Pride and Prejudice

Apparently, there is a new private book press named 'Corvendale Press.' The book isn't letterpress printed but expertly bound by Ludlow bookbinders.

Are there any other fine press editions of 'Pride and Prejudice'? I'm considering between Thornwillow and this edition. Perhaps there are some Austen fans here who could help me decide.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Not cheap!
See https://corvedalepress.co.uk/

>1 Alan_Wake:
The LEC did it!

>3 GusLogan: The one from 1940 ?
That's an wonderful Book if you get it in an very good condition.

It's wild to me that Corvendale doesn't even talk about what paper stock they're using. One hopes it's at least something acid free, but they don't say.

>5 ambyrglow: According to the video, it's "Munken Pure Rough 120 gsm".

>6 Dr.Fiddy: Ah! Thanks, I didn't watch the video, just read the product descriptions and FAQ.

A non-letterpress book at letterpress prices

Seems like a boutique item rather than fine press. Heavy on the flashy bits, light on the bookmaker's art. I'm guessing they are targeting the Folio Society crowd more than fine press collectors. Or anyone who thinks a limited edition automatically means quality (or a sound investment). Do we really need a pricier Easton Press?

EDIT: Ha, and just noticed that their logo reminds me of the debate around the Consensus Press one. 😄

>9 Shadekeep: >1 Alan_Wake:
Speaking of Easton Press, they have a new limited edition of Pride and Prejudice: https://www.eastonpress.com/deluxe-editions/pride-and-prejudice-3864.html

Looks like they’re after the same niche as Books Illustrated after they stopped being letterpress.

Anyone owns the Thornwillow Version ?
It has a hefty price tag and needs careful consideration.

>9 Shadekeep:
It looks okay to me and It's completely crafted by hand.

I read a lot of aversion here, but the book is actually bound by hand in high-quality materials. Would your opinion change if the book were letterpress printed? I think true 'book art' is something only a few can afford, and here we are talking about a €600 book. In a subforum here, someone wrote about purchasing the ultimate 'Frankenstein' edition. (Unfortunately, I forgot the name of the press.) The book contains around 50 woodcuts. This book is traded from €4000 upwards, if available at all. Personally, I cannot afford that. Which of the modern fine press publishers (Lyras, CTP, Suntup, CuriousKing...) still offer something like that? CTP is probably the closest with its photopolymer prints, but those are only a handful. Suntup has three woodcuts in the Yellow Wallpaper book; otherwise, there seems to be hardly anything left that used to define fine press/art. Please correct me and share your opinion on this. I hope I was clear. Unfortunately, I'm not deeply immersed in this 'hobby' yet.

>12 Alan_Wake: The page emphasises things like "raised bands", "silk ribbon", and "gilt top edge", yet as ambyrglow pointed out no mention of even the paper stock (you have to watch a video to get that info). When you're touting the accessories over the basics, it doesn't speak to me of the art of the book. Honestly, the whole affair gives me the impression of a marketing department that looked at fine press book sales and decide they wanted to get a slice of that, rather than a team of people who are genuinely in love with quality books. It's a gut impression, but there you go.

Okay, thanks for your explanation. I can totally feel that too. The best 'webpage-book-descriptions' come from Tony Geer (CTP) in my opinion. As you visit the site and read through everything, you can see and feel that the guy is totally in love with books and what he is doing.

Curious King's webpage is the one I like the least because of the very cryptic description of what you will get.

The most beautiful Page is from Lyra's Books though. Amazing piece of art.
I hope I can aquire a copy in the future.

>13 Shadekeep: Corvedale is a valley near Ludlow. The Corvedale Press and Ludlow Bookbinders share the same physical address (Unit 5 Lower Barns Business Park.) The video is all about the binding. The website is all about Jane Austen.

I live in Bath, as did Jane Austen from 1801 to 1806. There is a big Jane Austen Heritage industry here including an annual 10-day festival attended by thousands, many in full Regency dress and apparently having great fun. See https://janeausten.co.uk/pages/festival-home-page.

It looks to me as if Ludlow's marketing department is after a slice of that.

>15 tim_rylance: Makes sense. As I say, I was going on gut impression. It's not a book that interests me for a number of reasons, so I didn't dig into it further.

>9 Shadekeep: Ha, and just noticed that their logo reminds me of the debate around the Consensus Press one.

That's too much! Looks like the "C" got drunk and needs to "P".....

OK, maybe a bit harsh. Fortunately, in designing the CP pressmark, Mark didn't go off the deep end and come up with something like that!

>6 Dr.Fiddy: Munken Pure Rough is an offset paper, not designed for letterpress.
See: https://www.arcticpaper.com/brands/munken/munken-design-range/munken-pure-rough/

Looks like an Easton Press book with a slipcase to me.

>17 Glacierman: Designer: "How about Pac-man with buck teeth?"

Board: "Perfect."

>18 Glacierman: Funny, it reminds me more of a Folio Society limited edition than EP. That said, it looks like a very nice edition printed offset, although I agree that the $661 USD price is tough to swallow when there are so many letterpress books being published that are around that price or less. Still, I wish them all the best and hope they succeed.

>18 Glacierman: Interesting on the paper - that seems to be exactly what Conversation Tree Press are using for their letterpress printed standard edition.

I agree on the look of the book, the craft and quality of the binding seem to be a bit wasted on a fairly uninspiring binding design.

The Bowler Press was going to do what looked like it might be a lovely edition. Alas, it never came to pass...

>21 NathanOv: Interesting on the paper - that seems to be exactly what Conversation Tree Press are using for their letterpress printed standard edition.

It is, but it wasn't formulated for letterpress, but that doesn't mean it can't be adapted to that purpose. You can letterpress on anything, really: any paper, wood, cloth. How well it works on some materials is perhaps questionable, but you can print on it.

I have never understood why a book is fine press when it's printed letterpress by automatic machines and bound by automatic machines but it isn't fine press when it's printed non-letterpress by automatic machines and bound by hand.

>24 edkennedy: You say that like it some kind of immutable law. Almost everyone has a different definition of fine press, and sets the boundaries where they wish.

>25 Shadekeep: For many it seems to be.

Just as a side note, I'm not aware of a fine press edition of The Principles of Straw-Man Construction, but it seems like it would be a popular title in some quarters. 😉

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Yes, I concur with what >20 astropi: said. It's an apt comparison as well. I think when you put this book beside similar but (to me) much superior productions, like Extraordinary Edition's Ebenezer Le Page, it's simply not compelling. Perhaps if I were an Austen fan it might be, but in that case, I'd have so many other options to choose from, too. I certainly don't wish the press ill, and who knows, maybe some future title of theirs will tickle my fancy. I'm just not the target demographic for this one.

>25 Shadekeep: That's true, of course, but naturally, the Fine Press movement emerged as a response to industrialization, valuing traditional methods and artisanal craftsmanship in book printing and design.
(That would crossout books produced by machine, as it can be considered mass production. Depends on the publisher and limitations.)

>24 edkennedy:
Letterpress printing has regained popularity due to its unique qualities that set it apart from modern printing methods. Its tactile feel, deep impression on paper, and the rich, textured look it imparts to printed material evoke a sense of craftsmanship and tradition. Additionally, letterpress allows for the use of various paper types and thicknesses, making it a favored choice for artisans, designers, and those seeking a high-quality, tactile experience in printed materials.

“I BEGAN PRINTING BOOKS WITH THE HOPE OF PRODUCING SOME WHICH WOULD HAVE A DEFINITE CLAIM TO BEAUTY, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THEY SHOULD BE EASY TO READ AND SHOULD NOT DAZZLE THE EYE” – WILLIAM MORRIS, 1895
https://williammorrissociety.org/current-exhibitions/the-ideal-book-william-morr...

>24 edkennedy: >29 Alan_Wake: I’m confused - are there specific machine-bound books you’ve seen referred to as fine press and are now commenting on?

While there a certainly letterpress books that are not fine press and offset books that are, the exceptions don’t make the rules less generally true.

I don’t know that any of us are being quite that prescriptive when we say that letterpress is, generally, a mark of a modern fine press work.

>30 NathanOv: There exists a hard-core letterpress group for whom offset or other methods are outside the pale. Others, such as myself, will admit to the fine press circle books produced by other methods so long as they are made to the highest standards.

For a non-letterpress, hand made book that can serve as an example, I suggest the inquisitive check this one out: Hippolytos from Tara Books.

>30 NathanOv:
It wasn't about any specific book per se. Actually, now that I'm rereading it, it doesn't make any sense at all. Understandable that you're confused. OF COURSE, a machine-bound book isn't 'fine press.'

However, a book printed by non-letterpress methods can still be considered 'fine press.' Offset or similar printing techniques can indeed be of high quality, though naturally not comparable to letterpress. (As described above)

I'm not sure if it's true, but I think I read that certain thicker mould-made or handmade papers couldn't be offset printed because the machines aren't designed for that. (Aside from whether such a thing would even make sense.) 100% Cotton paper like Amaranthine is using now is extremely thick.

>32 Alan_Wake: "I think I read that certain thicker mould-made or handmade papers couldn't be offset printed because the machines aren't designed for that."

Definitely, and thank you for bringing this up! The more industrial the machine, the more uniformity of material input and output is requires to work correctly. One of the big raisons d'être for fine presswork is the ability to work with non-machineable materials. It isn't about thickness, though. It has to do with weight consistency, shape uniformity, flexibility, delicacy, whether the material can be suctioned, etc. Also, it isn't even about finer materials. Non-machineable doesn't necessarily mean fine. I could easily use my Vandercook to print on toilet paper or an old sock, whereas I could never get those through my inkjet office printer.

>24 edkennedy: >27 Shadekeep: >30 NathanOv: >32 Alan_Wake:

Interesting discussion, but I agree that it's a bit of a straw man.

"Hand-bound" and "machine-bound" are pretty flimsy categories.

Machine usage in bookbinding varies a lot, including in fine presswork. You can cut cover boards with a $20 blade and ruler, or a $200 guillotine trimmer, or a $2,000 board shear, or a $20,000 electric stack cutter, or a $200,000 board processor. That's like 2 minutes per board, 20 seconds per board, 2 seconds per board, 0.2 seconds per board, or 0.02 seconds per board. All common methods. Given the hundred different steps of bookbinding, and the huge diversity of methods and tools used in those steps, categories like "hand-bound" or "machine-bound" aren't very descriptive or even accurate in my opinion.

I actually visited an industrial bindery that made books for Random House or Curtis Brown or one of the big publishers (I forget which) and I was surprised how much handicraft was still involved. Not just quality control and carrying stacks from machine to machine, but certain steps in the cover-making process and applying headbands. The same factory had an incredible state-of-the-art full automated clamshell box making maker. Eight million dollar machine which could produce 1,500 clamshells an hour. Takes me about two hours to do one (and theirs are more exact) 😭

>33 grifgon: How restricted with paper type/uniformity are presses that use automated letterpress machines like Heidelberg cylinder presses?

By the way, I'm looking forward to the next No Reply edition printed on old socks!

>33 grifgon:
Very informative. Thank you 👍

>31 Glacierman: I certainly see those strong stances from time-to-time, but even then most seem willing to accept fine press photography or certain facsimiles as exceptions at the very least.

>36 NathanOv: To be honest, I don't think anyone is 100% absolutist. At one time, I was hard-core "no poetry" in my press book collection. I've mellowed in my old age...... A lot!

>33 grifgon: Not to quibble, but "hand-bound" is easily a real aspect, regardless of how a book is printed or whether it qualifies the book as "fine press" (it doesn't, in my mind). Keith A. Smith has three volumes of instructions and history of non-adhesive bindings, and not a single one (that I am aware of) can be done without one's hands. Of course, using a binding that requires stitching or casing-in by hand caps the size of an edition pretty quickly!

>38 DenimDan: That's not a quibble at all, I completely agree!

I didn't say that hand-binding is not a real aspect, I said that "hand-bound" is not a particularly descriptive category. To say a book is "hand-bound" doesn't really tell you much about how it was made. It suggests the heavy involvement of human hands, sure, but with what machinery? What tools? What methods and processes? Even the world's largest trade book binderies require the significant involvement of human hands.

>39 grifgon: Maybe "bound entirely by hand" perhaps?

To me, the term "hand bound" or "bound by hand" precludes mechanized binding, as in a trade bindery. Major processes are done manually by the binder or assistant. Some preparatory processes can be somewhat mechanized, e. g. paper cutting, skiving of leather, etc., but the forwarding and finishing are done manually. This precludes the use of sewing machines which are usually used to create a Smythe sewn binding. That should be done by hand. Some may quibble over that, but ya gotta draw the line somewhere.

A thoughtful definition of hand-binding. Also, one which would exclude many fine binderies who I think would take exception!

>41 grifgon: No doubt!

Just think of all the scribes, calligraphers, and illuminators who balked at considering the printing press "fine bookmaking"!

Back to Pride and Prejudice. The cloth and deluxe (leather bound) editions are out. The lettered edition remains in "coming soon" status. None of the states are letterpress. It looks like 7 Jane Austen books will be published with Emma being next up.

I don't disagree with the impressions a number of people have expressed in this thread. However, I am interested in whether anyone has purchased the cloth or deluxe states. What are your thoughts now you have had it in hand?

>11 kdweber: I am not sure who told you that we had stopped printing Letterpress? We have Beowulf coming out in 2025 and even the illustrations will be printed letterpress. We have three titles planned to be printed this way in the next couple of years.

We only use offset when we consider the title and the collector base suits it best. It is a matter of choosing the right print method for the right title.

Thank you for bringing this misconception to my attention and I hope you will look forward to our letterpress editions.

All the best

Mike Emeny

>45 Books-Illustrated: When do you anticipate your edition of Beowulf will be available for pre-order or order?