What about "sports car"?
How is "spine brass" not a piece of terminology? I'm not saying your reading is wrong, but you're stating my reading is. If you look up some of these book service sites where they use these terms they're clear in context, but are not accurate usage within the wider context of books. They loosely describe brass itself as metal. It is metal, indeed; but brass is specifically brass. It's not, for example, lead. In the world of typography & bookbinding this a fundamental & crucial difference. I'm saying publishers & printers seem to play loose with this. You both seem to be claiming it's crystal clear.
I'm suggesting the writer is meaning a type of brass die only used to stamp spines. I'm stating the exact opposite.
How is "spine brass" not a piece of terminology? I'm not saying your reading is wrong, but you're stating my reading is. If you look up some of these book service sites where they use these terms they're clear in context, but are not accurate usage within the wider context of books. They loosely describe brass itself as metal. It is metal, indeed; but brass is specifically brass. It's not, for example, lead. In the world of typography & bookbinding this a fundamental & crucial difference. I'm saying publishers & printers seem to play loose with this. You both seem to be claiming it's crystal clear.
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.
I'm suggesting the writer is meaning a type of brass die only used to stamp spines. I'm stating the exact opposite.
Why would you insist that someone intends a meaning that you find non-sensical, when the same words can be interpreted in a completely sensible way?
Khamûl wrote:
I'm suggesting the writer is meaning a type of brass die only used to stamp spines. I'm stating the exact opposite.
The writer is very obviously referring to a specific die that has been tooled to stamp the *spine* on a specific book. That particular brass/die is absolutely useless for any other purpose. It isn't generic, unless you happen to want to stamp the spine design onto something else -- which feels remarkably unlikely.
Words and phrases exist in context, not isolation and the context here makes the meaning so obvious that I can't conceive of any situation where someone would genuinely be confused by it.
Khamûl wrote:
Of course it's petty. And I'm being a pendant here, which is within TCG rules I think...
... 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.
My apologies to intrude so, I have often sidled through these pages happily without comment. However in this instance as pedantry was invoked, I must take issue with the above. By rejecting the term spine brass as terminology you instead call it 'a well used & understood printing & publishing industry term' ...
This seems like the most convoluted mental acrobatics imaginable, for what is terminology but those terms germane to a particular subject, viz., printing and publishing, that are well used and understood by said profession?
The term spine brass is utterly crystalline, and I'm sorry to say not in the least rhetorical. Spine brasses are quite literally designed for the spine of a specific book as Stu has already so cogently said.
Aelfwine wrote:
Why would you insist that someone intends a meaning that you find non-sensical, when the same words can be interpreted in a completely sensible way?
For the same reason that anyone would criticise any piece of jargony terminology that is open to interpretation outside of the narrow context of (in this case) the industry in which it is used; increasing the likelihood of misinterpretation or rendering it meaningless. In the context of books (& this website) you could include bound or edition as other examples.
Stu wrote:
Khamûl wrote:
I'm suggesting the writer is meaning a type of brass die only used to stamp spines. I'm stating the exact opposite.
The writer is very obviously referring to a specific die that has been tooled to stamp the *spine* on a specific book. That particular brass/die is absolutely useless for any other purpose. It isn't generic, unless you happen to want to stamp the spine design onto something else -- which feels remarkably unlikely.
Words and phrases exist in context, not isolation and the context here makes the meaning so obvious that I can't conceive of any situation where someone would genuinely be confused by it.
You are not reading what I'm saying. It is not "useless" for any other purpose. This is my point. And it is generic. This is my point. How is it unlikely that you could possibly contemplate stamping Tolkien's monogram somewhere else like the cover? Words & phrases in publishing & printing have grown up in an industry like any other. Control of these terms exist outside these industries though. Again, "edition" would be the obvious example.
LMT wrote:
Khamûl wrote:
Of course it's petty. And I'm being a pendant here, which is within TCG rules I think...
... 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.
My apologies to intrude so, I have often sidled through these pages happily without comment. However in this instance as pedantry was invoked, I must take issue with the above. By rejecting the term spine brass as terminology you instead call it 'a well used & understood printing & publishing industry term' ...
This seems like the most convoluted mental acrobatics imaginable, for what is terminology but those terms germane to a particular subject, viz., printing and publishing, that are well used and understood by said profession?
The term spine brass is utterly crystalline, and I'm sorry to say not in the least rhetorical. Spine brasses are quite literally designed for the spine of a specific book as Stu has already so cogently said.
I've already addressed the misuse of terms by these two industries. I accept that it is a piece of terminology. I think it's bad terminology. That's all I ever said.
Khamûl wrote:
You are not reading what I'm saying. It is not "useless" for any other purpose. This is my point. And it is generic. This is my point. How is it unlikely that you could possibly contemplate stamping Tolkien's monogram somewhere else like the cover?
Yep, and I'm saying you are flat out wrong (probably). HarperCollins did not say spine brasses. They said "brass". Singular. You get that they just churn these out using a CNC machine from an image, right? Image of spine -> CNC -> die. This isn't one-off bookbinding where you use a range of stamps and carefully stamp the cover re-using existing assets (wherever possible). It is 2021 and mass-market publishing. Now, I'm happy to be corrected if they do assemble the spine for these from multiple dies, but the original statement does not remotely suggest this is the case, and given the extra complexity (and absolute cheapness of creating dies in China), I can't see it as being especially likely. Why would they not just spend $100 on getting a die and be done with it? Also, if the issue was die positioning, surely they would not have said they were supplied wrong spine brass, they would have said that the printer positioned the brasses incorrectly?
I don't think it worth arguing the point further, but you seem to have some pretty weak arguments going on, based on assumptions that simply do not match the original statement about what went wrong. It seems to me that one follows the facts as presented, not assume the facts as presented must be wrong, so they fit one's inner narrative.
All that aside, even if there were a bunch of dies, they are still dies provided to stamp the spine, so "spine brass" seems a not unreasonable term. But, I'm out, 'cos silly argument.
Bringing this thread back to topic, does anyone have advice about contacting HarperCollins about the copy of "The Fall of Arthur" I've received? From Trotter's first post, it sounds like information will be forthcoming from HC at some point. I'm wondering if it's worth reaching out to them now or just waiting to hear more via Trotter, and if writing to the general enquiries HC email address would even reach someone who has knowledge of this particular issue with their niche deluxe Tolkien publications. I would certainly love to get a copy that properly matches the other deluxe editions. Thanks!
Menelmacar wrote:
Bringing this thread back to topic, does anyone have advice about contacting HarperCollins about the copy of "The Fall of Arthur" I've received? From Trotter's first post, it sounds like information will be forthcoming from HC at some point. I'm wondering if it's worth reaching out to them now or just waiting to hear more via Trotter, and if writing to the general enquiries HC email address would even reach someone who has knowledge of this particular issue with their niche deluxe Tolkien publications. I would certainly love to get a copy that properly matches the other deluxe editions. Thanks!
Hit them up on [email protected]
118
17192