What is the largest book FS has published?

I think the largest book in the current FS catalog might be the Plants of America LE, which is 18 1/2 by 13 inches. To give a sense of how large this is, a typical Taschen XXL volume is roughly 15 1/2 by 11 1/2 inches. Has FS published any books larger than this? What is the largest book FS has published?

>1 punkzip: I think the largest might be the Queen Mary's Atlas LE (22.5 X 15.5 inches). There is a photo in the LE section of the FSD wiki which is helpful.

David Roberts 2 volume Limited Edition of The Holy Land. 20 x 13.75

This edition is limited to 1,000 copies, numbered by hand. Bound in the original burgundy canvas and blocked with designs by Neil Gower. Gilded top edges, ribbon marker, red cloth slipcases. measured by 20" x 13¾". A set in 2 volumes: I-- The Holy Land: Syria, Idumea and Arabia, 296 pages, including 123 plates, portrait of Roberts and map; II-- Egypt and Nubi, 272 pages, including 124 plates and map.

Temple of Flora must be a contender. Are we measuring by height, surface area, volume, or weight?

Edit: It's 22.5 x 18.25 I believe. Does anything beat that?

Surinam Album appears to be joint 4th tallest, and weighs in at 15.2 pounds on a dry day. It stays permanently moored in its berth.

Tallest FS book - Queen Mary Atlas 2005. 62 x 43.5cm. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/warwick_carter/49172084253/in/photolist-2hVaMw6-Vz...
Heaviest FS book - Johnson's Dictionary 2006. 12.9Kg.
Smallest FS books - Miniature poetry series 1991-1997 11.8x8.4cm.

>6 wcarter: The Johnson's Dictionary would be 2 books :)

>7 mr.philistine:
In one slipcase.

I have the Gargantua and Pantagruel and the fact that it isn't even in the running yet is astonishing. This thing is monstrous! 36.2cm x 26cm.

>9 L.Bloom: Gargantua is not that gargantuan.

>10 punkzip: It's down right petite next to Atlas!

A picture of the scale range of FS books can be seen here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/warwick_carter/47495100101/in/photolist-2hVaMw6-Vz...
Click on picture twice to zoom in.
List of titles in description below picture.

>6 wcarter: How do you know the weight of a FS book? Is it listed anywhere? If you are including sets in one slipcase, what is the weight of the new LOTR LE?

>12 wcarter:
I weigh the books I own on a scale, and I own most FS LEs.
Haven't weighed the LoTR yet, but feels much lighter than Johnson's Dictionary.

>12 wcarter: Thanks, I love that photo! Is that your current bookshelf?

>15 punkzip:
The picture is a carefully scaled montage, but I do own all those books.

>6 wcarter:

Atlases should be large! I wish I had a copy.

>16 wcarter:
Wonderful.

This thread has stimulated me to update the tall books montage with recent editions.



A better quality picture can be seen here.

Click twice on picture to enlarge.

>13 punkzip: "How do you know the weight of a FS book? Is it listed anywhere? If you are including sets in one slipcase, what is the weight of the new LOTR LE?"

The shipping manifest said 11kg, although I haven't weighed the set out of the box. Presumably that number would include the box.

Did it the old fashioned way and put the Lord of the Rings LE on the scales.
Three books, slipcase, map folder and extra print together weigh 7.6Kg

>1 punkzip: I would imagine that the single largest ever Folio volume is the Surinam Album, given that 'largeness' is generally taken to refer to overall volume, rather than height or weight. Although the Surinam Album LE isn't quite as tall as the Queen Mary Atlas or the Temple of Flora, it is considerably wider than either and so likely the largest overall. As I no longer own all three (having retained only the magnificent Temple of Flora following a much needed cull a few years ago when I was as happy to be relieved of the QMA as I had been acquiring it) I'm unable to measure and calculate precise volumes.

>21 wcarter: Though significantly lighter than the lardy Dr Johnson, the Tolkien sounds impressively weighty. How does a volume feel in the hand when reading?

>19 wcarter: Damn haha. Knowing how big the LotR set is... those bigger ones must be of truly epic proportions :o

>23 cronshaw:
Very easy to read with book resting on your lap. Would not want to be holding it up all the time though.

>22 cronshaw:
OK, if we are getting into the front surface area of the Solander box, the top three are:-
Surinam Album 56.6x41.5 cm. = 2349 sq.cm.
Queen Mary Atlas 62x43 cm. = 2666 sq.cm.
Temple of Flora 59.9x51.5 cm. = 3049 sq.cm

If we look at the volume of the Solander box by including the depth of the box, then we get the following order :-
Queen Mary Atlas 62x43x6.2 cm. = 16.53 litres
Surinam Album 56.6x41.5x10.4 cm. = 24.43 litres
Temple of Flora 59.9x51.5x8.8 cm. = 27.3 litres

>26 wcarter: Thank you for taking the time and trouble to measure the three boxes! However, if we want to determine which is Folio's 'largest book', as per the OP, the volume of the volume, as it were, is I think what counts here, rather than the volume of the solander box. Unfortunately the sizes of the solander boxes are misleading because they will vary according to the size of the accompanying companion volumes and internal arrangement of compartments. For example, the Shakespeare letterpress volumes are comparatively slim but have outsized solander boxes because the companion volumes are quite thick: they're terribly wasteful of shelf-space.

P.S. I'm unsurprised Temple of Flora takes up the most volume overall on the shelf in its solander box. It is as vast as it is gorgeous.

>19 wcarter: Wonderful photomontage! The thing I find quite striking is the size of the Macbeth solander. I know these are not giant books by any stretch, but they are big enough to completely fill the largest shelf on my bookcase, feel quite hefty, and look positively petit next to some of the others.

One that I don't see mentioned is the Gill Canterbury Tales LE. At 12.5" tall (excluding slipcase), it's the tallest book in my collection. Then the Heaney Beowulf and Spenser's Faerie Queene clock in at over 11.2" tall (excluding slipcase / solander boxes). Though all of these are diminutive compared to some of the others already discussed.

>29 Betelgeuse: yeah, the blue ruler on the left side of the photo in >19 wcarter: is approximately the same height as your Canterbury Tales. Really puts things in perspective...

Since size isn't everything, and shelf space is limited, if one could only have 1 or 2 of the very biggest FS books, which of biggest volumes are the best?

>31 punkzip: I don't know if you enjoy botanical illustrations, but to my eye The Temple of Flora is absolutely magnificent. Considering only 600 copies were produced (of an intended limitation of 2000), it's also exceptionally good value for what you get. The binding materials (full-grain Nigerian goatskin), paper* and image reproduction quality are vastly superior to those of the Taschen deluxe XXL edition, yet incredibly the Folio LE currently sells for less than the Taschen on the secondary market. People are mad.

*text printed on beautiful felt-marked Modigliani Neve paper, the plates on Modigliani Insize. It's a Folio Golden Age classic!

>31 punkzip:

When it comes to botanical art, I'd definitely second Temple of Flora, it's beautifully made.

What also impresses me are the two William Blakes, which truly do the originals I saw in Tate Britain two years ago justice.

And to bring another one into it, although it's not quite as gargantuan as these: The Luttrell Psalter is a really impressive facsimile, the best (and largest) of this type I've ever come across. It's incredibly rich when it comes to the artwork, and it's so large that the different sections - done by different artists in different styles - are clearly distinguished from one another. It's very much worth it's price if you're into that kind of book.

>31 punkzip: The Surinam Album did inspire me to buy an exercise machine and work my way up to the highest level.
1001 Nights, not so much for the text, which I already had in Mardrus and Mather, as for the spectacular Dali paintings.
As a medievalist I wouldn't be without the facsimiles, but I think the best value for non-specialists is the smaller Fitzwilliam Book of Hours. It lacks the fancy leather covers of the others, which are in any case unhistorical, but the detail in the paintings is unbelievable given the conditions under which the artists worked -- and it's more reasonably priced on the secondary market.

>31 punkzip: Lear's Birds is my clear favourite. Full goatskin binding on a tome that size is a sight to behold. I love the artwork (which is lucky as there are very few words), and link to David Attenborough.

Temple of Flora is my runner up.

>31 punkzip:

I have several of the largest - Temple of Flora, Surinam Album, Birds Drawn for John Gould, Blake's Night Thoughts and Poems of Thomas Gray, Johnson's Dictionary and the Kelmscott Chaucer LE, all superb achievements and I can't but think that the subjectivity of any prospective buyer would outweigh any ranking we could arrive at. Having said that, I can only agree that Temple of Flora generally represents, or at least has in recent times, exceptional value on the secondary market. I bought my own copy from Ardis, whose reputation is rightly for extensive stocks and accurate descriptions rather than bargain offers, a few years ago for less than half the published price from 2008. The going rate does seem to have recovered somewhat, with the eight copies currently on ABE starting at £570.

Given the multiple recommendations for Temple of Flora, I'm wondering how it compares to Plants of America, which is regularly available for 50% off in the sales.

>37 punkzip:

I didn't buy Plants of America since I didn't find the pictures nearly as lively or interesting as in Temple of Flora, so that's a difference. From a purely botanical point of view, it does make a fine impression.

My choices would be Lear's Birds, 1001 Nights and Queen Mary Atlas. All are reviewed with lots of pictures on the Folio Archives site at -
https://www.librarything.com/topic/266300

The largest I have is the Kelmscott Chaucer.

I bought this from Folio back in 2009 for AUD$400.

Those days are gone.

>40 LesMiserables:

Definitely, that was a really good price. I paid around 1000 Euros for this one second hand. But on the other hand, I was really lucky and got The Lutrell Psalter for about 350 Pounds used. It's smaller than others I have in sheer size, but has more pages than all of them, I think, and it's incredibly rich in detail.

>41 SF-72:

I'm guessing 1000 Euros bought you the LE, so not quite the same thing, though the "standard" Kelmscott facsimile did seem remarkably good value even at the time.

>42 terebinth:

That explains some of the price difference. Yes, it was the limited edition. I recently saw the standard edition in a museum, the William Morris Gallery in London, where they used it to make one of his books directly accessible to visitors. The originals were under glass, naturally.