Menelmacar wrote:

Hi all, I've been a lurker for some time but this is my first post. I've just received the reprinted Fall of Arthur, and the spine foil does not match the layout of other deluxe editions. Maybe this is the error. The Tolkien logo, title, author, and HarperCollins logo are all offset relative to the other deluxes, and the HC logo is tiny. Photos of the first printing I found online do not show this issue. See the photo below of the Arthur spine next to Sir Gawain that matches all of my other deluxes. If HC is replacing with fixed copies, I'd certainly be interested so the set matches better.

Yeah, that's weird. Doesn't seem like the die they used matched any edition that should have existed (isn't a standard edition one). It just seems to be designed incorrectly in several small ways.

Uh oh. This is no collectors’ item. This is just plain triggering to one with OCD. ?

eorl wrote:

Uh oh. This is no collectors’ item. This is just plain triggering to one with OCD. ?

Yeah, it is a shame - I was hoping it would say "Origin of Species" or something totally random on it.

Stu wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Trotter wrote:

They are used to apply foil to the spines.

This is an example, https://www.dies-direct.com/2018/05/25/brass-book-spines

Trotter, you crack me up!

I know what a brass dye is. Describing this as a "spine brass" is bordering on nonsensical though. It was rhetorical.

Dunno, it seemed obvious to me that they were referring to the brass die used for pressing the foil on the spine. It may well be that's how they choose to refer to them internally, given that's what they described it as. Don't really see it as being nonsensical personally.

As I said, rhetorical. I didn't say it wasn't obvious. But the spine is anatomically a part of the book, it can't logically be applied to a tool that is used tool the spine. For a start it implies that dye is only a dye for use on book spines. Which is objectively nonsense. It's book publishers talking about bookbinding & making their own words up. I appreciate the dye maker Trotter linked to also used the term, but that doesn't mean it makes any more sense.

Khamûl wrote:

Stu wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Trotter wrote:

They are used to apply foil to the spines.

This is an example, https://www.dies-direct.com/2018/05/25/brass-book-spines

Trotter, you crack me up!

I know what a brass dye is. Describing this as a "spine brass" is bordering on nonsensical though. It was rhetorical.

Dunno, it seemed obvious to me that they were referring to the brass die used for pressing the foil on the spine. It may well be that's how they choose to refer to them internally, given that's what they described it as. Don't really see it as being nonsensical personally.

As I said, rhetorical. I didn't say it wasn't obvious. But the spine is anatomically a part of the book, it can't logically be applied to a tool that is used tool the spine. For a start it implies that dye is only a dye for use on book spines. Which is objectively nonsense. It's book publishers talking about bookbinding & making their own words up. I appreciate the dye maker Trotter linked to also used the term, but that doesn't mean it makes any more sense.

It really is "die", not "dye". I also don't agree with your logical implication at all. The reference was to a [brass] die that was specifically created to use on the spine. That particular die has no other use, so referring to it as a spine die [brass] is absolutely correct in that context, especially when they probably have a "front board die [brass]" that needs to be distinguished. It doesn't imply that all dies can only be used for spines, just that this particular one was tooled for that purpose.

Normally I agree with what you write, but you are way off base with this and it just feels like petty argument. Really odd.

I don't see how it is any different to bearing press -- a press used on bearings. It doesn't mean that you can't have a press for printing or a press for clothes.

A&U and Jarrolds were calling them spine brasses in the 50s when they were binding volumes of LR. If it was ok for Ronald Eames, it's ok by me!

Of course it's petty. And I'm being a pendant here, which is within TCG rules I think...

But to return to arguing, I don't think I'm "way off base". That's taking it too far. A brass die (sorry you had to pull me up for slack spelling) that is intended to be used to foil stamp a book spine, but which is indistinguishable from a die you'd have made to block your cover, is a pretty loose (but obvious in context, I've already conceded that) piece of terminology. I'm sure it's not a proper piece of terminology at all, just a well used & understood printing & publishing industry term. I accept that. But this "spine brass" is just a brass. It's not likely it is made specifically for use on book spines.

But as for GA&U (a company who regularly forget to mention George themselves) or Jarrolds (or HC) using the term: this still doesn't make it accurate or good terminology. Would this be the same printers and publishers who throw about terms like "morocco" for their "deluxe" (or is it "de luxe") editions? Words that have become largely meaningless due to their misuse of these terms (if they ever had much meaning). Printers & publishers happy to use terms like leather, when they actual meant bonded leather; a term which you (Stu) have been critical of in the past.

I'm pretty well read up in bookbinding literature right now and "spine brass" is just never a term I've encountered. But if I encounter it's use I'll certainly concede being way off base. And petty.

The problem is, Khamûl, that you are interpreting the words "spine brass" as meaning a type of brass die that is only used to stamp spines. What in fact it means, in context, is "the brass die used to stamp the spine" of this edition.

Aelfwine wrote:

The problem is, Khamûl, that you are interpreting the words "spine brass" as meaning a type of brass die that is only used to stamp spines. What in fact it means, in context, is "the brass die used to stamp the spine" of this edition.

Exactly this.

Khamûl wrote:

Of course it's petty. And I'm being a pendant here, which is within TCG rules I think...

But to return to arguing, I don't think I'm "way off base". That's taking it too far. A brass die (sorry you had to pull me up for slack spelling) that is intended to be used to foil stamp a book spine, but which is indistinguishable from a die you'd have made to block your cover, is a pretty loose (but obvious in context, I've already conceded that) piece of terminology. I'm sure it's not a proper piece of terminology at all, just a well used & understood printing & publishing industry term. I accept that. But this "spine brass" is just a brass. It's not likely it is made specifically for use on book spines.

But as for GA&U (a company who regularly forget to mention George themselves) or Jarrolds (or HC) using the term: this still doesn't make it accurate or good terminology. Would this be the same printers and publishers who throw about terms like "morocco" for their "deluxe" (or is it "de luxe") editions? Words that have become largely meaningless due to their misuse of these terms (if they ever had much meaning). Printers & publishers happy to use terms like leather, when they actual meant bonded leather; a term which you (Stu) have been critical of in the past.

I'm pretty well read up in bookbinding literature right now and "spine brass" is just never a term I've encountered. But if I encounter it's use I'll certainly concede being way off base. And petty.

I just don't understand how you can't see that they are using the term "spine" as a **qualifier** to indicate that they are talking specifically about the die prepared for the spine, not the (different) die that they prepared for the front board. This is nothing to do with correct terminology -- this is to do with the English language.

Again, to illustrate: The automotive industry doesn't have a term, "red car", but cars can be described as being red when we want to describe to a specific example. In that case, someone well read up on cars is unlikely to complain that "red car" is an incorrect automotive term because someone was trying to indicate they weren't talking about the blue one.