GreyLord wrote:
No offense, but does anyone here actually KNOW anything about quality printings. Paperbacks normally use a glue backing, which actually makes them the WORST type of binding...period. And since you can use lower quality paper, that also makes them able to use...lower quality paper.
If the hardback is sewn in ANY fashion or way...it is heads and tails a higher quality than the paperback binding. The complaints about the hardbacks having a hard time staying open is not a reflection of quality or binding really, though it might make the cover tear up more easily, the binding will stay around FAR longer and be FAR more durable than any paperback.
I can't say that the quality of the hardbacks is terrific...but who ever is telling people to wait for the paperback because it's better...is insane...crazy...and too me doesn't sound like they know what they are talking about in relation to book quality in relation to binding quality.
Obviously people here wish to have a decent hardback and the fact that many of them (inclused me) hope in the paperback for a better quality is a measure of how much the hardback are far from be a decent quality book.
My italian paperback of the LW from 1-27 are still in good condition even after 15 years when the hardbook wont last a year.
Tight binding is not a good thing. My first copy almost lost some pages (partially detached) and I opened the book only few times without reading it completly.
GreyLord wrote:
Personally, when I look to see how durable a book is, the first thing I look for is to see how the binding is (smyth-sewn seems to be the normal now days, though there are some which I think could do really nice as well).
The biggest reason I suspect that people don't like the way the FFtD was bound is because it's a particularly tight binding. That doesn't mean that it's a bad binding, just that it's more tight than others usually are.
I'd imagine however, that this could be problematic, but not as terrible as some seem to be making it sound. However bad it is, it is in no way as bad as a paperback which is typically made for a single read and then to be tossed.
So excuse me if I sound absolutely floored that people are even suggesting the idea that a paperback is of better quality than a book which may have a sewn backing. That's rather insane to be making such a claim.
Archiving books would always prefer sewn to paperback, as paperbacks invariably have to get rebound (and sometimes as a sewn binding even before they put them in the archives without giving them a chance to have the glue decay and the pages then fall out) sooner than later.
Okay, sorry about that. Just all this ridiculous talk about a quality paperback over a sewn binding had me freak out for a second there.
Bindind is indeed important and these hardbook proved to be done without thinking about the person that will read them. Hard to open is not good and this thightness is not synonym of longer durability. The most critical pages are the ones that will break for sure because the whole book is kept togheter by 2 pages for each sides.
Also binding was not the only problem: random margins, random senseless line on the top of the pages, image cropped and other things are all things that show a production issue.
So we hope for the paperback because they are the only hope to give a great comeback to the LW series.
. It would be nice to know what's going on here.