Are Easton Press books meant for reading or for just sitting

>>9689029
They look pretty bad in my opinion. To answer your question, I think they're mostly decorative.

>>9689111
they are sexy

>>9689240
They are tacky.

> Is it normal to take these out in public and read them like you would any other book?

its not normal to take a full size hardback out in public, no. you read them at home. mass market paperbacks that fit in your pocket are for reading in public. i swear, you autists sometimes.

>>9689029
I really want that copy because Micheal Hague is the artist for it, but I have too many books I haven't read to spend any money buying books I have read.

>>9689029
Anon from >>9689881 speaking,

To answer you question, I read mine, but it makes the gold inlay fade with time. Which doesn't really bother me, I find slight wear on books attractive.

>>9689240
If the books in the OP image can be considered standard Easton Press editions, they look like shit and you have no taste

>>9689029
I read mine. its a fucking book, of course you read it

>>9689029
I owned many easint press books. My favorite part about them was margins wide enough you dont have to crack the binding. The paper is archival acid free and the leather is supple. Tactically speaking it's the best you'll get, it honestly improves the reading experience.

File: IMG_6335.jpg (184KB, 760x988px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 760x988px

>>9690319
But if your looking for a nice set of LOTR, I would actually suggest Folio Society. They usually have an deal on your first purchase and you cant get the whole LOTR set (Hobbit and Simularion) for a way better price than easton.
The illistrations are excellent in the Folio's too, and they come with a slip cover, so no need to dust them.

>people actually think gaudy bullshit like this and the B&N Leatherbounds look good
I'm going to be sick.

>>9690331
Holy shit these are gorgeous! Lucky man. Do you actually read those or just keep them on your shelf to look pretty? Wouldn't judge you if you did because they are so mystical

>>9690340
some people here are just interested in pure quality of the book. some Easton press looks good, some doesn't. What do you collect, patricianboy?

>>9690331
That's still $300. You could get a 50+ volume hardcover set of the world's classics for less than that.

>>9690340
Binding aside, leather-bound books are generally just very good editions. They use the highest quality paper, you generally have acclaimed illustrations for said novel, there are very rarely any mistakes in the text, accurate/tasteful translation, and real leather just feels amazing to hold. The books also last for generations, as well, while paperback books fall apart rather quickly.

>>9689029
>Are Easton Press books meant for reading or for just sitting on your shelf and looking nice?

Given that they do not list the translations they uses in their works it would seem to heavily lean towards the latter

>>9690353
From where?

>>9690353
I call bs on this claim.

They're meant for sitting on your shelf and making you look like a person who has no aesthetic sense and so is forced to use price as a proxy.

>>9689029
Those genuinely look horrible. I mean I already judge people who buy fancy looking books just to impress others; but if you're going to go down that route, at least get something that doesn't look like it was designed by a 10-year old.

itt: poors

>>9691032
Harvard's Classics.

>>9689029
That cover looks terrible. One the shelf, with just the spine visible, they'd look fine I suppose, no worse that any other book.