Folio Society using stickers as covers now

>1 Bob_Reader: I don’t own this book, but the description from the FS website:

Three-quarter bound in blocked cloth with a printed and blocked paper front board

These are fairly common binding materials for a SE book.

If you are actually seeing a sticker...well, that would be a first.

>1 Bob_Reader: I am currently reading this book and was puzzling through this exact question last night. I can't tell if it is a sticker.

>2 wdripp: I'm no expert on bookbinding, but I think this is correct. It's not a sticker, just the paper front board.

At least I hope so. It does feel like a step down in quality compared to my other Folio books, including Anna Akhmatova, which has a similar binding but uses Modigliani paper for the front board.

>1 Bob_Reader: Based on the description in >2 wdripp:, here's what you should expect:

The spine and rear of the book are covered in cloth. The front board is covered in paper. Upon that paper is printed a design, some elements of which are likely to be lightly debossed as a result of stamping part of the design.

This is normal practice for a standard edition Folio Society book, and had been for some time. But the quality of materials used can also vary a lot within this basic template.

I fully understand your disappointment. I remember getting my copy of Agincourt, which looked quite vibrant and well-made on the website, only to find a fairly flat, dull looking printed paper front.

>1 Bob_Reader: I don't own this book so I'm trying to understand what is being described. In essence, whatever material (paper, cloth, leather,...) is used for the cover could be considered a sticker because it is typically glued onto the boards. Standard practice is to wrap cover material around the boards so the edges are covered. If they didn't wrap around the boards for whatever reason (aesthetics, design, or economy), I could see why the paper covering the front board would look like a sticker because you would see the paper edge. If they covered the boards first in the cloth and then used paper for the front cover image, I guess that would be more accurately called a label.

Is that what is being described? If so, where is the paper edge? At the edge of the boards? At the edge of the gold rectangle of the cover image? I definitely can't tell from the pictures on the website.

Which leads me also to ask how the spine lettering was done? Is it also a paper label, or is it printed onto the cloth covering of the spine?

>7 jveezer: The paper wraps around the three edges. I think it is exactly as >6 ubiquitousuk: wrote:

The spine and rear of the book are covered in cloth. The front board is covered in paper. Upon that paper is printed a design, some elements of which are likely to be lightly debossed as a result of stamping part of the design.

The spine lettering is printed onto the cloth.

From the Oxford Companion to the Book:

quarter binding A binding with one kind of covering material on the spine, projecting slightly across the adjacent boards, and a different covering material on the rest of the boards. A leather-covered spine with paper-covered boards (hence quarter-calf, quarter-sheep) has been a common cost-saving device, particularly since the 18th century. If the spine-covering material is also applied across the corners of the boards, it is a half binding; a full strip of spine material down the fore-edge of the boards, or very large corner covering pieces, makes a three-quarter binding. A binding covered completely in one material may therefore be call3d a full binding.

So I guess this uncommon configuration can be a called a seven-eighth binding!?

>10 Bob_Reader: Why don't you post a picture? I'm really curious now what's wrong since it's on my wishlist.

I recently acquired this edition. The paper used to cover the front board is markedly inferior to the cover papers used in the past. It is not a sticker, but I can understand why the OP would think so. It's cheap, very smooth, and shiny.

No sign of a sticker on my copy. The front board is as Folio describe: bound in paper blocked and printed with the design. There is visible debossing from the blocking.

From past experience, when Folio describe a book as 'three-quarter bound', they mean that the rear board, spine, and a thin strip of the front board are covered in one material. The rest of the front board is covered by another material.

>13 Cat_of_Ulthar: Thank you for debunking the "sticker" description.

>10 Bob_Reader: That sounds like a defect. If it’s not something you can easily fix with a bit of glue, I’d take a photo and email FS about a replacement.

Certainly there seem to be more quality control issues lately, but I was just thinking last night how pleasant it was to read even a very basic SE as I started the Campion short stories before bed. It’s got paper boards, and doesn’t really distinguish itself in any way, but it’s still so much better than most alternatives.

>15 wdripp: you’ve given Bob what he came for, which was endorsement to request a replacement. Bob has chronic replacement syndrome. It’s quite sad really, as he takes the time to make multiple threads bemoaning the atrocious quality standards of Folio Society, proceeds to order an additional volume, and then after some email exchanges with customer support manages to convert that single copy into 4 or 5! All of which, are terrible quality of course.

>16 Green_krkr: Second guessing other posters’ motivations is not a hobby I have the time or energy for. I trust FS to manage excessive replacement requests, and our group moderators to manage trolls.

I admit to finding the title of the thread dramatic (and unfortunately permanent), but two other members posted in this thread with questions about the quality of this edition, and I do rely on this group to help me decide which editions deserve space on my shelf since I can’t manhandle the merchandise before buying.

There is always the ignore thread/ignore user option in a pinch.

My copy is not damaged or defective, but as I wrote above, the paper quality is inferior, and I can understand why someone would think it is a sticker. Disappointed that FS would use such inferior quality paper, especially given the high quality Modigliani paper it has used for covers in the past.

>Well it sounds like this is not one of their better efforts, quality-wise, but it's not a sticker and perhaps a bit of glue would fix the bit of paper that is peeling.

Most copies of most books arrive in new condition, with the most frequent complaint by far over the years being bumped slipcase corners acquired during shipping. If returning a book for a replacement is not feasible for you, and these sorts of issues are a deal breaker, you may wish to limit your FS purchases.

Even if you don't want to do an exchange, it isn't a bad idea to let FS know of any defect you find (with photo) so they may consider whether to use certain printers/binders and materials in the future. Also if you are displeased with the quality of the product >19 ultrarightist:.

>18 Bob_Reader:
What neck of the woods do you live in where your age group hasn't been provided with the first vaccine? It should provide sufficient protection for simple tasks.
Even if you're agoraphobic all is not lost. UPS will pick up the return at your home, parcel it securely if need be, and send it by whatever carrier you choose, for a modest fee.

I can't think of a more brutal irony than to catch covid during an attempt to return a defective copy of Journal of the Plague Year from whence it came. Wise to play it safe, I reckon.

>22 Bob_Reader: The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are about 95% effective at preventing infection for those fully vaccinated which is pretty amazing, and are very effective at preventing serious illness and death for those who become infected. I'm sorry your co-worker was not able to get fully immunized. The vaccine is the best way of protecting yourself from COVID, short of avoiding human contact indefinitely.

Apologies for jumping on my soapbox but this nurse has had a long year.

>18 Bob_Reader:
I'm over 70 and if I get the virus, it will surely kill me.
You've first got to catch it. If you do, the CDC reckon an over-70 has a 94.6% chance of survival.

>26 Bob_Reader: Yes, but if you are in the 5%, it is likely the vaccine will prevent a serious/fatal infection. Using the mask and social distancing will reduce your risk below 5%, as the 5% risk is for vaccinated folks going about life as normal.

At least in my region, those who are vaccinated are allowed to gather without a mask and social distancing. Unfortunately, there is a lot of vaccine hesitancy, and certain age groups are not yet eligible, so there are plenty of unvaccinated in my community.

>26 Bob_Reader: I believe that is not how effective rates are interpreted but I am not good at explaining these things. Suffice to say an effective rate of 95% does not mean 5% of immunized persons will get sick. It is actually much lower. Here’s and article about it for anyone interested. I am truly sorry for co-worker and their family. That is terrible.

https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explained.html

Now I will run away from this thread and hide.

I have 300'ish Folio Society books and over 2000 books total and can't think of one bound like that. But I haven't bought a FS book printed after 2015.

Not sure of the thought process there from a book design point of view if the aim is to economize.

>29 Bob_Reader: There are no vaccines that are 100% effective - I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Vaccines that prevent viruses and bacteria are effective due to the vaccine efficacy along with herd immunity. I got my MMR but if I get too big of a measles viral load, guess what? I'm going to get measles (which increases the likelihood because of the anti-vaccine movement). To each their own but the side effect argument doesn't do it for me. I work directly with Covid patients and the side effects even after surviving Covid are severe and extensive: pulmonary embolism, stroke, myocarditis, severely reduced respiratory function which pulmonologists don't know how to treat, amongst others are a real thing. I've never seen younger and healthier people get as sick and need to be admitted to the hospital from a virus such as Covid.

>32 Bob_Reader: True, and transmit it

>32 Bob_Reader: there is no vaccine that provides full immunity. When enough people get a vaccine there is herd immunity. This is why there is no more polio or small pox. It was why measles was negligible until people stopped vaccinating their children. The shot lessens your chances of getting the vaccine significantly and once fully vaccinated significantly decreases your chances of being hospitalized and helps prevent the spread to infect others.

I wasn’t aware of any deaths of people vaccinated three weeks or more prior to getting covid. There were certainly zero deaths from the trial data (after three weeks of vaccination). Your colleague must have been extremely unlucky.

Whilst we don’t have decades of data in terms of use, what we do have is a sample size that no other vaccination has ever come close to. It is very clear that several weeks post vaccination you will not die from catching COVID. Dropping of a parcel carries such a minimal risk post vaccination, that if you are unable to do this, you are for all intentional purposes consigning yourself to total isolation for the rest of your life.

I say this in all kindness, that seeking help and counselling with reentering the world needs to be a priority for yourself.

>36 Bob_Reader: We might not know the long term effects of the vaccine, but we do know that they won't be as bad as the long term effects of the virus. Or the short term effects. And you keep saying about how the vaccine doesn't make someone totally immune; no vaccine does. That's not the point of them (well it's part of the point but not what makes them effective). When you get a vaccine the chances of you catching a disease are decreased, as well as the severity of the symptoms if you do catch it (in some cases). If enough people's chances are reduced then the rate of transmission is lower, which means the chances of the virus mutating are lower, which increases/slows the decrease in the efficacy of vaccines. And then the cycle repeats. This negative feedback loop is why people should be vaccinated, not simply out of the selfish reason of self preservation (although by contributing to herd preservation you inderectly preserve yourself). And the positive feedback loop which is the inverse of what I explained is what happens, as we have seen, when a virus is allowed to spread unchecked, hence the ridiculousness of people who refuse to get vaccinated.

Get the vaccine, any of them, they are safe. And it's incredibly selfish not to.

Bringing this back to the original topic, what was odd to me on the cover is the image is raised from the rest of the paperfront board. So there is the paper board and a raised image on top of that board with distinct borders. Looking at my other FS books with a similar design (e.g., Larkin's poems) the image is part of the paper front board, not added on top of it. Does not bother me and as I looked carefully it is clearly not a sticker but I can't think of another FS book in my library that has a similar design.

>39 DanGoddard98: We might not know the long term effects of the vaccine, but we do know that they won't be as bad as the long term effects of the virus.

You may know that, though I can't begin to guess how, but Geert Vanden Bossche doesn't, and Mike Yeadon doesn't, and neither do I. Propaganda can instil and cement conviction, but conviction is not knowledge.

That will be my last word on the subject, I'm not going to make a habit of responding to disinformation here of all places.

>41 terebinth: Interesting that you choose to call me out for disinformation, but seem happy let slide posts that lean towards being anti vaccination. And obviously I can't know 100% that what I stated was true, any more than is the case with countless other things. But after a certain probability I can be all but certain something is true, and if that weren't the case then it would be impossible for me to know anything (in case you missed it I'm hyperbolising again). In almost all cases there are outliers within the scientific community who disagree with the consensus - for years there were plenty of scientists who denied that climate change was real (I suspect they still exist, and are just far less prominent now). Is it possible that these outliers are actually correct? Of course, but the chances overwhelmingly favour the majority opinion being the correct one.

As for calling decades of research into vaccines and their effects propaganda... It seems you've somewhat misunderstood the meaning of the word. The vaccines are safe, they have been approved by regulatory bodies. That doesn't just happen, it means there is a mountain of proof that they are safe. And yes they were passed unusually quickly, because this is an extremely unusual situation, and the evidence needed to pass them was gathered at an unprecedented pace. I'm not saying there are no risks associated with being vaccinated (for COVID vaccines or any others), but I am saying that taking the vaccine is safer on average than not. Furthermore, when evidence became available that there was a risk of blood clots associated with one of the vaccines, those vaccines were no longer given to people whose chance of being killed by COVID were equal or lower to their chances of getting said blood clots.

I agree conviction is not knowledge, but evidence and facts are the building blocks of knowledge, and there is a lot of evidence that vaccines work.

Perfectly happy for you not to respond, although that is how disinformation takes hold, when people refuse to engage in anything contrary to their 'convictions'. I'm willing to be wrong, and will happily admit it if someone proves me so.

>43 wcarter: Apologies if I was coming across as making personal attacks, it wasn't my intention. I have actually just created a new topic about how this sort of thing happens, if you'd be interested in an off topic discussion there?