Reviewing the proofs...
-
My uninformed biased opinion and I'll state the obvious-you can't judge the book by the cover, BUT it does draw you in. However-The title and the subject matter in this particular case says it all.
I really like the cover, the graphic grabs you and I'd pick it out of a pile of books and recognize it as consistant with the other work I have of yours. I really like the style of the fonts, etc in 776 1/2.
-
But it's just not that big of a deal. It's a dust jacket.
And remember: We're not in bookstores. Although online images of a cover are used, it isn't the same as picking a book off of a shelf while browsing. If we were competing for shelf space in a brick-and-morter, priorities would be different.
PS - Our print run is way smaller than yours.
-
From my experience working in a bindery, moving to four colors has a big effect on labor and price, especially for small runs. Each color requires it's own plate and the the requisite setup labor, and each additional color requires additional work in aligning all the plates to each other. Additionally, with a small run, they're likely to be using a smaller machine, which forces them to run the dust jacket through the press once for every color. So four color would double the time required to print the jackets once setup is complete.
Those costs really get driven down by volume. So, as Jim pointed out, it's not a straight comparison to a large run.
Really, we're talking about a pretty niche market here: sidereal astrologers who are interested in Aleister Crowley's Enochian scryings. It's all about the content. Anyone who's going to buy this book is going to do so based almost entirely on content reviews.
-
@Alrah said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"PS - Our print run is way smaller than yours."Yes - but how many of these runs have you put thier way?
AV - even at runs of 2,000 my cost only went upto 1.80p for an entire mag."
And printing a dust jacket, which is printed on single sheets of heavy weight stock, requires a completely different machine, than printing a magazine, which is usually done with on a much faster machine, where the paper can pass immediately through each of the color plates.
The setup and labor differences between 2 and 4 color on a magazine are completely different than for a dust jacket.
-
Our costs would be significantly higher.
And, just to be more blunt, our interest in four-color covers is so small that it's worth neither the time nor the cost.
Perhaps this is just my personal quirk. (I do tend to lean toward the "It's all about the words" end of the argument.) However, based on the majority of the comments here, this particular cover is a definite (and, admittedly, surprising) hit.
-
I have no idea on price. I had no experience as a sales or customer person.
Just my perspective from a bindery point-of-view. Printing a dust jacket and printing a glossy magazine cover are separate processes, done on different machines. In the bindery I worked at, they were done on different factory floors, and required drastically different time and effort. Of course, each print shop and bindery is different, and will have a different mix of machines and personnel, so prices are going to be individual.
May I suggest we each take a pill of a chill variety? Eh, Do what thou wilt. I'm taking one. Gulp
On a side note: most bindery guys I know are appalled at the general shoddy binding of most books these days. 99% of the books out their are really crappy in that sense. Quality binding is key to the life span of a book, and I'm glad to see that Jim's books reach a much higher standard than the rest. I'm sure that these could all be published with vibrant 4 color covers, with a glued spine for cheaper. And I'm very glad they aren't.
-
Binding-I'd pay more for that! My MTP and my 5" thick Golden Dawn deluxe edition are not holding up and I'm still a muggle. I'm one bad conjuration away from a piles of papers.
-
Using acid-free components, and having the best binding available are essential, in our view. Excluding intentional destruction or serious accident, these books should last a hundred years.
-
@Alrah said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Using all acid-free components, and having the best finding available are essential, in our view. Excluding intentional destruction or serious accident, these books should last a hundred years."Cool... unless of course, you think books might become an anachronism in their present form in the next 10 years?"
I know from watching Star Trek that, about 300 years in the future, they will be highly valued antiques.
In the next 10 years? NFW. While the industry is changing, and delivery options are expanding, books will be with us for a long time. (And, in any case, that wouldn't be a reason to go for a shoddy product. Bad binding can ruin a book in a very short time.)
-
Chiseled stone text and traditional calligraphy are still alive and well, in spite of having been "replaced" over 500 years ago.
New, more efficient media, like electronic media, allows the total volume of published text to go way up. It's just one more tool to choose from when publishing. People who want permanence still pay more for the less efficient, but more durable, forms of publishing.
-
@Alrah said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Chiseled stone text and traditional calligraphy are still alive and well, in spite of having been "replaced" over 500 years ago."Oh, aye! I've been meaning to call round on Obelix to see to the new menhir.
"I'm not even exaggerating. It used to be that only kings ever commissioned stone texts.
Nowadays, every Tom Dick and Harry gets a tombstone. Even middle class people have exquisitely bound books in their libraries, and, often, pieces of calligraphy. Sometimes even full manuscripts. Unheard of before the invention of printing.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Let me know when the actual birth date is, so I can remember to lay low 9 months later..."
Based on present information, the birthdate (book received and in hand) will be... get ready for this... 1/11/11.
FWIW, this will be within a day of the 57th anniversary of my conception. So 9 months later is the day after my birthday (and the day before Crowley's birthday).
-
My parents were married January 10, 1954.
I was born October 10, 1954.
You do the math.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Let me know when the actual birth date is, so I can remember to lay low 9 months later..."Based on present information, the birthdate (book received and in hand) will be... get ready for this... 1/11/11."
Thanks for the update Jim. I'll make plans to stay out of the big cities on 10/11
-
LOL, it hadn't occurred to me until I read your post... that 10/11 is like "next in a series" after... well, you know.
-
The cover looks great, Jim. I love nice covers, but I'd buy this if it was covered in old newspaper.