Stu wrote:

Actually, there it is on Mr. Underhill's image. Looks like they might have tried to fix it at the bindery, though might be a trick of the photo. Arbor's copy seems to have the fault in the exact same spot. I'm wondering if some tooling has caused this.

Yup, that's it. Very tiny, maybe 1/2 an inch and a few small spots of rubbing. I feel that if they would have used higher quality leather then this wouldn't have been a problem.
Also, thanks Khamûl for the info, didn't realize "quarter bound" was a catch all term.

I can't imagine the blind-stamping was done on book; the leather would likely have been stamped (& blocked) flat (off book). If the leather is thin and weak then the vulnerable areas are certainly where the leather is shaped around the shoulders and turned in over the boards. If the leather has been additionally compressed (when stamped) it'll be even thinner at that point. If you actually read your copies, that shoulder is an area where the leather needs to be flexible; it's also why that groove is there, to aid with opening the book freely.

I'd be a bit miffed if my copy had those faults. Suppose we'll see how widespread it is if other people bother to check.

If I would have paid £1000 for this set, I would not find the split on the leather to be acceptable. Will FS provide replacement copies?

Emilien wrote:

adding mine on this topic, as well as a pic of the rubbing in one corner

Do you think they are just rubbing in the slipcase during shipping? Ironically the HarperCollins 1992 had that same problem.

Khamûl wrote:

I'd be a bit miffed if my copy had those faults. Suppose we'll see how widespread it is if other people bother to check.

Nope, can't be bothered to a "Is your Folio 2022 set knackered?" poll :)

I strongly suspect it is going to be quite a decent number, but I also suspect Folio collectors will tolerate quite a lot as they can be a bit cultish (like EP collectors). Also buyers may put up with it because they think it is minor and that they were lucky to get a copy. That the rest of the book (the inside bits) seems well made will probably help Folio here. HarperCollins had the problem last year that the whole book had a litany of issues.

As for the tipped-in illustrations - I'd have liked it if FS had put in tissue-guards, as was the practice in the past.

garm wrote:

As for the tipped-in illustrations - I'd have liked it if FS had put in tissue-guards, as was the practice in the past.

Agree. I like the tipped-in illustrations - but the addition of tissue guards would have been a nice touch.

Received mine earlier in the week and cannot find any flaws - no splits or rubbing to leather. Hopefully it is only a small number affected and hopefully the folio society will be able to find a solution for those with the issue.

I saw one poor fellow get accused of racism for daring to suggest that it was better when Folio made books here in the UK. Brands can be a powerful drug.

We now have seen multiple copies with issues to the leather. I have to say that I’m really surprised by all of this considering how expensive this set was.

In my opinion, you should definitely request a new copy if you have rubbing, a split, or any other damage to one or more of the books.

It also makes me wonder if more copies will develop such splits over time.

I think if I had purchased the set and it arrived damaged, I would be returning it and getting my money back.

Someone on LibraryThing has put in a request to FS Customer Service to find out what the leather actually is. Folio's advertising at the time of sale claimed calfskin (though topgrain or split was not specified) and the books themselves state it is goatskin (split). Hopefully they will clarify as to what they actually sent people. Whatever it is, it is obviously not very good as it has this tendency to split and also have the surface rub off exposing the fibres.

You wouldn't think it would be so hard to do it perfectly at this price point. Definitely a strong case for buckram as an alternative, IMHO.