degree".

The final hurdle is that the prosecution must be commenced within 3 years of the commission of the offence. There are limited statutory defences relating to mistake when the seller has been misled by suppliers and a couple of other exceptions to liability.

Robert thought that the problem with any prosecution would lie in whether the description was "false to a material degree". I described the Myths and Legends series to him and how it was thought some were part bound in natural leather and others part bound in synthetic or "art" leather. He asked whether there was any substantial difference in price between those bound in real leather and those in art leather. We also discussed whether "leather" necessarily meant a product made from tanned animal skin. Robert noted that the term "leather" had become so ubiquitous in trade descriptions that many manufacturers had resorted to describing their products as made from "real leather" or "natural leather" and even attaching special authenticating tags to some goods to show the product was traditional tanned animal hide. The existence of a hybrid product made from part leather powder bonded in plastic was a complicating factor.

He was intrigued by our problem and is going to research it further. Although he was not an expert on leather goods he said that there is almost certainly a specialist leather industry code of practice stipulating what may be described as "leather" and that although this publication is largely unknown to the general public it is available to the trade. He will report back when next I see him.

Watch this space!

Fascinating!

I thought message 23 was a good place to stop ?

>59 keas:

Nah. It was actually a good place to start. I found the thread uninteresting until then because I personally was not motivated by the subject matter. I'm still not (but totally respect those who are and their issues) but I've found this a totally entertaining and informative read where I've learnt all sorts of things I never knew about artificial binding materials.

In particular, being legally trained, though non-practising, I loved appaloosaman's post.

I think this thread really illustrates the delights of the democratic internet. We can all find little gems scattered throughout, but the great bit is that each of us has our own definition of what constitutes a gem.

> 56 Then I ask you, respectfully, why have we not seen and why do we not see terms such as quarter PVC leather and full vinyl cloth in our prospectuses and flyers and on the web?

> 57 Thanks for the information, thank you for your effort in researching it, appaloosaman. I will be watching for ch. III- Return of the Horseman !

It may be pertinent to you and your friend's discussion to consider that a) at least 3 binding materials are involved-leather, silk, and cloth- and that at least two, leather and silk, are expensive materials. Paul W. Nash singled out silk as 'very expensive' in his gracious letter , and b) that the occurrences of misleading description happened not as isolated incidences but regularly over many years. The Classics and myths series extended 18 years, if Legends of Rome and last year's Myths and Legends of Russia are to be included. The folio miniature a/silk series ran for 6 years, Wind in the Willows had 8 printings in 10 years, Inferno to Paradiso 2004-9. So, when grouped together, how many leather, silk, and cloth volumes are involved and over how many years, and do the answers to those questions affect your friend's deliberations ? Thanks for listening, olepuppy

Personally, and with all due respect for those to whom these things matter, I don't really care whether silk or leather is real or artificial, unless I am wearing it.

As for the question of fading, mentioned somewhere up above - I suspect that it is not a question of material, real or artificial silk, but one of colour or dye, some being more prone to fading than others. To illustrate: I have three miniature FS books bound in "full moiré silk": Sir Patrick Spens, in dark blue, Fifty Folio Love Poems in cream, and Fifty Folio Epigrams in bright golden yellow. They stand side by side on the shelf, in their slipcases, and out of direct sunlight, in fact there is a pile of other books in front of them. While the cream and yellow are unchanged, the spine of the blue one, and the edges all round front and back boards, have veered to purple, as you can see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/overthemoon/4450730044/
(sorry I have not yet found out how to post a picture directly in the thread).
The George Sand, in dark blue, has also veered to purple on the spine, and the Blue Nile and White Nile (dark green moiré silk) now have bronze spines. However, others such as Sakuntala (turquoise), Mistress Masham's Repose (orange-red) have not changed at all. An older one, Oscar Wilde's Salome (1957) bound in bright turquoise "brocade supplied by British Celanese", looks as good as new.

62 With due respect to those who might think or act otherwise, I keep my books to the same standards of tailoring, fashion, style general appearance, and personal grooming as I keep myself ;-D

( not very high ones, now and then . I must say)

> 62 I have a problem with a coupla miniatures also, the blue-green Garden and Other Poems faded, disappeared more apt, to mostly copper and the lovely Lady of Shallot, a deeper red with a lightening spine. No problem with Love Poems, Epigrams, or The Raven(black). Same problem with The Nile(s).
Also have beautiful, rich, and unfaded real silk Folio Fine Press editions, 4 from 1988 with silk spines and 4 from '89 -silk boards, their uniform coloring all the more amazing to me as each came from a different bookdealer in the US or UK, no idea how many owners or years in the store. It seems as if the correct dyes were used with these books, maybe the right dyeing process too, no problems with the blue or the green spines or the green boards.

2 weeks now since I contacted the Society about Classics and myths-no response yet.

4 months now since I contacted the society by e-mail about the classics and myths series and they replied they would get back to me.

10 days since I spoke with them and was told that the production team would get back to me via e-mail,
address verified.

I have received online offers and news.

On the topic of artificial cloth, I was surprised and disappointed to discover that my Folio Poets Tennyson and W B Yeats are not bound in cloth like the previous 6. Apparently I did not recognize the difference upon original receipt and, of course, trusted the descriptions in the prospectuses, but a coupla weeks ago when I verified a line from "The Charge of the Light Brigade"-All the world wondered- I noticed the shine of the material and thought it odd. After visual and tactile comparison among the FP volumes it was clear that the last two used different binding materials. So I then went to the fore-edge tail corners of the rear boards and successfully peeled back an inch of the pastedowns, unfolded and trimmed the bindings. The samples were cut,torn ,and shredded-result of experiment-no threads, only coated paper!

While originally concern was expressed about the mis-description of the expensive yet more rarely used leather and silk binding materials, especially in the previous two decades, it is now possible to believe that, in the last decade, the mis-description of paper as cloth is more prevalent.

I really have much to question based upon my experience here, the same questioning I would do if any salesperson or contractor sold me something that proved to be something else that was less expensive.

When are the binding materials authentic, and when are they substitutes?

Is the buckram really buckram? Is the goatskin really goatskin, or really Nigerian?

Are the papers really Abbey Wove or Caxton Wove or Modigliani or Cordier Wove?

Are the emendations really minor?

Will the editions of the last 20 years really hold up to regular reading over time?

When will I receive excellent customer service in this matter?

Very interesting. I do think this is an issue FS can better clarify and advertise, especially since it is a large part of their advertising that they use high quality materials, etc.

>65 olepuppy: Yes. i got that with my Tennyson. The boards are ugly compared with the cloth-feeling cloth on my Wordsworth, and the leather binding does not seem the same either. Both books have the same binding description, however, on the copyright page.

The Tennyson also has some foreign material trapped between the front endpaper and the front board. This has made an ugly half cm indentation in the first ten or so pages of the book. I've decided it's too minor to complain about (although I expect they'd send me a replacement if they did), but it does suggest that their standards are slipping.

>65 olepuppy: "I was surprised and disappointed to discover that my Folio Poets Tennyson and W B Yeats are not bound in cloth like the previous 6."

Having read your comments, I thought I would take a look at my copies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there were eight volumes in total, published at the rate of one per year between 2001 and 2008. I have compared the volumes according to which binders Folio employed, the apparent material used on the boards and the amount of leather which extends on to the boards:

Keats (2001) Bath Press Cloth 1" width of leather extending on to the boards
Wordsworth (2002) Bath Press Cloth 1"
Coleridge (2003) Bath Press Cloth 1"
Kipling (2004) Bath Press Cloth 1"
Donne (2005) Bath Press Cloth ⅔"
Tennyson (2006) Hunter & Foulis Plasticized ⅔"
Yeats (2007) Real Lachenmaier Plasticized 1"
Shelley (2008) Lachenmaier CLOTH Only ½"

Where does that leave us? Probably confused. But Folio should ensure that a matching series like this has consistent standards. It plainly isn't the case that the materials were permanently downgraded after Donne, because Shelley, the last volume, is again bound in cloth. The first book, Keats, won an award and Folio obviously had high hopes for the "Folio Poets". Sadly, as has been mentioned elsewhere, sales didn't live up to expectation, but that is no reason for the Society to take its eye off the ball, so to speak, and allow quality control to lapse mid-series.

>66 chase.donaldson: Yes, absolutely, because the discrepancies have been and continue to be so readily visible anybody, even people who sneer at us, can come on this site, or on any street corner, and state with validity," Folio Society books- Caveat Emptor!"
I've just received The Natural History of Selborne, have the complete and older Folio edition with Ann Muir marbled paper boards and Chris Wormell's excellent wood engravings, and was excited to be able to afford the American half-price of $117.50 for the large, wonderfully illustrated volume. Supposed to be bound in 3/4 buckram, a perfect covering for a large, heavy book, but the copyright page states 'bound in cloth', which may mean bound in brown paper, I don't know. I should be able to know. If it is a laminated paper, I don't believe the book will weather 20 years like a buckram bound edition would.

>67 vat1sem: Sorry to hear about your Tennyson, I've had a coupla times very small pieces of matter that didn't affect the paper, so I kept them. I usually seek to return for replacement any damaged book or sets on principle. I'm still amazed when I hear 'if you would just donate the damaged book to your local library', no one else in the world says that!

I didn't notice a difference in the leather 1/4 binding, how does yours seem different?

#70

I was told by a membership secretary that their reasons for not wanting the volumes returned are twofold:

1: PR
2: Cost in shipping a book back to England only to pulp it!

>69 boldface: Thank you for the accurate research, boldface, I had forgotten and then assumed that Tennyson and Yeats
were the last volumes issued, it is a bit confusing about Shelley. If I remember correctly, wasn't there a production problem that delayed Tennyson's delivery until autumn instead of summer, maybe there was a problem with binding. Again, I'm guessing, should I have to?

Yes, it is a shame more people didn't purchase the series, but from what I've read in Folio 60, at other times members asked for but then wouldn't buy the nicer, higher priced editions- I speak of the limited leather bindings of the 60's and 70's and of the Folio Fine Editions '87-'91. I believe the Folio Poets and Myths and Legends were top of the line other than LE's and sets. I know I was happily surprised to see the same FP binding and design for The Folio Golden Treasury-1997-when I bought it last year, it's a beautiful anthology of poetry and wood engravings.

Still, one could wish that FS would 'keep its eye on the ball'.

> 71 Well, that's great PR in my book!

Like killing a mockingbird, it would be a sin to pulp a beautiful book, especially with another option available. When I received the whatever leather and silk Paradise Lost several years ago with a big scratch down the middle of the front board, I called to ask for a replacement and was told for the first time to please donate the book to my local library. Amazed, I told several people, some of whom disbelieved me. My boss told me that he was a library. The librarians at the local library stared at me as if I were simple-minded and, at first, didn't accept it, until I showed them the William Blake illustrations. I couldn't find it in the stacks later, so I hope it made the yearly sale and got a good price and isn't in a librarians bookshelf, tho that's not a worse fate than pulping.

>70 olepuppy:. The grain on the Tennyson is smaller and more even and it does not have the same smell. It probably is the same standard (and up to now the issue never really bothered me), but I'm starting to think like the others that we would just like an accurate description.

>69 boldface: I have a copy of the Folio Golden Treasury dated 1997, bound the same way as the rest of the series (leather spine with Bath Press cloth sides), so the design appears to even predate the Keats (although that was officially the first of the series). A prequel perhaps.

Bath Press went out of business in 2007, but had been struggling for a little while before that. We used to use them at my job, and it was quite a crisis when they went under because it was one of the last UK presses that could handle detailed illustrations - we now print in Spain, Malta and Slovenia mostly.

Bath Press was apparently making a loss on almost every job that they did, so it could explain both the switch to a different press and the need to use lower quality materials in order to keep costs down.

That said, I'm really disappointed to hear about this quality problem with the Yeats and Tennyson volumes. They're the ones I was most looking forward to, and in fact I have them in my FS basket now, and I'm trying to decide whether I should buy them or look elsewhere.

>75 SpoonFed:

I'm annoyed but not upset by the Tennyson. The print and paper are still high quality and it is a lovely volume, apart from the fact that it does not match the other books that I have in the series. I can live with the little lump under the front endpaper and the consequent indentation.

I'm more worried about their long-term durability, to be honest. And I'm annoyed about the lack of clear information from FS, as well as the lack of images for these books on the website.

To be fair, though, I am quite easily annoyed!

Spoonfed - I'd be happy to take some images of the Tennyson vol for you. To be honest, for less than £20 (assuming you are in the UK) this book is a bargain. I don't have the Yeats, but would certainly have bought it if it was the same price as the Tennyson.

I would like to say again that this is a big problem from the FS. They need to be more clear and accurate in their description of the bookmaking materials. It is not difficult to do, but they need to be more viligant about it!

I agree that for a publisher who touts the design and quality of materials used in their books as a selling point, they can be somewhat offhand about providing particulars. I wish they were as forthcoming as the old Heritage Press/LEC, who provided minute detail about their books in an accompanying pamphlet.

> I agree Chase. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to do and I'm sure that the majority of the readership really wouldn't mind what the actual materials are, as long as the books remain robust and beautiful and the description is honest.

Huxley, thanks for that offer! If you have the time and the inclination, I would definitely appreciate some pics. No worries if you don't get around to it, though - I think I'm leaning towards purchasing the Tennyson in any event, since (as you say) £20 is quite a good price.

I'm really torn about the Yeats, though - twice the price, but the one I long for the most!

ETA: Just in case anyone is looking for slimmer and cheaper poetry collections, Faber and Faber are doing small hardbacks as part of their 80th anniversary. They include Yeats (Amazon.co.uk link), Sylvia Plath, John Betjeman, W H Auden, and T S Eliot. I have them all except for the Betjemen, and they're quite attractive and well produced for their price range - obviously nothing to compete with the FS volumes, but quite nice little books none the less!

> 82

The Yeats is a beautiful volume. It was the first Folio Poets volume I bought and it persuaded me to hunt down all the volumes in the series. The Yeats volume does have the "smooth" cover and not the textured cloth used in Shelly, Donne, Wordsworth, Coleridge and Kipling. However, on my copy at least, it feels better quality than the Tennyson binding - it feels thicker and less "plasticky" than the Tennyson. Inside, the volume is beautiful. Yeats is my favourite poet and this is by far the best Yeats I have ever seen and Harry Brockway's woodcuts are gorgeous.

>83 Quicksilver66: I have to agree with all of the message above. It was also one of my first Folio buys and it felt so georgeous in the hand that I had to have more.

Oh, thank you! That is certainly tempting beyond all reason. Yeats is my favourite poet as well (well, along with Auden and Pope) so I'll have to throw caution to the wind and order that one.

> 85

I don't think you will regret it, Spoonfed. The Tennyson is really the "runt of the litter" with respect to it's binding.

Thank you all for convincing me to stick my hand in my wallet! I've never regretted a FS purchase yet (well, except for a secondhand copy of Frankenstein with a damaged slipcase, but that doesn't really count).

> 82 Here you go:

http://s901.photobucket.com/albums/ac220/HuxleyTheCat/Tennyson/?albumview=slides...

If you need a password then it is my user name here.

A word of warning on the three remaining Poets volumes. I asked about stock quantities last time I was in the Members' Room and they said that they were quite low (100s) so they didn't really expect them to last until Christmas. I definitely want the Yeats - I'm a major Brockway fan - and it's a case of trying to guess whether the last copies will be put in the pre-Christmas sale, or whether just to bite the bullet and buy it at full price.

Thanks so much, Huxley. They're great pictures, and quite helpful in setting my mind on purchasing the Tennyson as well. I just cheekily bought a fine/fine copy of the Donne from Ardis, too!

> 79 Right on, chase!

> 80 Somewhat, Django? Well, you've proven it before, 'Blessed are the peacemakers'.
Love the Sandglass idea, so many interesting facts about a book's text and construc-
tion could be included, possibly upgrades and downgrades in production could be
noted as addenda.
>81 HuxleyTheCat: I absolutely agree with you, Huxley, that the readership wants honestly described
book materials. And I love your choice of the word 'robust', perfect!

I have to disagree with your certainty of the opinion that tens of thousands of
members 'wouldn't mind what the actual materials are', I'm sorry, but what a wild
statement.

>83 Quicksilver66: Good for you, Quicksilver, glad your Yeats has an apparently 'improved' paper binding.
Alas, my Tennyson and Yeats seem identical. I hope they stand the test of time.

An interesting side note, at least to me, is that in removing the rear pastedowns in Yeats and Tennyson I first used my full speed straight ahead approach and simply inserted my thumbnail under the corner and lifted, and was surprised to have the paper separate easily, without tearing,for about an inch and a half. When I tried that approach to investigate the cloth on an LOA volume, the pastedown did not budge. Ditto a very nice Oak Spring Herbaria, and I liked that strength those latter glues provided to the overall structural integrity. So, with Tennyson and Yeats I have weak glue, paper not cloth, spine sag after just a few years, for which I paid full American price as a supporting member, not just a sale scrabbler. Hey, maybe if more members paid full price more often the society would use better materials.

#88
Yes, indeed, thank you Huxley. The Tennyson was one of my "in the basket but maybe not" books. I'm so glad I finally made up my mind and ordered it. Of course, now that I've seen your pictures I'm going to go crazy waiting for it to arrive. At least the website says it's despatched so hopefully it won't be a long wait.

> 90 It may well be 'wild' in that I certainly haven't done academic research to prove it as a fact, one way or the other, but I do suspect that it is true.

Based upon a standard distribution, the members of this forum (particularly the 10% or so who are very regular contributors) will be at the extreme, nerdy, geeky end; yet even here there are those of us who don't mind whether the boards are covered in cloth, paper or leather - as long as the binding is appropriate to the text, and 'robust and beautiful'.

Despite there being literally dozens of alternatives on the market, The 'Consolation of Philosphy has apparently been one of the Society's better sellers over the years; yet it would be difficult to believe that anyone could mistake the paper binding for parchment made from the skin of a calf, art(istic) or art(ificial). It is what it is, paper, and in my view it is absolutely appropriate, feels lovely in the hand, and in my experience it is robust too.

From the FS I want: a great range of classics old and new; a highly readable text (font, space on the page); good quality materials for the text block and binding; non-standardised design; high standards of proof-reading; exciting illustrations; and affordable (to me) prices. I think they do all that very well, and if, in order to achieve affordability, they need to substitute a higher quality paper for a lesser quality cloth, then I am absolutely fine with that. I would, however, prefer that the Society didn't make any statements concerning the materials used in the books, rather than claim what isn't true.

> 92

If I may say so, a most sensible comment. I agree.

I also agree with Huxley. But the FS must respond to this issue and gives us their position. Misdesription is not an acceptable practice in a company with the standing of the FS.

The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 is quite clear - it is a criminal offence for any person acting in the course of a trade or business (including directors, managers, and all levels of employees) to apply a false or misleading description to goods (e.g. as to their quantity, size or gauge, method or place of manufacture, production or processing, composition or fitness for purpose).

An offence is committed only if the description or statement is false or misleading to a material degree. Insignificant inaccuracies which do not impact upon the use, enjoyment and/or value of the goods or services would not infringe the Act. A Court would have to decide wheter or not the description is inaccurate to a "material degree"

There is a statutory defence where it can be proved that the commission of an offence occurred due to a mistake or reliance on information supplied by a third party or the act or default of another person or an accident or some other cause beyond the control of the accused and that he "took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control". To support this defence it would be necessary to show that satisfactory systems were in place to avoid false or misleading descriptions being given and that the systems were properly monitored.

We can endlessly debate abot whether or not any of these defences would apply to the FS. We don't know enough about the situation to form a judgement. There is also the question of whether or not an offence has been committed, ie - is the statement misleading to a "material degree". I think that to describe something as cloth when it is paper covered board (if that's what it is) or as "leather" when it's synthetic leather - is misleading to a material degree. The fact that 90% of buyers may not be bothered by this is imaterial - an offence has still been committed under the Act.

I would be very surprised if this thread had not been noted by the FS mole(s) among us and duly reported back in a memo to production HQ. The Society is certainly on notice that there are some among us who consider these misdescriptions to be "misleading to a material degree".

I agree with Huxley that many do not mind what the books are bound in so long as the material is appropriate - but there really is no excuse for these misdescriptions as it wouldn't be rocket science to put in a place a corrective system and ensure that future descrptions are accurate. It's not as though it would even be costly. We don't need to look for a conspiracy to deceive - it's almost certainly just admin muddle.

> 95

I agree. I certainly do not want to see the FS hauled through the courts. But they need to understand that descriptions must be accuarate.

>95 appaloosaman: "The Society is certainly on notice"

etc., etc.

They are a small publisher defying the death of decent printed books who bring pleasure and joy presumably to the members of this forum.

Why not write them a polite email and report back their response... in my 10 years plus as a member they have always responded quickly and helpfully to any communication I have sent them

If they really refuse to answer the query that is something but, and especially if you think they monitor this forum, don't you think the language quoted above (there are plenty more examples) is bordering on the rude and seems frankly redolent of the alpha-male top gear watching executive - if that is who you are then I suppose you represent yourself well - however if it isn't, and I am sure from other posts it doesn't reflect you - then maybe you should take a second glance at what you write

This is a lovely forum to lurk in and I get so many ideas about books I wouldn't normally consider reading (and the photos are always enticing) so please let it not descent into the all too easy discourtesy which pervades so much of the internet

Leopold

> 97

I don't think we are being discourteous Leopold and others have emailed the Society on this point but received no response.

We all love the Society and none of us wish to harm it. But a valid point has been raised and the Society should do it's best to answer it or to ensure that the same thing does not happen again. I am not overly vexed on this issue because I love all the books I have bought, artificial leather or not - - but others are and I think they have a right when they spend their hard earned cash on something which is not as desribed.

The term "on notice" used by appalassoman is not rude - it simply means that the Society should hear what we are saying. It's not notice of an intention to issue court proceedings.

>98 Quicksilver66:

Thanks for the response

I fully accept that I have misread and misinterpreted the tone of some of the messages about this issue (and the cost of books in Australia/USA) but is it not possible that some of the messages are open to misinterpretation and this might not be helpful? As I said if the Society do read these pages don't you think that they might also misinterpret the forceful language that is occasionally used?

I am really surprised that they haven't responded to private emails asking for clarification though... Honestly I am

Leopold

>97 lgreen666:

I plead guilty to being a lawyer. It's a heinous crime, I know. :-)

When lawyers refer to people being "on notice" of something, it means no more than they have had their attention drawn to the matter. It also means that they can't later say they were ignorant of it and it was all just an honest mistake on their part. As I wrote, it's not as though it would be onerous to correct these errors in future publications.

>99 lgreen666:

I haven't seen any comments on this threat I would consider to be over the line, but even if some of the comments have been harsh, I disagree that such comments "might not be helpful."

Honest, unfiltered information from customers is one of the most valuable assets a company can have. It's one thing to receive a few inquiries or complaints from customers concerned with the company's use of genuine vs. "art" leather in their bindings. It's an entirely different thing to learn that even customers who don't have a problem with "art" leather are upset about the manner in which the books are being described and Folio's apparent failure to respond to customer inquiries on the issue.

>101 MoTown:

I agree.

Some of the people that have been commenting on this subject have been posting for years and the overwhelming amount of those posts have been praising the Folio Society.

What is interesting has been the valuable information that I have picked up about the products of The Society from this forum.

'Folio Society Devotees' positive criticism provides the opportunity for improvement to everyones benefit (including The Folio Society).

Amid all the thoughts and rants and questions and defenses and obfuscations and concerns I've temporarily lost site of the origin of this thread, the information presented in Folio 60, and before it, Folio 50. These bibliographies were produced by the Folio Society as a record of their individual works and are something of which to be proud, warts and all. But I can't imagine admin not knowing the contents of the descriptions, not being aware that materials used did not match materials advertised. To me, selling me Folio 60 so I could discover a 14 year record of deceptions, many of which I (and others) spent good money on, is called 'in your face'.

I've been disappointed in the lack of specific responses to to my observations concerning the lack of strength in bindings and the idea that some volumes may not fulfill the Folio promise of longevity. I'm serious about this questioning, I'm not taking potshots at Folio. I'm definitely not saying something as ridiculous as I don't like paper bindings because Tennyson is paper when it is advertised as cloth, and I absolutely love the vegetable parchment used for LOTR and East of the Sun...why would anybody think they're bound in vellum? I don't know what to do with Selborne, lovely book, it needs buckram not paper but maybe it is cloth, dammit, I don't know what it is!

Now we're into Folio 70 time, so what will we see about 2010 and 2011 that will be different from the past?

An interesting discussion. I wonder, in fact, how the book industry as a whole describes materials. I do agree that the Society should be more careful in their descriptions, particularly as they claim to go the extra mile in producing a quality product for the discerning reader. However, judging by books I've bought over the years, and the descriptions given by many different publishers, I would guess that words like "cloth" and "buckram" have been used to describe all sorts and conditions of bindings, so that they have become, if you like, almost generic terms.

If anyone out there is connected with book production, I would certainly like to know if the terms (")cloth(") and (")buckram("), for example, have silently acquired those inverted commas over the years.

(I can already hear the indignant howls of protest from you lawyers that the trade are legally bound to call elephant hide pachyderm skin, etc.)

Here's a supply store site which defines and prices various cloths and leathers-interesting stuff.

http://www.hollanders.com/

Thanks for that, olepuppy. Cloth does indeed cover a wide spectrum, including imitation leather.

I am not sure what you are getting at here Olepuppy.

No one has disregarded your comments and I agree with you that the Tennyson is poor (but my copy, at least , of the Yeats is better) and that Folio must level up with it's members on this issue. But if some Members are still happy with their books, despite knowing that they do not utilise real leather, then good luck to them - that's a perfectly legitimate and acceptable response. No one is railroading you or "pissing down your back" because they express a different opinion.

I sincerely doubt that the alleged mole behaves in the way you describe. I am sure that the Folio Society monitors this site but I don't believe that they post here or attempt to manipulate the site in the way you describe.

#107
I did not, tho, hear from anyone who had repeated and verified or not my findings. It's not hard, just peel the pastedown corner back slowly, lift up the outer fold of the binding and snip, you'll be able to see where the snip won't show when you reglue the pastedown.

I don't have that particular book, but if I did, the chances that I would risk damaging it to satisfy someone else's curiosity are nil.

it would be fine if more posters got involved and gave some unbiased ideas on some of the tougher issues.

My unbiased ideas on the subject of this thread are that
1. The Folio Society need to be more careful about the accuracy of their claims about materials.
2. I am very happy with the quality of nearly all the folio books I own.

I dislike your suggestion that unnamed regular posters are acting in bad faith as 'agents provocateurs' for the Folio Society, rather than expressing their own honest opinions.

Sorry to repeat myself.

In my opinion there are three main issues here:

1. The Folio Society have not described the materials used in some of their books accurately. Not only is this a major issue when a key reason for buying from them is the quality of the materials used, it raises a concern of trust. Folio should not only take steps to eradicate this problem, they have much to gain from increasing the amount of information about the products they offer.

2. The pricing policy for Australia, Canada and the USA appears to be unfair.

3. If there is a 'mole' on this forum, do they not think it is about time they acknowledged that there are issues that need to be addressed and that they are the only ones that can bring all of this to a satisfactory conclusion.

My main concern now is that the lack of activity from The Folio Society has allowed these issues to go on for far too long and there is a danger of this debate becoming more acrimonious than it needs to be.

I agree with celtic that this problem is in danger of getting blown out of all proportion. I agree that two of the Poets volumes were not exactly as described and that that is a serious issue in itself if the Society fails to address it in the future. However, looking at those two books in isolation, I am not worried about their quality. I own over 600 Folio books, from the 1950s to the present, and I can honestly say that I have never been moved to question a book (given the price I paid) on the grounds of the actual quality of the materials used. And I am very discerning in my general nature. I have returned and had replaced books that had printing or binding faults, but that is another issue.

I agree with 109 and 110 but IMHO the FS will not change one iota because of what is being said on this forum.
It's pretty obvious from the postings of our Australian friends that they are being treated unfairly especially in relation to the actual cost of each book (the postage is a separate issue I feel).

The concept of a "mole" is interesting. Do we really think that the FS methodically read every post on every forum to do with books in order to gather customer feedback, or how we feel about them? I don't think so, an occasional perusal at best.
They would be far better off sending each customer a Feedback response form with their next order, that is if (and that’s a big if) that they really want feedback.

This may be an erudite, discerning and articulate group, but it still only represents around 0.4% of Folio Society membership. Until the silent majority speaks out, there is little incentive to take us too seriously. It would be interesting to know just how many members in total there are in Australia.

Widespread customer feedback on a regular basis sounds like a good idea. They do send out questionnaires on possible future publications now and again. Perhaps a more general one on customer satisfaction might seem useful, but then again, if their books are flying off the shelves anyway, why bother?

>112 N11284: & 113

If it was my business I don't know how I would be able to resist reading this forum. I would like to think that The Folio Society is an organisation that welcomes feedback and would want to improve. It may only be 0.4% of the membership, but, as far as I know, it is the only one of its type for The Folio Society and probably includes some of the most loyal and knowledgeable members of The Society, which should make the information it provides 'akin to gold-dust'.

Of course, you're comments may be accurate and I do admit that the deafening silence that has accompanied the everlasting debate about accurate information and unfair pricing policy does make me uneasy.

Just out of curiosity as I have been reading about there is a mole lurking around - how do we know there is a mole in this forum? When did that happen. Who solved that mystery

Besides of course the FS have some problems as stated in this thread, but I am extremely glad they are still in business. I don't know what I would do in a world without FS. I don't really like the EP -they do have fairly wonderful book but I am not a fan of the same leather designs.

I think a person or two who visited the Member's Room stated here that they were told that they do watch the site, though I do think it would show an ethical lapse if they were posters on here.

I'm a fairly recent member of this group although I have been buying books from FS since the 70's (I have bought them for the past 10 years from Spain and before from the US.)

Clearly, there have been a number of issues brought up by members of the forum and comments have not always stuck to the main theme. It has been pointed out that three aspects are important, pricing of the books, postage costs and quality (intertwined with accurate description of materials used). On these three issues I would venture to point the following:

1. We do not really know what is behind, or what are the reasons why prices vary from region to region. And there is little we can do to change the effects of FS marketing policy in this regard except move our residence or get someone to buy books for us where the pricing is more favourable. The matter of resident offices should be handled by those customers directly affected, I think.

2. Postage costs are, again, beyond our control. We are given no choice as to shipper, shipping modalities (insurance, speed, etc.) In most cases books arrive eventually and any damages are promptly taken care of by the replacement policy of FS. So perhaps we should be realistic about this issue and apply pressure where it can be effective. With membership spread all over the world, we are bound to experience differences. In a perfect world we would all be paying the same price and the same shipping costs but, perhaps, this is not feasible. Perhaps I'm being simplistic.

3. On the question of accurate and true description of materials used in printing and binding the books, I feel the issue is clear. We must insist on getting what is being advertised. If cloth means several things then it should be made clear. Likewise with leather or any other material. On this issue regions make no difference. We are all buying the book as advertised.

Finally, the related issue of quality. Whether it is one kind of material or another, the quality has to be the best, and the book has to be properly made to last and be enjoyed by generations. Nothing less is acceptable. Quality bookmaking and control have to be distinguishing marks of FS books.

As an aside, I don't frankly care if there is a mole or not. We all have a direct line to FS via phone, mail or electronic means to make our views known and defend our rights as members if need be.

In closing, let me say that I find the real strength of this forum in the opportunity it gives to share quality and erudite experiences about books, a cultural artifact we all love and wouldn't be able to do without. The participation of all members is rewarding and enriching. Please, let's keep it this way.

Sorry for this lengthy tirade...

>116 chase.donaldson: " I do think it would show an ethical lapse if they were posters on here."

Of course you mean only if they posted without identifying themselves as FS employees. On the LOA website, DCloyceSmith announced his presence and identity and his participation provides a model of what publisher feedback should be.

re 118

Of course

Olepuppy some time ago (October 2009) we Devotees decided to write the FS of our grievances with their pricing policy. We wrote to Lord Gavron (the current owner; chairman), Sue Bradbury (the former editor in chief) and Joe Whitlock Blundell (the production director). To my knowledge we received responses from the former editor and the production director. These responses were all very polite and stated (in summary) that our grievances would be reviewed and a reply forthcoming. Well Olepuppy it's been about 13 mos and, to my knowledge, we have heard nothing. This is what we in the states would call a 'blow off' and I am especially offended since spending close to $50K with this organization (don't get excited; spent it over 3-years and had some catching up to do). But in my world a customer who spends that kind of money gets attention. The FS make beautiful books (so beautiful that I will no longer lie to myself about not purchasing them); but are guilty (from my experience) of some the worse customer service practices of any company I've ever dealt with.

Now if there is a mole please be so kind as to pass this on to your board of directors...of course I say this 'tongue in cheek' as I do not, ever, expect there to a response (or remedy) to our concerns.

Edited because I can't count...it's been approximately 11 NOT 13 months.

> 120

I have not asked in the Members Room olepuppy because this question has not consumed me to the extent that it has so obviously consumed you. Away from this board it is something I have simply forgotten about.

Since you have specifically tasked me, the next time I am in the Members Room I will ask and report back to this forum. But I doubt they will know any more about it than we do.

I have now asked in the Members Room where I spoke with the two knowledgable gentlemen who usually staff the room.

They told me that the FS take great care to be accurate in their descriptions. If something is described as leather then that is what it is otherewise they acknowledged that the FS would be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act. However, there are different grades of leather.

In relation to the Myths and Legends series the first gentleman thought that "artificial leather" could mean bonded leather - this is still regarded as leather but is the lowest grade. However, the second gentleman produced a copy of Folio's Domesday Book (never seen this title before) which was quarter bound in bonded leather - but it said on the description page "bonded leather" and not "leather". It also felt different to the leather used in Myths - more plasticky, like vinyl, and not as nice to the touch.

He was adamant that Folio would never describe something as leather that was not leather. We had a look at a the Celtic Myths and Legends and said it looked and felt like leather to him (not artificial leather which is otherwise known as vinyl). However, the leather used on these volumes was not the very best grade otherwise the volumes would cost more. Higher grade leaather was used, for instance, on the Lives of the Later Caesars and on the LE volumes.

Querying why Paul Nash would describe these books as bound in artificial leather the first gentleman considered it likely that Mr Nash was mistaken. Folio experiment with different materials when designing a book and sometimes produce "dummy" or mock up editions. Mr Nash may have seen some of these materials and not those used in the final product whilst going through Folios records. Folio are not the most efficient organisation and I can well imagine that their records are not always straight.

We are no closer to a definitive answer and there are many hypotheses in the above. I return to my starting point which is that I still take great pleasure in my Myths and Legends books. Indeed, I bought one today - Celtic Myths and Legends. The series is ongoing as well, and they told me that the next title will be Irish Myths and Legends.

Thank you very much, Quicksilver. I certainly hope that this information which you so helpfully have obtained will contribute to calm the seas.

> 123

Thanks for the info QS. If your really particularly feisty one day, can you ask them about the +50% mark up for your friend Down Under. You know all the arguments so you can retort the spurious.

> 124

Your welcome drasvola - lets see.

> 125

I will ask next time I am there Les Mis. Lets see what I can find out. Those pricing differentials are particularly unfair.

Thank you QS, I very much appreciate your assistance.

121 Thanks for volunteering that info, Texaco, sorry that you and the others have not gotten a response. Have you all sent any check-up messages?

Well, I think spending that sum on books you love is very exciting and I hope you enjoy every page, especially the LE's.

122 Hi, Quicksilver, I definitely admit to being consumed, earlier this year and now, on this question and I know that if I lived over there and could visit Folio that I would've tried to find an answer face to face and not bug everybody so much, and quickly. I am a bit surprised that, as you earlier said you'd be interested to hear an answer, and as you now acknowledge to being consumed yourself, albeit to a lesser degree than I, and as you involve yourself in so many Folio issues in this forum, and as you say you go there so often, that you did not remember to ask at some visit or other.

That's very decent of you to check, thank you.

123 Well, that is some excellent work, Quicksilver, thank you for investigating. The extra info will spur more hands on research on my part, because surely now that is the only way to know from what the bindings are made.

You know, I've been rereading Paul Nash's statement, he said several things which have not been part of this forum's discussions since the polarization of opinions narrowed our conversations to misdescriptions or the overall quality of the book. He stated clearly that he makes mistakes, tho he verifies as completely as possible. He missed Tennyson, called it 'the series binding', described for Keats as cloth. He mentions the idea of a misdescription resulting from a production decision to change a material after the colophon has been printed, which relates to your story about design experiments.

" We are no closer to a definitive answer"- yep, that's right. But actually hearing from someone at Folio, even indirectly, has lightened my spirit, so I thank you again, Quicksilver!

All this contradictory info has helped me to decide to verify my books, relying on no ones description. First, Quicksilver, the quarter binding on my Celtic Myths and Legends. I see that the hollow back spine leaves room for a finger, or some finer hooked tool, to reach inside and, not very easily, lift the fold of material so that the center of the sample is outside of the book. I snip a 1/4"X1 1/4" slice from the binding and refold the remainder into the book, which shows no outer sign of damage. If I ever sell these books I'll have to describe them as 'snipped', like my brother. 1st, I try to pull the strip apart with my gnarly fingers, and the material is strong,no break. 2nd, I scratch away the paper backing to expose the material, brownish. I pull again and watch it stretch, I scrape the back with a scissors edge and remove flecks with some difficulty, I smell it...

...so it's tough and strong and brown and not layered and it smells like LEATHER.

> 128

Your welcome olepuppy.

The more I have been thinking about this issue the more I am convinced that this could be error on Paul Nash's behalf - where he has to make assumptions due to incomplete lack of records or information and those assumptions may be wide of the mark. This is no reflection on Mr Nash - his book is an excellent resource and clearly a labour of love. But where the information is incomplete he has to make guesses. This is Folio's fault for not keeping better records. In relation to many books he notes "not seen" so clearly he has to work in the dark on some books.

I am glad that your copy of Celtic Myths looks and feels like leather, Olepuppy. Although I have not dissected my copy as you have I also feel that the bindings look and feel like leather. I have some artificial leather at home (often called "leatherette" or vinyl) - it looks and feels different, more plasticky with less grain in the finish.

Wow, a day without obsessing, great! Maybe more than 5 hours sleep tonight too! Especially as I won't be composing some extremely ill-mannered diatribe-for which I beg forgiveness- for 3-4 hours- I really haven't written anything of these really rather short lengths for decades so I'm pretty slow- no writing at all except for bad love poetry with the occasional sparkler-"Slow Dancing" with 'feel the low heat'- well I'm getting a bit off topic, anyway thanks again, Quickman, for helping to get a Folio response, that's what did the trick.( I hope you don't mind the paraphrase)

Still into book construction, still questioning, just not seeing red. Can report on my books, can't speak for others. At the Back of the North Wind has a coated cloth, ditto Myths and Legends of Russia, don't know if they are a type of buckram but are described as cloth- I personally have no problems with buckram- and I don't know about 'Russia's' leather, was able to separate the red outer layer from a whitish, stretchy underlayer, weaker than 'Celtic', couldn't smell leather but the shnoz has been subjected to clouds of soil dust today.

Good Night, Devotees.

Well, still no response to my emails and phone call from Folio HQ, and apparently other posts indicate further non-responses on the materials issue. I am surprised by this lack of response, as Folio previously answered every question I asked over several years. I have to ask the questions, is the materials issue a touchy subject for Folio HQ? Is Folio changing?

Looking thru the Folio website under 'Help' and 'Conditions of Sale' I found the statement 'The Folio Society reserves the right to make alterations to an advertised book offer or promotion or to withdraw it without prior notice'. I have not noticed this statement on any Folio literature, ad, or prospectus, has anyone else? It seems to allow for some leeway in production and description.

> 131

This would not give them the right, or certainly not the legal right, to change materials without informing the purchaser. As such, they would still be liable under the Trade Descriptions Act. I don't think Folio would do this. The passage you refer to is intended to cover offers and promotions - Folio are saying they can withdraw offers or change them without prior notice.

Looking again at my Myths and Legends over the weekend - there is certainly a whiff of leather coming from all of them.

I don't understand why Folio are not responding to you, Olepuppy. When I spoke to them in the Members Room they were quite open and forthcoming. Why don't you try calling them?

>132 Quicksilver66: Thanks for your response, Quicksilver, sorry I'm slow to answer but I really had to finish reading a book yesterday I started Sunday!

The passage from Conditions of Sale caused me to consider my Natural History of Selborne, advertised as buckram bound yet described as cloth on colophon. If the buckram ran out and a substitute was needed, when would the membership be informed? It may be another website issue. I continue to find it difficult to simply not know.

While I believe I've done enough to communicate with Folio, it has not been enough to receive an answer, so I will try calling again and see what happens, 'preciate the encouragement and will let you know what happens.

My experiments have fizzled out due to my ignorance of materials and only having very small samples with which to work. I can see Tennyson has no woven fibers and can assume paper but maybe it's a vinyl or a blend. Myths and Legends of Russia's leather sample does not smell like leather, shnoz is working fine now, but I don't know what the layers are that I separated. The coated cloth samples came apart easily, but as a whole possibly it is a strong and moisture/ dirt resistant material, again I don't know. Until I learn more, mum's the word.

So tell me, Quicksilver, are there other Folio rooms adjacent to the Members Room? Do knowledgeable people reside within?

>133 olepuppy: - advertised as buckram bound yet described as cloth on colophon.

I don't see the problem. Buckram is just stiff, sized cloth. All buckram can properly be described as cloth but not all cloth can also be described as buckram. Does your binding look like buckram? If it looks like buckram, you can take it that it is - even if the colophon uses the less specific descriptor 'cloth'.

> 133

The Members Room is adjacent the Folio offices but you can't get in unless on specific business. However, I like the idea of charging in and rampaging through the building until I'm brought down by Folio's security guards. One of these days I just might.

> 134

I was confused by this when I first joined Folio. Whilst I believe the colophons are accurate the interchangeable descriptions are confusing.

I used to think that a cloth binding had a fibrous fabric-like texture - as used on Byzantium. I am not keen on this type of cloth binding, which frays and can get grubby.

I soon learnt that buckram is treated cloth. But sometimes I see bindings desribed as "cloth" that look and feel like buckram. This is not incorrect as buckram is cloth but it's inconsistent when other books with the same bindings are described as buckram. To add to the confusion I have one or two titles bound in something called "full library buckram".

Folio need to be more consistent. If it's buckram call it that and not "cloth" (even though buckram is cloth).

> 135 If you do rampage, would you have someone do the video, please? Love to see you running and shouting like Peter Finch in 'Network'.

I love the fabric covering Anthem for Doomed Youth and Ordeal by Fire-Witnesses to the Great War and wish that In Flanders Fields used a similar material instead of the coated cloth. I eat spaghetti or ice cream from the container while reading only paperbacks- and every time I break that rule I regret it!

>134 appaloosaman: Hello, appaloosaman, I've been awaiting a continuation of your post#57, what's up?

To your comments that buckram is cloth and if it looks like buckram then it is, I can say that if you are satisfied with those definitions then I'm glad for you.

But I'm sad for me and any who care about accurate advertising and the trust that is broken when the advertising fails to keep promises.

My Tennyson looks like buckram yet has not a thread in 1/4"X1/2" sample.

I have not contributed so far to this thread but would only like to add that in the spirit of fairness, one should get exactly what one has paid for according to the descriptors.

I didn't know what thread to use for this question, but as some conversation about the Myths and Legends series is in this one I thought I would post this here. Does anyone own the Myths and Legends of Russia? If so I would like to know if the spine is red or orange? Or is it a red-orange? Thanks!

It's a deep orange - pretty close to the slipcase of the FS edition of Stanislavski's My Life in Art.

Thanks Appaloosaman, that is very helpful. Have you read this book? I am considering buying it, but would love to hear if it reads well, is interesting, etc. Any thoughts from any of you would be much appreciated!

>140 elmaynard: I have enjoyed what I have read of the fairy tales/folk tales in MLR. The stories read like fables and average about 3 pages/story, the longer ones being 10 pages or so. I found a useful site for helping to understand the background for the stories, with some excellent illustrations, at

http://www.endicott-studio.com/rdrm/rrrussian.html

One reason I acquired this book was for the Niroot Puttipipat illustrations, to me very well drawn in white/black silhouette with a splash of red sometimes.

I am continuing a response begun on the Please Support Equitable Pricing...thread that has more to do with the artificial materials issue.

Hi lgreen666, you and others have mentioned Paul Nash's mistake in Folio 60 so I thought I would list it so as to make it more clear:

1991-706 Lady of Shallot artificial silk

1992-724 The Histories artificial leather
728 Sakuntala artificial silk
732 Pied Piper of Hamelin artificial silk

1993-756 Aeneid artificial leather
763 Garden & other poems artificial silk

1994-770 Rime of the Ancient Mariner art. silk
791 Sir Patrick Spens... artificial silk

1995-809 Wind in the Willows artificial silk
812 Metamorphoses artificial leather
815 The Raven artificial silk

1996-855 Greek Myths artificial leather
858 Iliad artificial leather
859 50 Folio Epigrams artificial silk
874 Lost Splendour artificial silk

1997-899 Italian Cities 3 vol artificial silk
901 50 Folio Love Poems artificial silk

1998-954 British Myths and Legendsartificial leather
951 Odyssey artificial leather

1999-983 E Waugh, Comedies artificial cloth
987 Icelandic Sagas artificial leather

2000-1031 Dietrich Bonhoeffer artificial cloth
1039 Legends/King Arthur artificial leather

2001-1056 The Nile artificial silk
1072 Myths/Legends/India artificial leather

2002-1098 Silk Road (a bit ironic) artificial silk
1107 Icelandic Sagas II artificial leather

2003-1127 J Austen's Letters artificial silk
1135 Paradise Lost artificial silk
1153 Domesday Book 3 vol artificial leather
1154 Arabian Nights I-III artificial cloth
1155 Myths/Legends/N East artificial leather
1164 Arabian nights IV-VI artificial cloth

2004-1175 Citizens artificial silk
1195 Legends of the Ring artificial leather
1214 Xmas Crime Stories artificial cloth
1215 Lost City/Incas artificial cloth
1216 Catch-22 artificial cloth
1217 Eagle of the Ninth artificial cloth
1218 Mont./Cathers/Catholic artificial cloth
927 Inferno 2nd imp. artificial silk

2005-1220 Richard III artificial cloth
1221 Lifted Veil artificial cloth
1232 Tender is the Night artificial cloth
1233 Beautiful/the Damned artificial cloth
1234 Great Gatsby artificial cloth
1235 This Side of Paradise artificial cloth
1239 Making/Eng Landscape artificial cloth
1245 Hans C Andersen 2vol artificial cloth
1251 Spice Route artificial silk
1251.5 Trafalgar artificial cloth
1252 Epics/Middle Ages artificial leather
1253 Faust artificial silk
1262 Night Thoughts vol III artificial cloth
1263 Elizabeth I artificial cloth
1264 Memoirs/Fighting Capt. artificial cloth
1279 Hundred Years War artificial cloth

2006-1280 History/Scotland 2vol artificial cloth
1281 The Brontes... artificial silk
1284 Nervous Splendour artificial silk
1291 3rd Policeman artificial cloth
1296 Slaughterhouse 5 artificial buckram
1308 Celtic Myths/Legends artificial leather
1310 The Somme artificial cloth
1312 Daughter of Time artificial cloth
1326 10 Days/Shook World artificial cloth
1329 Traveller's Christmas artificial cloth
1339 Apocrypha artificial silk

I recommend reading or re-reading message 23 on this thread. I think the letter shows Paul Nash to be both a knowledgeable professional and a decent man.

I repeat that I've never seen personally or heard of someone who has seen a written description in an advertisement, paper or virtual, which states that a book was bound with an artificial material.

The list shows that LE's are not off limits to artificial materials, as the companion volume to Night Thoughts is described with 'artificial cloth'.

Although I did not include the material 'plasticized paper' in the list, it was mentioned a few times in Folio 60 and has been noted on message 55.

2006 has an example of each of the primary binding materials other than paper-leather, cloth, silk, buckram-as being artificial. 2004-6 shows a large increase in the use of artificial cloth and the continued use of artificial leather and silk from 1991-2003.

The growth of artificial material usage in 2004-6 raises the question of what happened in Folio binding in 2007-10? Are 'Rome' and 'Russia' and 'Irish' and 'Beowulf' bound in artificial leather? 'Purgatorio' and 'Paradiso' and 'Walden' and 'Jerusalem' artificial silk? How widespread was/is the use of artificial cloth and buckram?


Finally, if I've made any mistakes in the list please would you let me know? Thanks then.

Respectfully yours, olepup

edited to make the list more like I typed it-olepup

What on earth is artificial cloth? Cloth, according to my Shorter OED, is "fabric woven of felted from animal, vegetable, mineral or synthetic fibres." So what is artificial about a cloth made from synthetic material?

>143 Willoyd:

I guess if cloth can be made of either natural or artificial (synthetic) materials, then "artificial cloth" specifies the latter. It is conceptually different from, say, "artificial leather", which is perhaps an oxymoron and denotes "fake" leather - different because in the case of cloth "artificial" is simply a subset (not a contradiction/compromise).

I checked inside my copy of "Citizens" and it says that it's bound with "crushed-art-silk sides."

Nash says that they mean "artificial silk" and that they called it art silk in order to deceive people. I was certainly deceived and with good reason. Without a period to denote an abbreviation, art means something other than artificial.

This does make me wonder about "The Art of War," which came out after the Folio 60. (Does it really mean, "The Artificial of War"?). Inside The Art of War, it claims to have "crushed silk sides," but does it?

As far as whether the materials really matter, I won't speak for others, but hell yes. Among other things, I don't like being lied to. I also don't like the fact that I've been showing off these books to people and telling them that they have silk sides.

And lastly, whether others think it's reasonable or not, I look at a book, look at the price, and try to figure out why the one justifies the other. When it's silk or leather, then there's more value than otherwise. I don't like the idea that I'm making my decisions, at least in part, based on what seems to be purposeful deception.

While the word 'artificial' has not been misleading when describing leather or silk it has been confusing with cloth, as cloth can be made with so many different natural or synthetic fibers. Maybe a better word to convey the meaning more clearly is 'imitation' cloth.

According to the bibliographer the imitation leather was made from plastic or paper, and if you would like to see some pretty cloth imitation leather check out the link in message 105(and the prices). The imitation silk material was not specified, so non-silk. Of what then is imitation cloth made? Well, non-cloth, I guess, if just for the logic of non-leather and non-silk so non-cloth, maybe some kind of imprinted plastic or vinyl.

I realy don't believe that FS has set out to decieve anybody and neither do I believe they have employed "artificial leather". See my post # 123 above.

As far as "art silk" is concerned I believe an earlier post in this thread pointed out that most "silk" described as "silk" was "artificial" and this was acceptable practice.

I realy do not believe that the FS practice deception in the way being imputed to them. I have always found them to be an honourable company.

>146 olepuppy: I don't think the term imitation cloth is helpful either. The implication from that is that it's some other product that is not cloth, imitating cloth. From what I can see, that is not how the term 'artificial' cloth was being used here. It was being used to try and describe a cloth made out of artificial material (not successfully in my view) - but not with the artifice that has been drawn here.

>145 gistak: As for the term art silk - there's no implication of an intention to deceive by the use of this term: art silk is a standard term that's been around since at least the 19th century. OK it's a synonym for artificial silk - rayon I think - but it's a standard term.

> 147

I must add though QS, that the average layperson, not learned in the intricacies of book binding may be easily beguiled into thinking that something is SILK when in fact it is not. Legally there may be no issue, but I believe that the descriptions are questionable and that any company has an ethical duty not to mislead either by stealth or poor communication.

We continually here about ebay vendors misleading by using legal techniques in their wording or lack of it. Just a thought.

Out of idle curiosity, how many would have known that the material employed was "art silk" if Folio 60 had not stated it was?

>150 Django6924: Well, given the prices, I'd have been gobsmacked if it had been natural silk.

I agree that FS should be more accurate in describing the materials used, particularly as they make a point of telling us in the first place. Most publishers are silent on this point for good reason! Like Quicksilver I think these loose descriptions have been commonplace in the "trade" for years, no doubt to its advantage. That said, I've just looked again at my copy of Citizens. The red "art silk" (admitted in the colophon) looks and feels fantastic, and surely Willoyd is correct in saying that natural silk would have cost a lot more. It's also probably less robust.

Does anyone know if the "Indian silk" used in the Tolkien LEs of a few years ago was real or not? To my untrained eye and hand it doesn't look or feel any better (or worse) than the art silk used on Citizens.

My wife is something of a connoisseur in these matters - she proclaimed the Tolkien LE set to be bound in Assam wild silk.

Ok, so "art silk" is an industry term? Ok, I guess I'll let that go.

Unfortunately, I can't remember what the actual marketing material for Citizens said. I thought is said silk (no art). But maybe I misremember.

But tell me this: Is "The Art of War" (selling for 59.95 USD) really silk? Those of you who know how expensive silk is, what do you think? I'm asking seriously, because I'm getting the impression that it can't be silk at that price.

I can say that the book, and the web page, say "crushed silk." No "art."

http://www.foliosociety.com/book/AOW/art-of-war

147: I can't find any post in this thread that says that artificial silk is commonly referred to simply as "silk." Maybe that was somewhere else?

My Folio copy of The Apocrypha says, "Bound by Hunter & Foulis, Edinburgh in quarter leather with moire silk sides." No mention of "art" or "bonded leather". Still, it's a beautiful book with a lovely binding.

On the other hand, my Folio The Gnostic Gospels also states that it is bound in quarter leather but this binding looks and feels like bonded leather or some other artificial leather.

>154 gistak: Why don't you write to them and ask?

I will when I get a few more minutes, but they already say that it's silk. All the material I find says that it is silk. I imagine that the person on the other end of the phone will say it is, too.

What I guess I'm asking is, if FS calls it silk, should that convince me?

A bit of a difference between obfuscating as to what type of silk, and being asked directly.

Have to say, that it doesn't matter a jot to me - I've got several books with silk bindings (eg George Eliot, Bronte collection, Liaisons Dangereuses), and I really enjoy them as they are. Given the fade rate on the Brontes, I reckon there's a good chance they are natural at least.

Given the choice between buying the book for how it's priced (either artificial leather or silk), paying perhaps 2--3 times the price to have genuine leather or silk, or just not getting it at all--what would your choice be?

159: You just reminded me about my "Mill on the Floss." The Web site says "silk," but the book says, "art silk."

160: I don't remember exactly for each of these books. But I might not get the book at all if I thought it was too expensive to not have some kind of special binding. I don't really know.

As I said earlier, a big part of it is feeling misled. And as I also said earlier, I feel as though I've misled people when showing off my books.

I like knowing what the books are made from. It's part of the pleasure for me.

(Sort of like when people write "non-fiction" books that turn out to be fiction. Some people say, "hey, you enjoyed the story, so who cares?" I'm not one of those people.)

I'd pay extra for real leather but not silk (just one person's choice). In any case, I would like to be told so I can make a judgement call. I like all my Folio books and would have bought them in any case but it's nice to know what they're made of and although I don't ever plan to sell my books, it also affects resale value (I don't use book plates for the same reason).

>161 gistak:

Well, gistak, I take it you read Paul Nash's statement. Impressive , eh? His access to the books and their production records and his bibliographical knowledge is not matched by any poster here. The clarity of his statement is a model for others to emulate.

I was awe-struck by the 'silk' bound volumes and snatched them up irregardless of the book's topic, 1st time Wind in the Willows then, wow, Paradise Lost, never looked back, thought I was learning about moire silk and crushed silk, I too showed my friends and warmed in their ooh's and ah's, I believed the society's printed word in prospectus and flyer that never stated the word 'artificial'.

I think you're right on with your questions and I really like that you say "I'm not one of those people". Thanks for your input. Olepup

>148 Willoyd:

Well your reasoning is not convincing to me, I still think that as 'artificial leather' meant fake leather and 'artificial silk' meant fake silk then 'artificial cloth' meant fake cloth.

>152 boldface:

Hey boldface, under 914 Silmarillion 3rd printing 2003 the bibliographer states 'gold Indian silk boards', with the morocco it must be a beaut!

Well your reasoning is not convincing to me, I still think that as 'artificial leather' meant fake leather and 'artificial silk' meant fake silk then 'artificial cloth' meant fake cloth.

Then I go back to my point - what is 'fake' cloth' bearing in mind that it is NOT cloth made from a synthetic fabric (because that would not be fake, as 'real' cloth can be made from synthetic material, unlike leather or silk)?

The almost impossible definition of this is why I think the term was being used to describe cloth made from synthetic material, just as artificial leather and artificial silk are used to describe materials made from synthetic materials. Shorter OED definition no. 1 for artificial: "made from art or artifice; constructed, contrived; not natural (though real)".

I could imagine that "artificial cloth" might be paper embossed with a woven pattern to look like cloth.

> 165 Hm, but what if the paper is 100% rag?

>165 appaloosaman:

Clever, but would be inconsistent for FS, as they would (should) in that case call it simply "paper", the printed pattern being irrelevant to the material, whether a woven trompe l'oeil or a topical photo.

The material description must be just that. Artificial/fake leather is a material which apes the look and feel of leather. Paper with cloth print apes only the look and not the feel, which is more essential to "cloth" (only meaning woven). Therefore "artificial cloth" made of smooth unwoven paper would describe the image but not the material.

The only possibility for "artificial cloth" in this FS materials context remains synthetic woven fibres.

>167 leonb:

Cloth is not necessarily woven, as in for example felt. Therefore the artificial cloth could be woven or not, and made of synthetic fibers.

>168 elmaynard:

My LEC edition of The Explorations of Captain James Cook is bound in boards which are identified as "tapa cloth from Tonga." From my understanding of how this is made, and from the feel and appearance of the material, I would say it is much closer to paper than to linen or buckram. Is it "real" cloth? (It certainly wasn't woven.)

Django: as far as I know, tapa is not woven. It's a very fine sheet made from the bark of a certain tree. This is why it may look as paper. Adjoining "cloth" to "tapa" seems objectionable, except if we take into account what elmaynard states ("Cloth is not necessarily woven, as in for example felt.")

>169 Django6924: re Tapa cloth from Tonga

Django, have you fread this info from wiki:

"In Tonga, tapa is known as ngatu, and here it is of great social importance to the islanders, often being given as gifts. In Samoa, the same cloth is called siapo. In Hawaiʻi, it is known as kapa. In Rotuma, a Polynesian island in the Fiji group, it is called ‘uha and in other Fiji islands it is called masi.

"All these different words give some clue to the origin. Masi could mean the (bark of the) Dye-fig (Ficus tinctoria), endemic to Oceania, and probably the one originally used to make tapa. Somewhere in history, during the voyages of migration the hiapo or siapo was introduced from Southeast Asia, the Paper mulberry tree (Broussonetia papyrifera). The bark of this tree is much better to use, and put the use of the Dye-fig into oblivion."

So, is yours made from the Mulberry tree, or have you been palmed off with the Dye-fig? I think it's time this scandal was exposed.

As I recall from a demonstration at the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii many years ago, tapa cloth is made by pounding the tree bark with wooden mallets, rendering it thin and flexible enough to be made into clothing, among other things. Since it's not actually turned into pulp and suspended in liquid, perhaps you could consider it artificial paper. ;-)

>170 Pepys: and following

Yes, there is a very full description in the accompanying Monthly Letter to the Cook volume that describes in elaborate detail how tapa is made, and from the Broussonetia papyrifera mulberry, not the Morus alba--which is the mulberry preferred by silkworms.

Perhaps this lies at the bottom of the "art silk" mystery: I hypothesize that the silkworms hired by the Folio Society were feed exclusively Broussonetia papyrifera leaves, rather than their preferred Morus alba diet, thus giving their silk that papery texture that we find so objectionable. The question remains whether the FS colluded with this fraud or whether it was a case of the silkworms' managers substituting the less expensive and inferior Broussonetia papyrifera fodder unbeknownst to the Society's purchasing agents or the undiscriminating worms.

This clearly warrants further investigation....

> 173

Clearly if the silkworms managers substituted Broussonetia papyrifera fodder than the FS have a complete statutory defence under the 1804 Silkworm Act. But if the FS knowingly colluded in this heinous deception then the Silkworm Act is quite clear - the Board of Directors of the FS must be publicly defenestrated.

I will raise this issue the next time I am in the Members Room. In the meantime I refuse to but any more FS books.

(Apologies to everyone - I could not resist this parody).

>164 Willoyd: 'the almost impossible definition... ' lemme see, we can make leather from cloth and paper and plastic and maybe recycled anything but with cloth there is only the tried and true method of weaving? From the Middle Ages? Don't think so.

>165 appaloosaman: Yes, an earlier thread gave the example of the Orwell set bound in plasticized paper with the colophon stating 'cambric grained material', which doesn't mean cloth but it does mean the appearance and fine texture of cambric. And embossing would give the third dimension for texture. I can run my fingernail across the Folio artificial cloth bindings in my library and hear and feel the rasp. And hey, why use paper at all, just go straight to plastic.

>167 leonb: Inconsistent? Must? Only? Well, surprise, I'm speechless.

>172 mboudreau: Oh no , I thought we were safe! I never thought that Folio might use ... ARTIFICIAL PAPER!!!!(followed by scream from grade B horror flick)

I hypothesize that in the future more Folio bindings will use paper for the boards instead of 'cloth' or 'silk'.
Olepup

P.S. 100% rag? That would be fine, yes indeedy.

"I hypothesize that in the future more Folio bindings will use paper for the boards instead of 'cloth' or 'silk'"

On a sober note, I have been going through a relative's collection of LEC books from the 40s--60s, and it is sad to see the silk bindings on some of the books badly chewed by moths. Likewise, the linen binding on some of the books, like an 8 volume set of Sherlock Holmes with the original illustrations have similarly been eaten by some insect that obviously was going after the glue or fixative used. The paper labels on the slipcases are likewise devastated, but the pages are as pristine as the day they left the printer.

As an interesting footnote to the "artificial cloth" debate, the oldest book in the collection is the 1941 LEC edition of Bellamy's Looking Backward, which is bound in a canary-yellow synthetic fabric from DuPont, which the Monthly Letter for that issue notes is "washable and vermin proof." True to the claims, the cover looks like new though it was subject to the same poor storage as the other books in the collection. (I have 2 copies of this book myself, and they are also new-looking, so maybe "artificial cloth" might have a place in the making of fine books after all.)

So the FS should start saying "New! Improved cloth!"

All would then be well.

>176 Django6924: You're right, it's one thing to have a lot of good looking 10 year old books, but they will require a lot of care to maintain. I guess linens and silks need Brodart or some such, wouldn't enclosed and sealed bookcases be nice? I'm not the most organized person, and I have found it much easier to build a library than to maintain it. And to regularly inspect a coupla thousand books, well, a labor of love.

I've been looking for info on artificial or alternative materials, found an Indian co that makes rolls of plastic coated cloth as compared to traditional cloth attached to a backing. Some info on non-traditional buckram claims more dust, liquid and pest resistance, that's a plus.

I believe that if a company chooses to be considered a fine press then it should not go halfway on descriptions, that can be so very misleading and suspicious, especially when paying larger prices. State the brand name of the materials since many bibliophiles enjoy that. Many posters here like the various papers used and their qualities and they are always identified. The recently mentioned GB Shaw book on FPBA thread ID'd the spine label material and the binding cloth and it was interesting to learn about them online. Didn't ID the laid paper, tho, will have to e-mail Mr. Bornstein to find out.

>175 olepuppy: Yes, I obviously went too far: 'real' cloth is either woven or felted fabric, and therefore one can have a material (even a fabric) that is made to look like it's gone through those processes, but hasn't. Misunderstood/misread the definition.

It didn't need an attempt at ridicule to make that point.

Had a look at those I've got that are listed with using artificial cloth. Without cutting the books up can't tell, and personally am not sufficiently bothered to do so.

>176 Django6924:

Sounds like some silverfish had themselves a feast on the Sherlock Holmes set. To my knowledge, silverfish are the most common glue-eaters around; they like the starches commonly used in adhesives.

Subsequent comments and a brief consultation with Dr Google have convinced me that I spoke too confidently and apparently erroneously in 167.

Cloth it seems need not be woven - felting also qualifies. As any thread works, and as cloth can be stitched or pressed together, it seems to exclude very little that's soft and practical for binding books (for example, sections of material spontaneously or naturally whole, such as leather strips). Paper can be made by compression, so that might rightly be called cloth too.

Difficult to criticize as inaccurate the use of a term so frustratingly diffuse - unless perhaps for its vagueness?

>180 beatlemoon: Interesting info, thanks beatlemoon, I didn't know what part of the book silverfish ate. I shall investigate to see if they also feed upon the starch or size filler used in traditional buckram.

>181 leonb: Always appreciate your comments, leonb, even the ones that are beyond my humble knowledge. While there can be difficulty knowing what material or even variety of materials the artificial cloth used by Folio was, the two main points are that:1) the bindings were advertised/colophoned as cloth when they were not, and 2) cloth bindings were more commonly used and the artificial cloth usage ballooned 2004-2006.

Because of proven repeated deception in binding material advertisement/colophons over many years it is perfectly reasonable to question the binding materials used 2007-2010, the binding materials used this year, and the binding materials used in the future.

Because of proven repeated deception in binding material advertisement/colophons over many years it is perfectly reasonable to question all the materials and info specified in such advertisements/colophons, before, now, and in the future.

olepup

Because of proven repeated deception

No it hasn't been. I'm not saying there hasn't been, but it is not proven.

I could imagine that "artificial cloth" might be paper embossed with a woven pattern to look like cloth. :)

Olepuppy and few others are clearly a lot more bugged about this than others. Personally I'm not too fussed. It seems to me that the proper course would be for you to make a formal complaint to the local Trading Standards Office. As a non-UK resident you cannot (officially at least) complain directly to one of our TSOs but I assume your state has an equivalent consumer protection office. If it sees merit in your complaint then it can take the matter up with Camden TSO which covers 44 Eagle Street. There is international cooperation between TSOs especially where international trade is concerned.

Alternatively if you can find a UK resident who shares your concerns to the same degree then they could make a complaint to their own local TSO and report back what happens.

>182 olepuppy:

You're welcome! The Wikipedia article has decent information on them, including more details on the substances they like to eat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverfish

> 186 Well, thank you again, beatlemoon, for offering the link and more facts about silverfish, their diet certainly includes buckram normally and just about anything when they're famished. I had to laugh at the description of their love life, remembered a similar relationship, massive evolution from silverfish to humans. ;)

183: I guess that one either believes that Paul Nash is right or not.

If you think he is right, then the Folio Society has referred to fake leather and fake silk as real leather and real silk several times.

Whether this was purposeful deceit or repeated mistake doesn't change the point that it's reasonable to question the materials.

Even if you don't believe that Nash is right, they've referred to some binding as silk that probably isn't silk. So again, whether purposeful deception or something else, it's reasonable to question the materials.

IF you care about the materials.

185: For me, the proper course is to discuss it here on this forum.

Then possibly to ask FS about it. Then, depending on their answer, possibly to complain to them about it.

>185 appaloosaman: If Appaloosaman's opening statement translates to a good amount of people are more disappointed and irate and feeling betrayed about the 'discrepancies' than others, well then I agree.

What happened to you, sir, seriously? In post 57 you were loaded for bear, you said 'Watch this space!', I responded in a somewhat corny fashion that I looked forward to 'the return of the horseman'(made me think of Theoden) and then very little for 5 months and now you're 'not too fussed'.

Thank you for the other info.

>188 gistak: "purposeful deceit or repeated mistake doesn't change the point that it's reasonable to question the materials."

Yes, that's a solid observation

olepup

>190 olepuppy:

I'm a lawyer - the fact that I'm willing to assist people doesn't mean that I have the same problem. I don't think you will find anything in my post at >57 appaloosaman: that suggest *I* was fussed by it.

There are trade and industry guides that TSOs refer to for guidance. I was shown the relevant one. Products that are tanned animal, bird l or fish skins are "leather"; split skins ("skiver") are "leather"; skins or skiver bonded to paper, cloth, or board can be described as "leather", skins or skiver that have been treated with surface or backing dressings (often vinyl or some such plastic) can be described as "leather"; skins or skiver from one source that have been embossed to look as though they come from another source can be described as "leather" but cowhide embossed to look like alligator hide cannot be described as "alligator leather or hide" but can be described as "leather" or "real leather".

The only one where there was some lack of clear authority was "reconstituted leather" where leather granules or powder are bonded with glue or plastics to make a uniform product. This is done for ease of handling in automated manufacture and to ensure uniformity of thickness. They can be extraordinarily convincing in appearance. One guide included them as "leather", another in a separate category of "reconstituted leather". My former TSO said in his personal view, the description "reconstituted leather" was the more desirable for this product and that any description such as "real leather" rather than "leather" would probably be held misleading.

Finally, I'm not sure how widely shared this preoccupation with exact descriptions is. This group has more than 500 members but only a small proportion post regularly on this issue - and some, like me, post on the topic but are not vexed by the issue. The remedy, olepuppy, is in your hands. If you really do have a burning sense of injustice, do something about it.

>191 appaloosaman: Sorry to be so long to respond, Appaloosaman, had to take my time with this.

I asked for assistance in post #61 and you did not respond, I hoped you would but was not surprised you did not because you seemed 'loaded for bear' about the problem more as a legal conundrum and less as a legal, ethical or moral issue.

Thank you for all the better late than never leather info, which still does not address Paul Nash's statement about examining the materials and production records and finding evidence of paper and plastic substitutes.

Whatever measures I may take in this matter will not be at the behest of someone who earlier chose not to help me when I really needed help. Surely I will speak to family and friends, people with whom I share the most trust.

Has anybody shown their family this thread? Has anyone shown their spouse, the kids, and what did they think? Has anyone gone to their best mate and said," Read this and tell me what you think"?
I have.

I recognize now more then ever that there could only be one tougher house to play to on this thread, and that would be Completely Loyal Folio Society Employees.

That being said, I very much appreciate the several statements supporting the need for Folio truth in advertising. I think there were more in agreement, regular posters who disappeared in March and July who may have simply said 'I'm outta here' due to the evidence of deception in binding materials and incredulity at some of the pro-society responses by loyal members. I could wish they had stayed and spoken.

And I'm especially glad that The Folio Society has seen the discussion here and read the questions sent by concerned members and have answered by giving us more reliably described books, with more paper and real cloth bindings( and I depend upon this by posters' descriptions and the magazine pictures) for the 2011 season.

So this was the materials debate if anyone is interested.

Post#23 from the author of Folio 60 & Folio 50 is a statement of which devotees should be aware.

I had to delete some off color diatribe when I got too fired up, ended up deleting some good stuff too.

The whole thing is pretty good read, to get an idea of the atmosphere of the times and the opposing sides, nice to have some space from it now. I was worn out by the arguments and had to stop and regroup a coupla times, which helped me actually, what I saw in September I could not see in May.

I'll just throw out that the 'silk bound' books are regularly posted by the opposing side as if the artificial silk does not fade. The green spines for WITW and The Nile set have faded, I can't wait for the Nile to progress from pea soup to beige. Mistress Masham's Repose, Lady of Shallot, the Marvell mini, faded. Apparently certain colors fade more readily. The only sure silk books I have are the eight Fine Editions from 1988-89 and their colors are solid and deep, but Paul Nash says it is expensive to dye silk properly, and I believe these slender volumes cost twice as much as regular Folio volumes then. I hope the big and lovely Milton and Dantes etc hold up. Has the Society published any silk since Walden?

Well, I was just about to split from the forum, being tired of QS and that crew who put the Society before its members. But a spark of light in a dark wood, folio1959-This must be a British lawyer!- and the strong return of LesMis have encouraged me to remain an active contributor, so thank you, ma'am, and thank you, mister.

I would love to hear some new opinions about the Paul Nash statement on post 23. Do we not have several librarians here in devotees, any opinions? I'm especially interested to hear ideas about what the actions described in the past signify for members today.

Of course, had I heard a response to my e-mails and phone call from last year about the artificial leathers and silks I would have informed you, but alas....I'm curious, did anyone else ask? any responses? Anybody take their books to an appraiser for a professional opinion? Find out the difference in prices for artificial and real leathers and silks?

Thanks then, olepup.

194> This has indeed been a most interesting thread. I had not the degree of contributing as others had, given as I was, to the task of discussing the regional price discriminations that remain to this day.

The above post > 23 was illuminating. There have been many occasions when I have felt beguiled in one way or another with my economic associations with a particular party.

Nevertheless, that pales in comparison, to the affront that many would have felt, given the exorbitant sums they have been asked to part with for goods which have been described in a manner, less than accurately.

The founder of the Society, I fear, would be spinning in his grave, with the knowledge of what path the FS has decided to venture down.

195 Your timely contribution was much appreciated. Yes, I remember your hands were full elsewhere.

I thought that once Paul Nash posted an open discussion of individual books might happen, but most responses were defensive and latched onto one of Mr. Nash's minor points, that the totality of the production was important, and disregarded his primary thoughts about the artificial leather and silk.

Well, I was affronted, and some others a bit, I guess I'm still surprised many others would not post on the subject. Some of my research and experimentation with materials was most intesesting and I would have liked to have heard from other devotees and would still like to, especially with the artificial cloths. I understand that many devotees defend the Society tho a few of the arguments-e.g. artificial silk is a type of silk-just don't make any sense.

Most of all, I have wished to hear from Folio in response to my queries.

> 195

The founder of the FS would be amazed and proud of the success of the FS. He would have every reason to be.

> 197

I'm sure Ede would be alarmed reading post > 23. and so we shall agree to disagree. I have no intention of conferring on the matter with you.

> 198

I am sure Ede would have been alarmed if he believed the FS had acted unlawfully. As discussed many times before, I don't believe that the FS have acted unlawfully. See my post 123 above.

The world is a better place for the FS. I support their work. There is tremendous pride and dedication at the Society for the work they do. I have spoken with employees and editors many times in the Members Room. They are very honourable.

You may have no intention of confering with me but nonetheless, I reserve the right as a member of this Forum to respond to your posts.

To save Devotees scrolling up, here is what I said at 123 above -

I have now asked in the Members Room where I spoke with the two knowledgable gentlemen who usually staff the room.

They told me that the FS take great care to be accurate in their descriptions. If something is described as leather then that is what it is otherewise they acknowledged that the FS would be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act. However, there are different grades of leather.

In relation to the Myths and Legends series the first gentleman thought that "artificial leather" could mean bonded leather - this is still regarded as leather but is the lowest grade. However, the second gentleman produced a copy of Folio's Domesday Book (never seen this title before) which was quarter bound in bonded leather - but it said on the description page "bonded leather" and not "leather". It also felt different to the leather used in Myths - more plasticky, like vinyl, and not as nice to the touch.

He was adamant that Folio would never describe something as leather that was not leather. We had a look at a the Celtic Myths and Legends and said it looked and felt like leather to him (not artificial leather which is otherwise known as vinyl). However, the leather used on these volumes was not the very best grade otherwise the volumes would cost more. Higher grade leaather was used, for instance, on the Lives of the Later Caesars and on the LE volumes.

Querying why Paul Nash would describe these books as bound in artificial leather the first gentleman considered it likely that Mr Nash was mistaken. Folio experiment with different materials when designing a book and sometimes produce "dummy" or mock up editions. Mr Nash may have seen some of these materials and not those used in the final product whilst going through Folios records. Folio are not the most efficient organisation and I can well imagine that their records are not always straight.

We are no closer to a definitive answer and there are many hypotheses in the above. I return to my starting point which is that I still take great pleasure in my Myths and Legends books. Indeed, I bought one today - Celtic Myths and Legends. The series is ongoing as well, and they told me that the next title will be Irish Myths and Legends.

> 196

I'm sure you won't here from the FS. They have selective hearing :-)

> 200

If you approach the FS in the right way and in the right spirit then I am sure that you will hear from them.

Others will correct me if I am wrong, but I think most people on this board that have contacted the FS on one issue or another have heard back from them. It depends how you approach them and the spirit in which you do it. The people at the FS are only human - if you put their backs up, dispay irritation or agression, you will not get the response you want. I have learnt this myself over the past few weeks.

If I remember, the Managing Director of the FS wrote to you on the costs issue (where he politely disagreed with you). One of the most senior people in the FS and he had the courtesy to respond. I know you did not like what he said to you, but he did not have to respond.

202

I've contacted Folio many times over the years, by phone and e-mail, about arrival times , damaged shipments, placing orders, etc. with pleasantness on both sides.

When I emailed them twice at the beginning of this thread they confirmed the receipt of each one, said I would receive an answer, and my communications politely asked about the descriptions in Folio 60 for Myths and Legends. These are the only 2 of my e-mails the Society have not answered.

The membership secretary with whom I spoke later in the summer sounded aghast when I politely asked about the artificial leather and silk from the Folio bibliography and she assured me that the production department would get back to me, but I heard from no one.

So there's 3 communications about art materials with no replies. We have always been polite with each other.

I appreciate your effort with the Members Room gentlemen, especially as it is the only instance of a response by Folio, tho only about the leather and not from the production department and not using production records. Sadly, your effort and mine are the only ones offered here at devotees.

> 202

I reckon that is evidence enough to satisfy anyone (well almost)

> 202

I appreciate your response and understand your frustration.

> 203

A staggering and highly erroneous leap in logic.

The failure of the Production Director to respond is not evidence that artificial leather has been used in lieu of real leather. Neither is it evidence of wilful failure to communicate. The message might not have got through, he was busy and forgot, he does not usually deal with the public......

Lets look at some other evidence.

Celtic Myths and Legends was one of the volumes described as being bound in "artificial leather". My copy says "real leather". When I touch it, feel it, smell it, I am convinced that it is real leather. It is very easy to tell the difference between bonded leather (the cheapest leather grade), artificial leather (vinyl) and real leather. My senses tell me this is real leather.

Lets also look at this profile of the FS and it's Production Director which talks of his committment to the best in design and materials -

http://www.graphicrepro.co.za/assets/2/pdf/44-Folio.pdf

Lets also look at the Trade Descriptions Act and it's serious penalties. Believe me, a reputable company like the FS with a great name and reputation to protect would not risk all that to lie to its customers to save a few pennies on leather. The potential losses would be far greater.

Look at this quote from the FS on the website of Lachenmaier (one of their most frequently used binders) -

"There is no supplier who can better match the high quality standards set by our publishing company. No matter how complicated the product is that we are developing, Lachenmaier accepts the challenge and wins us over every time thanks to their outstanding quality and adherence to schedules."

Here is the web page link if you want to look for yourself -

http://www.lachenmaier.de/en/main/about-us/customer-testimonials.html

This does not sound like a company that would pull the wool over the eyes of its customers, jeopardising it's hard won name and reputation, risking a criminal prosecution, all to save a few quid.

Lets also look at this web page on the Lachenmaier site -

http://www.lachenmaier.de/en/main/products/for-publishing-companies-and-printing...

Note how they refer to the FS as "one of the world's most sophisticated and demanding publishing companies".

None of this tallies with your perception of a dishonourable or crooked company or one that would deliberately use shoddy materials and describe them as something else. This does not sound like a company that would deliberately hoodwink it's customers by using vinyl instead of real leather.

Olepuppy and other Devotees were right to raise the issue given the entries in Folio 50. The overwhelming evidence points to this being an error or misunderstanding when Folio 50 was compiled.

> 204

The message might not have got through, he was busy and forgot, he does not usually deal with the public......

And fairies are dancing at the bottom of the garden.

Thanks for that reply. I forgot how funny this forum could be.

204

QS, thanks for posting, tho I disagree with most everything you've written here.

Last things first, I believe Folio 50 and Folio 60 because:

1) The bibliographies were produced by the Society itself. While it would be possible to find the odd error, the list of books from post 142 is too large to indicate random errors overlooked by Folio editors,
2)Folio 50 has introductory articles by Folio's Charles Ede and Sue Bradbury, who I believe read the bibliography and would have straightened out any serious faults,
3)The points of Paul Nash's very specific post have not been challenged, especially with the silks. I respect your effort with the Members Room fellows about the leather but Nash's massive work as the Folio 50 and 60 bibliographer , and being the honorary librarian for 14 years, have afforded him the opportunity for learning a more complete knowledge of the materials.

Testimonials are an appreciation of well done things, but they do not offer any proof against mistakes or poor decisions otherwise. Everybody posting here at devotees has testified for Folio, rightfully so, but those affirmations do not preclude the possibility of instances of incorrect decision making by Folio.

A few pennies, a few quid- using the prices from Hollanders at post 105 their prices for their artificial, cow, and goat leathers are respectively $2.70, 7, and 18 per square foot. I'm sure there are other ranges of prices per company and by retail/wholesale and by quality of the leathers. The quarter binding for Myths is a tad shy of .5 square foot, so cut the above prices in half and multiply by 5-10 thousand copies, seems like significant diifferences in cost for production.

I have 9 of the Myths series, lovely books all, starting with Icelandic Sagas I, which has a good leather smell, which seems odd as it is the oldest. The others have little or no smell any more and I'm surprised with Russia and Rome as they are most recent. Plus the leather I excised from Russia had a whitish stretchy material most unleatherlike. I have to wonder if at times Folio just simply chose to use whatever type of leather it felt like using, for whatever aesthetic/economical reason. Paul Nash mentions the downgrading of binding materials as something which occurred, I wonder if at times Folio chose to upgrade materials too. My German bound History of Western Philosophy, 1st printing 2004, is a full goatskin binding, just about a square foot of hide, smells/looks/feels great, is almost identical in size and materials to the LE War and Peace. I wonder if later printings used the same type of leather.

My copy of Celtic Myths(1st) has 'quarter bound in leather' on the copyright page with no mention of 'real', is your description in the same place, QS?

Of course messages can be misplaced et cetera et cetera et cetera, the cumulative point is 3 verified as received with an answer forthcoming messages unanswered. I did receive a polite chiding from Mr Whitlock Blundell in a letter years ago when I sent an unsigned check in payment for books, of course I immediately returned the signed check in a Folio free airmail envelope I had saved.

Anyway, the ball has been in Folio's court and they have not returned. Think of all the trouble coulda been saved by the return of a message.

> 206

That sounds as comprehensive as one could ever be olepuppy. I don't think you can defend yourself without losing credibility, therefore remaining silent has and continues to be their only way to avoid being held to account.

> 206

Interesting and valid points olepuppy.

Without an official contribution from Folio it seems none of us are going to be any the wiser. The closest we have to an official FS comment on the issue are the remarks I received in the members room, but I appreciate that is not an official statement from the Directors of Folio.

I note the reference in another thread to Mr Nash no longer being the Society's Librarian. This may have no significance or bearing on this issue at all but if he did make errors and unwarranted assumptions in Folio 60, this might explain why he no longer fulfills that function. I really don't want to cast aspersions on Mr Nash as I am sure he has done a very good job for Folio down the years. Also, I am speculating and I don't know the truth. I would be very happy for Mr Nash to come on board here and comment or contradict me.

An official response from FS would help put this issue to rest one way or another.

Thanks, guys, you have a higher responsiveness rating than Folio on this topic- say, do you have sales on your books at The LesMiserables Society or The Quicksilver Society?

207

My only choice is to continue to post about materials as I acquire new Folio editions and research my older copies, LesMis. It would be interesting to take a load of books to an expert or two and get some professional opinions.

208

Interesting too about speculation, yours seems to represent your side of the subject, QS, while my speculation about Mr Nash moving on from Folio involves his unwelcome dedication to the unvarnished truth. We may be idiotic in our guesses and we may be rather rude to state them publicly. And it would be great for Mr Nash to comment on artificial cloth and buckram too.