I noticed the same thing about the page color in my deluxe edition that arrived yesterday to the US, Roäc. It's thankfully free of printing errors/loose threads on the cover/etc., but I did notice that the tone of the pages varies between just-off-white and a somewhat yellower color. Equally sharp printing across all variations in page color for me, though.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with the edition (though I agree that the reproductions being on the same paper as the text is not so great). The paper is thin, true, but in my view the bleed through from the next page is not so bad considering the thinness.

Menelmacar wrote:

I noticed the same thing about the page color in my deluxe edition that arrived yesterday to the US, Roäc. It's thankfully free of printing errors/loose threads on the cover/etc., but I did notice that the tone of the pages varies between just-off-white and a somewhat yellower color. Equally sharp printing across all variations in page color for me, though.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with the edition (though I agree that the reproductions being on the same paper as the text is not so great). The paper is thin, true, but in my view the bleed through from the next page is not so bad considering the thinness.

Sounds like they have had different batches of paper and some signatures are printed on one paper stock and some on a different one. That's a bit.... crap.

I was flicking through the trade this evening and noticed the same thing with the paper varying ever so slightly.

Also, looking deeper at the images my initial assessment that they were not very good was rather generous, and comparing them further to the previous Rotalito releases (Silm/UT) this new trade makes them look rather fantastic in comparison. Text showing through from behind image pages is so bad in places. Overall this is a very poor product in my opinion.

That came across as an advert more than a review.

The paper looks most problematic in areas like the Book of Mazarbul where dark images are on the opposite side of other dark images. Probably the worst reproduction of "The Hill" that I have ever seen.

Stu wrote:

That came across as an advert more than a review.

The paper looks most problematic in areas like the Book of Mazarbul where dark images are on the opposite side of other dark images. Probably the worst reproduction of "The Hill" that I have ever seen.

I don't want to speak for the author of that video but it didn't seem especially considered for a review.

I think most people will like this release because on the surface it looks fancy. But the fancy smancy cover and removable fold-out maps and fire written edges don't hide the poor production for me.

onthetrail wrote:

Stu wrote:

That came across as an advert more than a review.

The paper looks most problematic in areas like the Book of Mazarbul where dark images are on the opposite side of other dark images. Probably the worst reproduction of "The Hill" that I have ever seen.

I don't want to speak for the author of that video but it didn't seem especially considered for a review.

I think most people will like this release because on the surface it looks fancy. But the fancy smancy cover and removable fold-out maps and fire written edges don't hide the poor production for me.

Agreed. It really isn't very good at all. I wasn't expecting it to be as bad as it looks in that video (but I was expecting it to be poor).

Maybe the US edition will be better...

(I note the Deluxe is now out of stock at BD. My order from April 17th still hasn't shipped -- I'm assuming at this point it will get cancelled and refunded, which I won't lose any sleep over)

I just got the kindle edition. It corrects hundreds of mistakes in previous kindle editions (like "Only here in the Shire were to be found extensive materials for the history of Núng of Sauron.")

And there is a huge change compared with previous paper versions :

Tale of Years: 1409 The Witch-king of Angmar invades Arthedain [< Arnor].

I can't find it in Hammond & Scull's errata, is this the first time it got fixed?

The kindle edition still has mistakes though. Like in the last page of Appendix E: "and the consequent use of 36 as η and the new certh 37 for ng may also be observed." It of course should be "ŋ", as in the paper version.

Urulókë wrote:

Stu wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Also, ribs. Why is nobody talking about those non-existent ribs?

Yeah, I'd really have liked to see those more pronounced.

Fixed it for ya.

This is the quality content I am here for.

Hmm, ribs.