Khamûl wrote:

If the split isn't a one-off then it's simply the quality &/or thickness of the leather. There shouldn't really be any issued blind-stamping near or on the shoulder of any leather book. I might have missed it, but I don't recall FS stating anything about the leather, either in promotion or on that limitation plate. Which seems a bit odd for £1000 set of books. One would suspect that is because the leather isn't great.

On the limitation plate the FS say the leather is spaccato di capra.

garm wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

If the split isn't a one-off then it's simply the quality &/or thickness of the leather. There shouldn't really be any issued blind-stamping near or on the shoulder of any leather book. I might have missed it, but I don't recall FS stating anything about the leather, either in promotion or on that limitation plate. Which seems a bit odd for £1000 set of books. One would suspect that is because the leather isn't great.

On the limitation plate the FS say the leather is spaccato di capra.

I think that means "split goat leather"

So cut from a lower part of the leather and with fake grain stamped on it basically. Same as Easton press, except they use pigskin for most of their books (cow for the limited stuff, IIRC).

Stu wrote:

I just laid a bit of HC next to Folio from your images for comparison. I find the differences odd and by no means clear-cut that Folio is massively superior to HC. Really feels like swings and roundabouts from the images with Folio being a nudge ahead (but with loss of some detail in Folio in some parts of the image).

Comparing a physical image from a book to a screenshot is not really an accurate way to compare quality.

Gloinson wrote:

Stu wrote:

I just laid a bit of HC next to Folio from your images for comparison. I find the differences odd and by no means clear-cut that Folio is massively superior to HC. Really feels like swings and roundabouts from the images with Folio being a nudge ahead (but with loss of some detail in Folio in some parts of the image).

Comparing a physical image from a book to a screenshot is not really an accurate way to compare quality.

Who would have thought? However, Trotter kindly posted an image containing both side by side, which is what I was comparing. One photo with both books. The left side of a photo with the right side. I just moved two parts next to each other to compare. To be clear, NOT a comparison of book and screenshot.

But it can only be an approximation at best. I intend to do a proper comparison when I have both editions personally side by side. I am not expecting any great surprises though. The Folio looks fine. The HC looks pretty decent but with more artifacts from the printing, yet some better detail (based on photo).

The edition seems decent, well made and better than recent editions (which are crap image wise)

Hopefully someone who knows Italian can answer this but it looks to be me that Quarter-bound in spaccato di capra leather means that the leather is from a male goat and not "split goat leather".

Trotter wrote:

Hopefully someone who knows Italian can answer this but it looks to be me that Quarter-bound in spaccato di capra leather means that the leather is from a male goat and not "split goat leather".

Capra - Goat
Spaccato - split / cut

Stu wrote:

I just laid a bit of HC next to Folio from your images for comparison. I find the differences odd and by no means clear-cut that Folio is massively superior to HC. Really feels like swings and roundabouts from the images with Folio being a nudge ahead (but with loss of some detail in Folio in However, Trotter kindly posted an image containing both side by side, which is what I was comparing. One photo with both books. The left side of a photo with the right side. I just moved two parts next to each other to compare. To be clear, NOT a comparison of book and screenshot.

Well, that is not how you described it above. You don’t have to be churlish.

Gloinson wrote:

Stu wrote:

I just laid a bit of HC next to Folio from your images for comparison. I find the differences odd and by no means clear-cut that Folio is massively superior to HC. Really feels like swings and roundabouts from the images with Folio being a nudge ahead (but with loss of some detail in Folio in However, Trotter kindly posted an image containing both side by side, which is what I was comparing. One photo with both books. The left side of a photo with the right side. I just moved two parts next to each other to compare. To be clear, NOT a comparison of book and screenshot.

Well, that is not how you described it above. You don’t have to be churlish.

I think I did if you read the chain of posts. I said ‘images’ not ‘image’, but I was replying to trotter who had literally posted said image directly prior…

I didn't buy a copy of this, but I personally don't care for the way the illustrations are tipped in. I assume it is standard practice the way they are, but I think I'd be a little nervous of accidentally catching one of those protruding corners.

From an aesthetic standpoint, I just don't think it looks very attractive to have the corners of the illustrations like that.

I'm happy for those that purchased it, but I think I made the right call for me in passing on this set.

Split-leather:
https://www.leather-dictionary.com/index.php/Split_leather