As Deagol's site now states "bound in dark blue leather" (http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/details.php?reference=62110), I think we have a definitive answer, thanks all for your contributions
14 Sep, 2020
(edited)
2020-9-14 10:51:28 AM UTC
Edited by Khamûl on 2020-9-14 11:01:35 AM UTC
Edited by Khamûl on 2020-9-14 12:47:59 PM UTC
Edited by Khamûl on 2020-9-14 12:49:07 PM UTC
Edited by Khamûl on 2020-9-14 12:47:59 PM UTC
Edited by Khamûl on 2020-9-14 12:49:07 PM UTC
2020-9-14 10:51:28 AM UTC
Apologies for this near ten-year thread bump, but here goes...
Been thinking about this recently. It was asked is the Methuen Silmarillion real leather? Neil had stated his doubts because in his copy he could see what he thought was a cloth weave exposed underneath. And Wayne & others have stated it is leather. If both are correct is it not most likely that this is "bonded" leather?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonded_leather
It fits this description very well & explains the belief that there is leather content while explaining what Neil can see in his copy. In either case it's the cheapest of the cheap. No debate there I don't think.
______________________
This is also a call-out to all those with SD copies of The Silmarillion and The Hobbit from 1982 and 1987 respectively. It's my belief (having examined S; I don't have the 1987 H) that while these are definitely leather (not bonded) they are definitely embossed. I was cleaning some turn of the century (1900's) red morocco bindings I have and the difference in finishing is very clear. The marvellous leather pattern on the 1982 S is definitely not a natural grain pattern; the follicles are clearly visible but the pattern on top I don't think is genuine. Having shown my damaged 1982 S a few years ago to a bookbinder he was also not convinced the leather was of great quality either.
Looking back at other older threads I also remember someone saying they bought a 1982 S and the leather was marked ("mottled" I think they may have said) with darker sections across the surface. I think aesthetically to book collectors this isn't visually appealing but it should be what genuine leather actually looks like. It's the natural patina of the leather, not dirt or marks. I also have multiple images of the 1982 S and while it's not always easy to see in photographs you can occasionally catch those darker red patches. These marks are easiest to see on the boards so are not related to light damage.
Anyway, just a few observations. I know not many on here are experts on leather bookbindings, but any observations would be interesting...
Been thinking about this recently. It was asked is the Methuen Silmarillion real leather? Neil had stated his doubts because in his copy he could see what he thought was a cloth weave exposed underneath. And Wayne & others have stated it is leather. If both are correct is it not most likely that this is "bonded" leather?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonded_leather
Bonded leather is made by shredding leather scraps and leather fiber, then mixing it with bonding materials. The mixture is next extruded onto a cloth or paper backing, and the surface is usually embossed with a leather-like texture or grain.
It fits this description very well & explains the belief that there is leather content while explaining what Neil can see in his copy. In either case it's the cheapest of the cheap. No debate there I don't think.
______________________
This is also a call-out to all those with SD copies of The Silmarillion and The Hobbit from 1982 and 1987 respectively. It's my belief (having examined S; I don't have the 1987 H) that while these are definitely leather (not bonded) they are definitely embossed. I was cleaning some turn of the century (1900's) red morocco bindings I have and the difference in finishing is very clear. The marvellous leather pattern on the 1982 S is definitely not a natural grain pattern; the follicles are clearly visible but the pattern on top I don't think is genuine. Having shown my damaged 1982 S a few years ago to a bookbinder he was also not convinced the leather was of great quality either.
Looking back at other older threads I also remember someone saying they bought a 1982 S and the leather was marked ("mottled" I think they may have said) with darker sections across the surface. I think aesthetically to book collectors this isn't visually appealing but it should be what genuine leather actually looks like. It's the natural patina of the leather, not dirt or marks. I also have multiple images of the 1982 S and while it's not always easy to see in photographs you can occasionally catch those darker red patches. These marks are easiest to see on the boards so are not related to light damage.
Anyway, just a few observations. I know not many on here are experts on leather bookbindings, but any observations would be interesting...
Khamûl wrote:
Apologies for this near ten-year thread bump, but here goes...
Been thinking about this recently. It was asked is the Methuen Silmarillion real leather? Neil had stated his doubts because in his copy he could see what he thought was a cloth weave exposed underneath. And Wayne & others have stated it is leather. If both are correct is it not most likely that this is "bonded" leather?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonded_leatherBonded leather is made by shredding leather scraps and leather fiber, then mixing it with bonding materials. The mixture is next extruded onto a cloth or paper backing, and the surface is usually embossed with a leather-like texture or grain.
It might be, I think we need to find a book-binder to ask about this, does anyone know one?
Hello everyone, long time no see.
My copy definitely has a weave of the cloth underneath.
Actually, most of the thickness of the spine is made of cloth.
It looks like bonded leather to me, it is not genuine leather for sure.
Cheers ,
Lokki
My copy definitely has a weave of the cloth underneath.
Actually, most of the thickness of the spine is made of cloth.
It looks like bonded leather to me, it is not genuine leather for sure.
Cheers ,
Lokki