Preferred Editions

Forgive me if this topic has been discussed in the past, but I was curious to know among the Folio Society group if there were particular books in which an older edition was preferable over the newer, usually more colorful, issues.

The one volume leather Greek myths has colour used in the illustrations which make a big difference compared to the more recent two volume edition having black and white pictures only.

Also if you are a fan of the current lord of the rings edition you might want to find an older edition printed at the bath press which has been produced to a higher standard of quality compared to the current one printed at the c and c press which has presented many issues of late.

I also like the older editions of the LotR. I think there are at least two - quarter bound in grey leather, which are the earliest ones I believe from 1977. And another one from the 90s, with a faux vellum paper binding.

I quite dislike the current ones, and as much as they are perhaps my favourite novels, I would never desire to own them in their current incarnation.

As an aside, is faux vellum the correct terminology? I dislike calling it vellum because vellum is a kind of leather. If it’s made to look that way, to me it deserves the word faux in front of it.

And not quite what you asked, but it seems the newer edition Ulysses is preferred to the older LE.

Without being able to investigate and name specific examples (it's nearly 2:00 am here & I need to go to bed!) the older editions might be preferable for a few reasons:

- They tend to be smaller and may be more comfortable to read;
- More likely to be letterpress - that might aid reading if it's a nice crisp printing job. On the other hand, point size (size of the type used) tends to be smaller, I believe.
- Covers and internal illustrations may be a bit "calmer"/ more traditional.
- Internal illustrations may be printed by methods that are no longer available, such as the lithographs produced from "Plastocowell", or the etchings in the 1969 edition of Virgil's Georgics "printed directly from the original plates by a Hungarian firm of security printers" (quoting Folio 50).
- Unusual binding materials, such as the first FS edition of The Riddle of the Sands advertised as bound in genuine Egyptian sailcloth.
- I have a sense that there is less variety in the types of paper commercially available to book publishers than there was in the past (although not, I imagine, in the very early days of the Society just after WWII!)

>3 U_238: "...because vellum is a kind of leather."

When was the last time vellum was \predominantly\ made from animal sources? I've never seen vellum sold that was made from anything but plant material before. I'm wondering if the terminology has changed simply due to the change in materials over time.

>5 treereader:

Is my memory playing up again, or did the FS some time back show stages in the process of making vellum, involving skin stretched on drying frames?

In the '20s and '30s - I only go back there so readily because my interest wanes after WWII - artificial vellum was already widely used, often I think without being described as such, but the real thing was also distinctly current for limited and special editions, for bindings and occasionally in very small editions for the pages of a book. It tends to discolour in a characteristic way with the years, also to shrink a little, hence outwardly warping boards are common with vellum bindings from a century ago.

I've a few older books in vellum - A.E. Coppard limited editions, Gray's Poems printed by the Medici Society on behalf of Eton College, The Roadmender again from the Medici Society, and in quarter vellum Restif de la Bretonne's Monsieur Nicolas in six volumes published by John Rodker in 1930. Most recent on my shelves is the 1987 LEC edition of Rilke's Malte Laurids Brigge, again in full vellum and, unlike the others, close to pristine in appearance.

EDIT: I think I must be remembering the now deleted promotional video for the de Brailes' Leaves from a Psalter facsimile, which was printed on true vellum.

>3 U_238: As an aside, is faux vellum the correct terminology?
In the colophon for that edition of LotR, they describe it as bound in Elephant Hide.

>7 Chemren:

In later years for Folio productions generally they changed the term "Elephant Hide" to "Vegetable Parchment".

>6 terebinth:

Do you have a Letter or whatever with your Rilke, Paul? I have a pristine copy also, but no detail of the production beyond the rather limited colophon. The leather is very finely textured, and a pleasure to hold.

Entirely by the way, the paper of this book bears the Magnani watermark very clearly, as does the LEC Dubliners I was reading last night; both books have much thicker paper than the two sets of Folio Press fine editions with Magnani paper being discussed elsewhere.

>6 terebinth:
See https://www.librarything.com/topic/317151

>9 affle:

Nothing with my copy. I've only a modest shelf of LEC books, plus their Shakespeare, so am no expert, but I suspect Malte Laurids Brigge was issued without a Monthly Letter: there are eleven copies currently on ABE and none of them is claimed to include one.

The Gulliver's Travels LE was quarter-bound in vellum, as I imagine were the others in that series not owned by me. They were done by the Fine Book Bindery which used to have production videos on its site, but they've gone since FS deleted theirs.

>1 Zaninovich: Good thread topic, thanks! There are lots of early edition personal preferences I can think of off the top of my head: the original M. R. James Ghost Stories, not only the perfect reading size but carrying far more creative and evocative illustrations (by Charles Keeping) than the two more recent editions; the 1953 edition of The Young King and other Stories of Oscar Wilde, with again exquisite illustrations, letterpress printing and the perfect size (and gorgeous dustjacket if you can find it), easily surpasses the current Selfish Giant and other stories; the 1975 Jane Austen set of seven novels published in quarter bound grey cloth over boards differently coloured for each work, and with the charming wood engravings of Joan Hassell (later re-printings cut costs using the same colour boards for all volumes) are surely far more 'Jane Austen' than the bigger glossier editions now on offer; the 1970s Folio Dickens' series has the best Dickens illustrations I've ever seen anywhere; the early quarter leather 7" tall poetry editions I find much more charming with their letterpress and finer paper than the huge 'Folio Poets' tomes produced after 2000; the 1977 Brave New World edition stands head and shoulders above the comparatively anodyne 2013 edition, with its silver foil binding and sans serif font (but too creatively boundary pushing for some and hence a definite 'marmite' edition among FS Devotees); and so many more...

In general, Folio has gone for bigger/brighter/brasher in recent years, so preference for recent vs. older editions will depend largely on one's personal taste for size and feeling for colour/need for sunglasses. Sometimes bigger and brighter has worked well, e.g. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Dune, Cthulhu (a gorgeously bound and illustrated edition if you can tolerate the text) but for me brighter, brasher bindings don't work so well outside the realm of Fantasy and SciFi. For example the eye-pricking purple of the latest Great Gatsby edition I find just too garish, though it's a great reading size. The bindings of the previous two editions were far more attractive and apt I think, particularly of the first edition, but the illustrations of both earlier editions are painfully bad. After acquiring and quickly ridding myself of all three FS editions of The Great Gatsby, I went for the LEC offering instead!

(edited to thank the right person for beginning the thread)

I might be mistaking the LOTR 70's edition with the Arabian Nights of around that time; I believe those were the ones described as being bound in vellum. Apologies for the confusion.

And as another mentioned, actual vellum is still used sparingly in modern bindings, e.g. the series of about five or so FS LEs, including The Wind in the Willows, Alice, Rubaiyat, and a couple others. As well, the Lettered edition of Lyra's Press Stardust is a full vellum binding. So I do feel it's useful to make that distinction, but I imagine the price be indicative of whether it's real or faux vellum.

>13 cronshaw: Thank you for your list, gives me much to research this evening.

>6 terebinth:

I'm not sure. My only exposure to vellum (of any sort) came from obligatory coursework in drafting. It's possible I own a book or two with non-skin vellum, certainly none from the original skin-made vellum, but I wouldn't know which they were. Frankly, I was surprised to read that vellum could be or once was or may still be made from skin - I had to look it up earlier. This is why I hang around - there's always something new to learn!

I've been wanting to start this thread for a while - thanks!

I really love the maroon Dickens editions (Nonesuch reproductions?), much more than the most recent ones. I understand there's a divide of tastes between the maroon ones (Q bound leather) and the white edition that preceded it - given different illustrations especially. I only have about half of them, but they are wonderful. Very 'old school' in their vibe, but quality through and through.

I also much prefer the incomplete Austen series from early 2000s. I know the artist was dissatisfied with his work for these, but I always loved their delicacy, femininity and colour. They are also a great size to read from, and just very homely.

My father has a copy of one of the earliest Folio editions of The Hobbit, which I read as a kid in the mid 80s. Still prefer that edition over my own, which was the more recent red Folio edition. I bought this in early 2000s as well. I still really like it, but the older edition seems to have a style and feel that really suits the content. (It has the labyrinth icon on the spine and front, I recall...). It'll be interesting to see how it has held up in recent years, amongst the mountains of dust.

I don't have a single volume from Dickens III (the maroon leather Nonesuch facsimile set) but I'm fairly sure it would be my favourite Folio Dickens set too: I do have Bleak House in the ill-fated (quality allegedly fell, and never completed) Duckworth Nonesuch facsimile. If I were a more committed Dickensian I would have gathered the Folio set long before now, as it is I content myself with my next favourite Folio edition, Dickens I (green cloth spines), but may possibly bite if a bargain set of III appears before me.

There are plenty of instances where later editions of a Folio title have been quietly downgraded in material terms, often in dropping leather bindings, which will generally make first printings preferable except to folk who would rather avoid leather. Outside of that and for thorough re-workings of a book or author it's all a matter of taste and there's hardly an instance where a definitive verdict can be given. I'm with >13 cronshaw: for instance in liking the modest old Folio poetry volumes and having no use (well, >13 cronshaw: may have some use, but I don't) for the more recent series - Oxford volumes (English Texts / Standard Authors) serve me perfectly well in general. I seem to be in quite a small camp in having the current Folio Tolkien set among my favourite regular Folio editions for its general presentation, but the actual current offering seems plagued by quality issues which don't affect my twenty year old Bath Press volumes. The 2007 M.R.James Collected Ghost Stories is another book I like very much, hence or otherwise I've not been moved to acquire the earlier or later M.R.James volumes which memory tells me are more slender selections.

>16 Jeremy53:

I completely agree with regard to the Austen series. The illustrations fit perfectly. It's a real pity this wasn't completed. There was an edition of Sense and sensibility with the same illustrator, but by another publisher, and that was it.

>18 SF-72: Who was the illustrator? Was it the ones illustrated by Niroot P.?

>19 U_238:

Exactly. I'd hoped they'd be continued by that other publisher, Palazzo Editions, but Sense and Sensibility sold so poorly that they gave up their plan to keep going with the publications of Austen's novels. The quality of the book as such wasn't up to FS, but it was nice and the illustrations were beautiful.

>16 Jeremy53: your comment prompted me to go search out the early Hobbit edition to see what the labyrinth icon looks like, and it appears that this edition was bound in "art" leather, which I think means artificial leather (plastic/synthetic something). For those more knowledgeable, does that seem accurate? If so, that is a shame, because the design has a certain charm.

>20 SF-72: I am also a big fan of that Folio run of Austen’s. They are such a lovely read design and illustration wise. Again it was such a pity the rest were never done in that series.

>20 SF-72: Thank you. We’re there many in the series, and are they all sold out? Sorry to ask such a basic question, but it seems they publish Austen as much as Dickens, and I find it all confusing.

I am a huge fan of NP’s artwork.

>21 abysswalker: I am looking to acquire a set of the quarter bound leather set of the LotR, is there a matching Hobbit to go with it? I’ve seen one in a quarter or half burgundy leather binding along with the labyrinth icon, but don’t recall a cream/light grey binding.

>21 abysswalker: No, not art leather; I'm afraid many goats were sacrificed on the altar of genre fiction. >23 U_238: The Hobbit does match in that it has the same design, but in a dark red quarter leather to distinguish it from the trilogy, which I think is appropriate given that it is very much a children's book and distinct in tone (in spite of Peter Jackson's best efforts!).

>23 U_238:

Folio Society published the following titles with illustrations by Niroot Puttapipat in 2006 and 2007: Persuasion, Emma, Pride and Prejudice. You can see some photos here: https://austenprose.com/2009/03/10/jane-austen-illustrators-niroot-puttapipat/

Palazzo Editions also published Sense and Sensibility in 2012, not FS quality, but a very nice edition in my opinion.

All the books are sold out, but you can find them on the secondary market, though it can sometimes be a bit difficult. Sometimes it's best to search by year and publisher for the FS titles, not by illustrator. And yes, I also enjoy Puttapipat's illustrations very much and bought all the FS editions with those.

That’s interesting about the earlier Hobbit edition being Q bound in fake/art leather. I haven’t seen it for a while, but it rings a bell. Of course my 13 year old self wouldn’t have noticed!

I really like the illustrations in it too. Were they commissioned by Folio? And different to the current edition, I remember. There was a particularly scary one with one of the big spiders. Did Tolkien’s original edition have illustrations? I would imagine not...

Yes, the incomplete Austen set is a really nice reading edition. But I can appreciate that its overall quality wasn’t quite up to scratch. It will be interesting to see how it holds up over the years. So far, so good, although I’m not a regular re-reader. P&P I’ve read twice, and could imagine reading a couple more times - but there’s so much on my TBR pile. I set myself a ‘dusty bookshelf’ challenge to read all my unread books over the next few years - that’s around 200 books, presuming I don’t add to that tally!

While this thread is about preferred editions, I admit that I also have a few Folios that are a bit underwhelming - a common reaction to these particular editions - but in some cases, I actually like them too, as the overall binding quality of Folio makes them a pleasure anyway.

I’m thinking of the Evelyn Waugh trilogy (Sword of Honour): yes, somewhat drab, and illustrations are just ok, but they’re nice on the hand (textural).

Also the infamous Wodehouse psychedelic sets. Not my fave and a bit garish, but kind of cool regardless. And again, nice reading copies. I’m starting to realize this is important to me...

Ok, as an addition, I mentioned this thread to my wife - and my affection for the Austen editions - and to my surprise, she was never much of a fan of them! “A bit brown and not pretty enough.” And was a bit ‘meh’ about the illustrations too!

Well I’ll be...

Then she said she would really like a nice set of Austen...but I don’t think the current Folio is quite right either.

>24 red_guy: I just checked the pdf of the 1979 prospectus linked on the wiki, and it says “art leather” as well. Do you have some reason or experience suggesting the prospectus is incorrect?

>28 abysswalker:

I haven't seen the books, but Folio 60 refers to a 1976 Folio publication in quarter brown leather with brown canvas boards, using sheets from George Allen & Unwin's "De Luxe Edition", and the 1979 Folio Hobbit in quarter dark red leather with dark red cloth boards, reprinted in 1980: no mention of artificiality there. Could I suppose be a bonded leather though.

>29 terebinth:

I have the 1976 Deluxe edition, as described. I'm no expert on leather but IMO, whatever it is, isn't art leather. Bonded, possibly.

>29 terebinth:, >28 abysswalker:, >30 folio_books: I was going by Folio 60 as well, but having fished my copy down from a high shelf - I stand corrected. No goats were harmed in the making of this book. Unlike LOTR which is definitely leather, it has a slight canvas texture when examined through a loupe. And as the last page says 'In Quarter Art Leather with Scholco Amoline cloth sides' that seems pretty conclusive. It is from 1979, but is a standard non-deluxe book in series with the earlier LOTR.

On the other hand, the trilogy says 'In Quarter Basil with Scholco Coloreta cloth sides' ... Google says Basil is a sort of bookbinding canvas, but this really is leather, and is beginning to wear in that typical leathery way. Maybe the goat was called Basil?

>31 red_guy:

Hmm, I've come up with an alternative account of basil as used in the book trade, https://www.ligatus.org.uk/lob/concept/2828 : "Smooth, thin vegetable-tanned sheepskin, usually tanned with oak bark and grained in imitation of other leathers, softer than roan, and popular for inexpensive bookbindings". That might fit your description, particularly as you mention the deterioration: sheepskin bindings do tend to be less durable than goat. I'd not be surprised if Folio made considerable use of sheepskin in their quarter-leather bindings from the early decades, the original small Folio poets series for instance doesn't in my limited experience age very well.

>32 terebinth: That of course makes so much sense. Considering my LOTR is 44 years old, it is still in very good condition, and it is only when looking closely that you can see the leather beginning to show signs of age.

However, given that we are all so obsessed with sewn bindings, slipcases etc., I do have grave doubts about a lot of Folio's binding choices - all those photographic printed paper sides and paper-covered spines that already show creases, heavily painted cloth that scrapes off with the slightest abrasion. Longevity should be more a priority than looking good in a brochure.

>33 red_guy: Longevity should be more a priority than looking good in a brochure.

That's why I love their buckram-clad books -- they may not look as exciting (although some do) but I suspect that they will survive unscathed a lot of handling.

>27 Jeremy53: A bit off-topic, but my approach to getting together a nice set of Jane Austen books has been to not get them all from the same publisher. I have the Arion Sense & Sensibility, the EP fascimile of the peacock feather Pride & Prejudice, the LEC Persuasion, and still searching out copies I definitely want of the others. They don't match, but the books aren't a series so it doesn't really matter.

>33 red_guy: "Longevity should be more a priority than looking good in a brochure."

This is why I haven't bought the Madame Bovary LE... it's beautiful, but I've never seen a single silk book that didn't have tremendous fading, and many have ratty edges. I just can't bring myself to spend the money whenever I think about the materials.

>35 katielouise: That's such a great approach, katielouise. I have done that to a degree already, but may embrace it more. I kind of do that with the 'layering' of furniture and art in my house too: a blend of styles and eras that create an effect greater than the sum of parts. I have the Everyman edition of S&S - sans dustjacket (can't stand their boring jackets!), but I'll certainly look up the editions you mentioned.

Actually, (and I fully expect to be ex-communicated on these forums for this) I often look at all-Folio shelves/bookcases and think: it's too much of a good thing; they compete with each other and diminish each other. I like having a range of editions like you. (Braces for impact)

>36 Jeremy53: - Worry not. I mix non-FS books into my shelves as well. I have shelves devoted to only "good copies" and other shelves for standard mass publications, and while the great majority of my "good" books are FS publications, there are a good number of others mixed in there.

>2 Charon49: I prefer the original books in the Myth series in general over the later editions. In fact, I think the two volume Greek Myths might have been my "free" book for joining the FS back in the day. I searched out all of the Myth books in the first FS editions in order to get color plates and some of the other perks that were left out of subsequent editions, especially the freebies and "special" offers.

A similar situation that comes to mind is the Wright translation of the Canterbury Tales. I originally bought the single volume 1998 second edition and was half-way through reading it when I found the three-volume first edition. Instant purchase for me! I finished reading that edition instead and got to enjoy the en-face Old English as well as a bit of color here and there on the end-leaves and title page. I keep both in case I need the convenience of the single volume but if I could only keep one Canterbury it would be that first edition. The second edition, and sadly, the Kelmscott Facsimile the FS did, would have to go. Hopefully I never have to make that decision and can leave that mess to my heirs...

>38 jveezer: if I could only keep one Canterbury it would be that first edition. The second edition, and sadly, the Kelmscott Facsimile the FS did, would have to go. Hopefully I never have to make that decision and can leave that mess to my heirs...

Fortunately neither of us are in a position where we need to make that choice but you're quite right, if I had to choose it would be the three volume edition. But since I don't I'll happily keep the Kelmscott facsimile and the Eric Gill LE, using the three volume set to translate the text of both into modern English.

>38 jveezer: >39 folio_books:
The 3-volume edition is my must-keep too. The Gill LE has gone, and the Kelmscott will before long.