People who dis Easton Press by saying "they're machine bound, not hand bound"...

If you think I'm reading that shit you're wrong
You write like such a faggot I'm not even going to waste my time, I just wanted to let you know you're a faggot in hopes you feel a little worse about yourself because you deserve to. Whatever excuses you have for being a shallow bimbo who only likes thinks because they're pretty, I couldn't give any less of a fuck. You've got the brain power of a stripper.

Ridges in books are the result of raised cords.
Or, if the book is pseud trash they're just there to "look cool".

Lmao smoke some weed, my friend. You may feel an anxiety attack come on at first, but then you'll be glad you did.

It could well be either one. It would be a fine subject to research on. Come back to me with the results, if you would.

It was a rhetorical question. They're decoration.

Lol, you got me.

I don't suppose you'd know where one could get "real" leatherbound books. I assume that they're very expensive to get custom bound. I see few drawbacks against EP. It has supple genuine leather, with gold leaf, silk end papers, thick archival paper, and are sewn binding, as opposed to glued. They seem to me rather high quality, but as I said, the difference which you speak of are not feasible. I would be lucky to have one very expensive custom bound book, the sort which you speak of sometimes go for thousands, are not in my ball park.

do it yourself

I'd prefer not to.

then don't complain about having shitty books or being too poor to afford nonshitty books

You seem eager to put words in my mouth. Dare I ask, is that the only thing you're eager to put in my mouth?

Supple + genuine leather is a contradiction. Archive quality paper is s bare-minimum. Gold leaf and silk endpapers aren't ends in themselves. Seeing few drawbacks is getting into fallacious territory assuming you're the user who wrote the OP.

What is an end in itself, since you know so much about custom bindings? Aside from the hubs. I assumed contemplation was an end in itself. You must have quite a collection of custom bindings, or know someone who does. Would you care to post pictures of your collection?

I don't think leather being supple and genuine is a contradiction. Franklin Library, Easton Press, and First Editions Club, if I have not been misled by the very publishers pages of the book, their website, or common knowledge, is genuine leather. I'm laughing slightly to myself because of how absurd you're being. Do smoke more, your head is filled with worries.

I don't use cameras that interface with digital systems and I wouldn't want to out myself anyway. I bind books as a hobby and work for the university press.
You've listed several different libraries of similar nature as using genuine leather as proof of quality, thus begging the question.
And I don't smoke.

That thing looks ridiculous. If you want to spend money on aesthetically appealing stuff feel free to do so, but I have a hard time understanding how that book would qualify.

>I don't use cameras that interface with digital systems
Lmao, touche. I like your wit. You must be quite a fine bookbinder.

paperback verus hardcover is not aesthetically appealing pseud shit when a glued paperback will fall apart faster in decade than sewn hardcover which will last a century possibly if taken care of well.

A more apt comparison would be with a wrist watch that wants to look like a Patek Philippe, but is in fact clearly a mass-produced Chinese imitation of it.
That Bible there just looks tasteless. In the medieval ages some monk would carefully write each letter, paint each tiny picture by hand, put the gold leaves on them, spending months of his life crouched in some dark corner of a monastery working on that unique work of art. And now gypsies like you think this industrial Frankensteinian imitation of the past is pretty and worth spending money on.

The watch thing is not your area of expertise, is it. A cheap knock off isn't made with quality material. There's not many micro brands of leather book publishers, you basically have Folio Society and Easton Press as the two main fine book binders. But from my experiences with wrist watches, something which costs nowhere near as much as Rolex or Patek can still be quite a good deal. For example, the Seiko Alpinist, or the Christopher Ward Trident 600, my two choices automatic wrist watch.

Do Seiko and CW have the same level of hand polish on every detail as Patek particularly? Certainly not. Neither does Omega, if we're being honest. But does it look beautiful, are the materials quality, and does it function well? Yes to all of the above. I don't really think your brooding over these discrepancies is worth considering. If you can make your own custom bindings, I am quite happy for you. But I think what we have here is of decent quality, and there's no clear way besides custom bindings to get that level of quality you're looking for.

Aside from that, any disputes about the dishonest aesthetics of Easton Press can certainly not be said of Folio Society. It doesn't attempt to have that old fashion look. I do prefer both though.

He is right. You do talk like a complete faggot.

Good. I love gay people. Being gay is very cool to me.

Attached: 51807966_10101676080169321_4688264310357491712_n.jpg (617x960, 56K)

I personally dislike Easton press because it's "inauthentic" to me. It's imitating an older and more expensive style of bookmaking, and that imitation is obvious. It's like seeing a Corinthian column in a suburban shopping mall. I'd prefer that they try to do their own thing instead.

I'm not exactly sure what is so much better about these "older, more authentic" books which you're speaking of. The only difference I've seen is being hand bound as opposed to having some machinery in the process, and the *gasp* the hubs are decorative. Having impressions on the leather done in decorative patterns in gold leaf seems pretty fine to me, the pages are thick and comfy, and the overall presentation is a lot nicer than your average book. Take, for instance, The Myth of Sisyphus. It hardly looks cheap and tacky, especially to hold.

Attached: 51519.jpg (898x930, 197K)

It's because those older books are the original. The gold leaf was more expensive and more difficult to apply, so it had to be used sparingly, and the entire book itself was the product of some labour. Machine-fabrication allows them to lavish as many features and materials on it as they like. and it ends up resembling a woman with too much makeup.

In the end it's the imitation that gets me. Why do they use leather? Because older books used leather. Why gold leaf? Same reason. Why the ridges on the spine? Again, the same reason. If they attempted to create perfect recreations of older editions that would be one thing, but instead what they're doing is creating some kind of sham by borrowing elements perceived to be authoritative and luxurious.

>The watch thing is not your area of expertise, is it.
No, sadly it isn't. One of the greater holes in my knowledge are wrist watches. Because of that I have difficulty following your autistic meandering about the various watch models (and custom binding??), where you seem to carelessly mix up utility and aesthetics.
To put it simply - you can without any problem buy an edition of the Bible that isn't gaudy, tryhard and fake. The edition in the OP is certainly functional, but in its desperate and misguided attempt to look pretty it ends up ugly.

>The gold leaf was more expensive and more difficult to apply, so it had to be used sparingly
Oh, it was more expensive and more difficult to apply. That's not even a visual aesthetic difference, it's just a piece of trivia.

>the entire book itself was the product of some labour
This is trivia, dear.

>Machine-fabrication allows them to lavish as many features and materials on it as they like
*Gasp* once again, trivia.

>it ends up resembling a woman with too much makeup.
My goodness. Perhaps they could do with a bit more subtlety.

>In the end it's the imitation that gets me. Why do they use leather? Because older books used leather. Why gold leaf? Same reason.
Hmm, perhaps they do resemble the old books a little.

>Why the ridges on the spine? Again, the same reason.
Oh, I am slain!

>If they attempted to create perfect recreations of older editions that would be one thing, but instead what they're doing is creating some kind of sham by borrowing elements perceived to be authoritative and luxurious.

My dear, if you'd be so kind as to purchase me some of these fine copies which you love so much, I'd be quite thankful. You've convinced me that dear old Easton Press is nothing more than ostentatious rubbish. I propose a toast, to you, and to me, and to the preservation of fine bookbinding techniques.

>caring about how decorative your book is
bruh I literally let my pets chew on the covers of books I've already finished.

Rolex and PP are following the LVMH trend in marketing legacy brands to tasteless rappers, I couldn't give a god damn about either of them.

Not that user, but I just have to say that I'd rather have a painful, burning diarrhea than lay my eyes on your post again.

Lmao

>You've convinced me that dear old Easton Press is nothing more than ostentatious rubbish.
I am glad to find that I have succeeded. Well, if the scholarship is decent enough then I have no objection to owning a copy, but in general that should always be the principal consideration.

I do make sure my editions are the correct translation. Their translation of Plato's dialogs is the hackett translation, their translation of The Myth of Sisyphus is the standard translation. Outside of that they tend to have more archaic translations than Folio Society, which has P&V translations, and stuff like that. I do appreciate my Easton Press editions, nonetheless.