Which SEs (if any) do you prefer to the LEs?

I never had any interest in the PKD LE as there is zero chance I would read a majority (or even a substantial minority) of the PKD's short stories (I do like PKD but think that as he wrote very quickly a lot of his short stories IMO were simply not very good), 2500+ pages of PKD short stories is massive overkill for me. I strongly prefer the new SE to the LE: aesthetically more appealing to me, takes up much less space, and I like the idea of curation because otherwise I'd have to research which short stories in the LE to read.

Dr. Zhivago is another SE that is preferable to me as the 2 volumes (as opposed to the one large volume in the LE) makes it easier to read.

I prefer the look of the cover of the SE of Call of Chthulu.

I agree with >1 punkzip: on the 2-volume Zhivago and with >2 rsmac: on Call of Cthulhu. I also really like the white-on-grey design of the SE Mob-Dick, although I have never handled the LE and know that it has a lot of fans so perhaps I should reserve judgement.

I prefer the SEs of Wind in the Willows and Alice in Wonderland, because when my kids handle them I experience only mild stress rather than a full blown heart attack.

>2 rsmac: also agree. The shimmering purple green fabric of Cthulhu is perfect for the work and nicer than the imitation leather of the LE.

I prefer all of the SEs to their LE brethren - they come at a much more reasonable cost.

>6 coynedj: and size!

The SE (really a fine edition I suppose) of Ulysses is still the best version they've produced and in contention for one of the best produced by anyone. Slapping some goatskin on it in the LE made it bigger and more expensive but not better.

I much prefer the 2012 Fine edition of the Rubaiyat over the LE. I inspected both in the dMR and acquired the Fine edition some time later. It's one of the more impressive Fine editions - supple goatskin spine, crushed silk boards, really nice thick and textured paper. Frankly speaking, this binding has much better look, feel, and materials than quite a few LEs from the recent years. The Rubaiyat LE has a nice binding too, especially if one likes the look of that LE series. Both editions feature the same illustrations by Niroot Puttapipat.

Now, what makes the Fine edition much preferable over the LE is the page layout design. In the Fine edition every spread features a page with an illustration and a facing page with four stanzas. The typographical layout is handsome, provides plenty breathing space for the poetry without being sparse, and makes an easy and pleasant reading experience.

The LE, on the other hand... I don't know what Joe was smoking, but they printed only a single short stanza per page, giving you four pages of mostly whitespace per each illustration page. It looks wrong and makes the book unnecessary heavy.

And I most definitely prefer the striking biding design of the standard Dune over the predictable one of the LE.

>4 Levin40: Seconded! Alice in Wonderland LE in particular is just gorgeous - I saw it at the dMR - but there was no way I'd let those little fingers flip through it. SEs all the way.

>9 elladan0891: I much prefer the 2012 Fine edition of the Rubaiyat over the LE.

I must confess I've never actually seen the LE but yours is the latest in a number of similar comments I've read over the years which persuaded me in favour of the Fine Edition. Once in my possession it didn't take long to grasp the point people were pushing. I really can't imagine how Joe could magicked an LE out of the Fine Edition (I know he didn't, because the LE preceded the Fine Edition, but you know what I mean).

Good grief, where to start?! In a major way >6 coynedj: and >7 RRCBS: are spot on, so many SEs are better value and better sized. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: I sold all my LEs a while ago, often retaining, or even buying as a replacement, the SE. Thus, for instance, none of the LEs match for me the 3 volume Chaucer with side-by-side translation. I've yet to see a Lord of the Rings LE that I'd want to replace my 'elephant-hide' Lord of the Rings. I know for some these don't compare, but for me, all too often the LEs are somewhat overblown or, for instance in the case of the Dumas LEs, just ghastly.
Having said that, I am looking forward, if they ever happen, to SE versions of Madame Bovary (love the LE artwork) and Tristam Shandy!

When I saw the flyer for the LE Rob Roy, I took an immediate dislike to it, particularly the illustrations. I decided to see if there had been a SE and found the completely unrelated 2001 publication on eBay. Much more attractive and classic looking. (I loved the story, BTW .)

>13 laotzu225: I couldn't agree more. I dislike the Rob Roy LE more than any other FS edition that I can think of. The 2001 edition is lovely, a complete contrast and infinitely better than the LE.

>12 Willoyd:

Disagree.

The Lord of the Rings LR LE (2002) with 1/4 Wassa goatskin binding and hand-woven Indian silk over boards, all in a slipcase completely covered in the same dark brown Wassa goatskin, is far superior to either the original edition (1977) in 1/4 pale gray faux leather or the 1990 reprint in elephant-hide paper bindings. The LE is both elegant and a perfect reading size. You are correct in one respect, however. There is no comparison.

>15 dlphcoracl: The Folio 'elephant-hide' LotR was the binding issued for the first time in 1990 as a reprint of the original 1977 edition bound in quarter grey leather over grey cloth, with which you appear to be confusing it.

>16 cronshaw:

Thank you for pointing out my error. I have edited and corrected my post in >15 dlphcoracl:.

>16 cronshaw: Comparing 'guts' to 'guts', i.e. without regard to covers or endpapers, what is your assessment of the LotR LE (2002) compared with the original edition (1977)? Note that the latter was printed letterpress.

>18 ultrarightist: I'm afraid I don't currently possess either of those editions you mention, although I owned both previously! From what I remember, the guts, as you put it, of the LotR (2002) were identical to those of the standard edition available around the same time, so as you say, not letterpress. The skins were splendid, but the intestines very ordinary. One drawback I do remember of the original 1977 edition was that the map endpapers weren't as clear as the three-colour maps issued in later reprints: everything was drawn in white on a blue blackground, even the place names, which unfortunately meant the individual features aren't as readily distinguishable, nor the writing as legible, as they are in later maps.

(If my memory serves me wrongly regarding the text block of the 2002 LE being the same as that of the contemporaneous standard edition, I hope a Devotee who has that LE may correct me here)

>19 cronshaw: Thanks for the information.

>20 ultrarightist: My pleasure! I would just add that I think, endpaper maps notwithstanding, that first 1977 edition is probably my favourite of all Folio's LotR editions, when taking price into account, simply because of its originality and charm (and letterpress of course). It gives you a lot of pleasurable bang for your buck, even at the current secondary market prices.

If the companion volumes for Shakespeare count as SEs I prefer them to the recent LEs. I have just one LE, Othello, and while there is no denying the great production quality, the book is huge and the solander box belongs in a bank vault. The companion volumes are little gems - I have about six of them and love the commentary and annotations combined with the hardback cover. They are great.

"...and (contrary to a common belief) printing is far clearer and more even since litho took over from letterpress as the principal method of printing in the 1970s...) Joe Whitlock Blundell, "Designs on books," Folio magazine Summer 1994, continued in Autumn 1995. He isn't, of course, talking about small runs of limited editions where extraordinary care is taken, but about run of the mill editions. Ordinary Folio editions in letterpress were not superior to those printed later.

>23 Jayked: case in point being the beautiful Folio edition of Salomé letterpress printed at the Curwen Press with the text in two colors. It’s a very nice little volume with beautiful binding and illustrations and is printed letterpress but the registration is absolutely terrible and detracts quite a bit from the reading experience.

>22 LBShoreBook:

The companion volumes and their notes are wonderful. Thing is, I don't know about you, but once I got stuck into the text, I just wanted to go on and on with his beautiful language and not have to keep checking the notes. The LEs are the purest form of Shakespeare. Just the text. With lots of space in which the words can breath and do their magic. It works. And the paper feels so, so, so ...

(Oops, sorry. I went away there.)

Beautiful. :-)

>25 Cat_of_Ulthar: I could not agree more.

>15 dlphcoracl:
As I said, others would disagree. Personally, I looked at it and felt it wasn't worth the extra. I'm glad for you, having spent whatever you did that it was worth it. Both satisfied!

I prefer all SEs by default as I can actually afford them…I do like the new LotR LE better aesthetically though but I think it’s too big. They should shrink it down and make it an SE.

>22 LBShoreBook: I wholeheartedly agree! I am sad I never managed to buy more of them, I also only have seven of them.
I am constantly on the lookout, but they rarely sell the companion volumes on the secondary market. If they are up for sale, it’s mostly the once that were sold last in the sales for £9,99

The SE of Sound and Fury is nice, likely giving the LE competition. But what do I know, not seen the LE.