12
Comparison of Deluxe and Standard UT
10 Nov, 2020
2020-11-10 12:26:35 AM UTC
2020-11-10 12:26:35 AM UTC
My standard UT arrived from Goldsboro yesterday (very well packed and in a mylar protector, so in perfect condition). Given there had been some mention as to whether the paper is "superior" on the deluxe, I can report that it is certainly thicker and a tiny bit smoother, albeit I don't think it is necessarily up to the quality of some earlier deluxes (I'd put it on a par with the recent Sir Gawain, which had mediocre, but not bad paper). The boards are also a little bit thicker.
With regards to the endpapers, the implementation on this copy of the deluxe was a bit rough. I think they should have just used the map ones from the standard edition and accepted some duplication with the lift out (which, whilst I am at it, it are really a push to describe as "posters". I think "laid in plates" would have been a bit more honest).
The cloth on the deluxe is nice and clearly a better quality than the standard edition -- this is a welcome relief from the paper-covered books of recent times.
In terms of image reproduction, I couldn't tell much difference between the two, although the paper is marginally better on the deluxe.
Is it worth more than three times the price? Probably not, but it is still a better effort than we have come used to. At £100, I would not feel it was good value. At £50, which is in-line with the low end of real world prices, I think it is fine.
I'll add a close-up comparison of the paper texture when I get a chance.
With regards to the endpapers, the implementation on this copy of the deluxe was a bit rough. I think they should have just used the map ones from the standard edition and accepted some duplication with the lift out (which, whilst I am at it, it are really a push to describe as "posters". I think "laid in plates" would have been a bit more honest).
The cloth on the deluxe is nice and clearly a better quality than the standard edition -- this is a welcome relief from the paper-covered books of recent times.
In terms of image reproduction, I couldn't tell much difference between the two, although the paper is marginally better on the deluxe.
Is it worth more than three times the price? Probably not, but it is still a better effort than we have come used to. At £100, I would not feel it was good value. At £50, which is in-line with the low end of real world prices, I think it is fine.
I'll add a close-up comparison of the paper texture when I get a chance.
Stu wrote:
onthetrail wrote:
Thanks for the comparison Stu. I have been conflicted whether I would buy the deluxe but I think on reflection I am right to stick with the standard. Buying these new illustrated editions already defeats my plans to only buy editions with new primary texts but I am enjoying them very much.
I personally don't like those endpapers from the deluxe but like the standard so I am happy to stick.
What is your favourite of the two? In the hand so to speak.
My eyesight is getting very middle-aged, so honestly, there isn't much that difference as a reading copy. Having the maps as endpapers that you can flick to, rather than a plate that you have to set to one side whilst reading probably makes the standard edition more useful. I think having the dustjacket image (a loose plate on the deluxe) would have been better attached on one edge for the same reason. The loose stuff just feels pointlessly loose.
I tend to agree on all points. Especially the middle aged eye sight
I was put off by the loose stuff right away to be honest. They just seem, well as you put it, "pointlessly loose". I picture somebody using the deluxe to read the book and the posters slipping each time the book is used and becoming annoying.
12
1
80