"Best" version of Lord of the Rings?

Hi and thanks for visiting! Looks like you are in the USA, but would consider UK or other editions too? Just curious.

For my personal favorite recent printing with nice paper and cloth binding, etc. I like the three volume edition illustrated by Alan Lee (picture attached below). Not expensive, each book can be found new for maybe $10-15, the boxed set new is probably closer to $80 or so if you want that.

The edition you show looks really nice (I haven't opened one to see the paper quality myself yet, but I am sure someone here has), but I am not a fan of the quality of the translucent slipcase. Does look nice from a distance though!

Hope this helps.

Urulöké wrote:
Hi and thanks for visiting! Looks like you are in the USA, but would consider UK or other editions too? Just curious.

For my personal favorite recent printing with nice paper and cloth binding, etc. I like the three volume edition illustrated by Alan Lee (picture attached below). Not expensive, each book can be found new for maybe $10-15, the boxed set new is probably closer to $80 or so if you want that.

The edition you show looks really nice (I haven't opened one to see the paper quality myself yet, but I am sure someone here has), but I am not a fan of the quality of the translucent slipcase. Does look nice from a distance though!

Hope this helps.

I've just done a quick side-by-side comparison.

Both the older three volume and the current one volume are Chinese printed on that slightly shiny paper. The paper on the older set is a little less white and perhaps a little less shiny (and IMHO preferable). Colour reproduction on the images is better on the single volume (markedly better for some of the images). The text is also blacker and thicker on the new one, so there is slightly more show-through from the page behind (I assume this is what the OP means by "ghosting"?). Neither are excessive in this regards.

If I personally had to pick between the two, I'd go with the older 3 volume. The only advantage I can see of the newer one volume is the image reproduction.

As Uruloke aluded to, the transparent slipcase is crap. It does indeed look absolutely fine from a distance, and it is only up-close that you realise it is essentially higher-end disposable plastic packaging. If HC had done a proper slipcase, I think my vote might be for the one volume, but not as is.

Steer clear of the unillustrated "Collector's Edition". This has nice cover design, but the overall quality is just horrible. The regular edition of the current unillustrated hardback is much better, albeit earlier printings beat the latest one(s)

What is the illustrated Collector's Edition you are referring to? I only have the three volume set of the two being discussed here but my first impression is that it is so large it is hard to manage in the hand.

Tapuvae wrote:
What is the illustrated Collector's Edition you are referring to? I only have the three volume set of the two being discussed here but my first impression is that it is so large it is hard to manage in the hand.

The slipcased, illustrated one volume edition is the one linked to in the OPs post (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lord-Rings-To ... llsguid-21&linkCode=osi).

The *un*illustrated collector's edition I suggested avoiding is this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hobbit-Rings- ... collsguid-21&linkCode=osi


A agree with you that the illustrated editions are generally too large. They certainly aren't my first choice.

The edition I can recommend is The Lord of the Rings 60th anniversary boxed set, with the Reader's Companion.

It features the most accurate text yet [I can count only TWO errors in my entire set, that are known.], they're hardback, 3 books (plus Reader's Companion), feature Tolkien's artwork for the dustjacket covers, and fold out maps. To top it all off, that set matches The Hobbit 70th anniversary, and the current UK editions of The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, in hardback.

That's my reasoning behind I wanted, and got, that as my current reading copies. It all depends on what you're after though, but that is all around a great set.

I too am trying to choose between the single-volume (http://www.tolkien.co.uk/product/9780 ... 6/The+Lord+of+the+Rings+) and three-volume (http://www.hmhco.com/shop/books/petersons/9780618260584) illustrated (Alan Lee) editions of LOTR (I already have a single-volume, non-illustrated edition (the red leatherette HM edition with gold, green and blue foil stamping), which I quite like, but I'm looking to add an illustrated edition to the collection).

Do these editions have the very same Alan Lee illustrations (neither has ones the other lacks,etc.)? Do they have the same maps (and at the same size(s)?

As the edition I already have is single-volume, I'm leaning toward the three-volume edition (especially since I think their spines (design and size) will match up with my illustrated The Hobbit and Silmarillion), but Stu said that:

Stu wrote:

Colour reproduction on the images is better on the single volume (markedly better for some of the images).

Since the illustrations are the main objective of this purchase, I (partly) think I should therefore stick with the single-volume edition. But then I really like how these individual volumes look...

Perhaps more importantly, I’ve heard (at http://www.mutedhorn.net/the-lord-of-the-rings) that The Fellowship Of The Ring (in the three-volume Alan Lee-illustrated LOTR edition I mentioned) is missing a paragraph at the end of Book II, chapter 2. I imagine one of you must own this edition; can anyone verify this? If true, this would probably be a deal-breaker (I know all editions contain errors of some kind, but a whole paragraph is a bit much to live with).

I found it odd that, although I’ve come across (online) many collectors who seek out and discuss every last detail of every publication, I’ve only come across that single mention (as opposed to crowds of unhappy collectors) of this missing paragraph. This person specified "seventh impression;" I don't know if this means that there are several impressions with only that particular one having this problem.

Any help appreciated!

I have a first impression of The Fellowship of the Ring (Houghton Mifflin, 2002, Alan Lee illustrated) as you mention. I just checked it, and you are right - it is missing the last paragraph of that chapter.

"Sam sat down, blushing and muttering. 'A nice pickle we have landed ourselves in, Mr. Frodo!' he said, shaking his head."

Never noticed that before. Not the biggest paragraph to drop, admittedly, but still a significant error.

And the same is true of my Harper Collins first impression of The Fellowship of the Ring (2002, Alan Lee illustrated) - para also missing.

The para is present in the original Alan Lee illustrated version of 1992.

http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/details.php?reference=82540

Damn; I really like that set.