Interesting facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

Fact: in a large format (A4) book with 320 pages the unit cost difference between poor paper and glossy art paper is no more than one USD! In other words, e.g. the average Classic hardback book would have 73 cents higher cost. So how many of you would shirk from paying 73 cents extra if the extra quaranteed a much better version of e.g. Steve Coates´s helicopter book?

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

Jukka, have you ever thought that some people might actually not like glossy art paper as much as you do?

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

No, not really as in every case I have asked fellow enthusiasts´ opinion on this I have allways been told that they prefer glossy art paper over crude, grainy paper in books. And this before letting them know my opinions.

BTW Ruy, do you really prefer bad quality over good quality? After all, the finer the surface of the paper is (i.e. finer=glossier), the better the printing quality can be. This is an undeniable fact. Of course, if the photo is a 9th generation scan by an incompetent tightwad using home PC (see e.g. Warship Pictorial-srs), not even the best paper can save it.

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

As to answer your indirect question directly, I do not find Classic publications of inferior quality, no.

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

Jukka,

Could you give some figures to back up your 'fact'? I would be most interested to see them, having had previous in-depth experience of publishing. It might be the case that in recent times the Asian printing market has undercut heavily western printers, and brought glossy art paper within the ambit of one dollar difference. That was certainly not the case in times past.

One other thing you do not mention, or consider, is the matter of a finite budget attached to the production costs of each book, set, in the particular case you quote, not by Classic, but almost certainly by the parent company. That budget encompasses everything, not just printing. It is a side of publishing that a lot of people fail to consider.

So perhaps you need to start getting off the back of Classic, and start writing common sense threads.

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

I won´t name the publisher, but here is the exact example: this publisher published a heavily illustrated hardback book with 320 pages in 8" x 11" size. The book as it is now uses very crude paper, far worse than Classic. Now, according to this publisher, replacing the crude paper by glossy art paper would have meant an additional cost of ONE USD per BOOK. And this book is printed in the USA. And the above exampel is perfectly corroborated by evidence from Finnish publishers. Or maybe the UK is a place where everything is the opposite of the rest of the world. Maybe.

As for the limited budget per production, why it is that the other companies under Ian Allan´s umbrella, like Midland Publishing, uses the better quality paper like the parent company itself?

And if the crude paper is so good, why do the promotional material of the same companies often use very glossy paper...

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book. And in Classic´s books there are plenty of opportunities ranging from better font to eliminating the excessive blank spaces.

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

I think some people forget the difference between a book and an album. Frankly, I get more and more irritated with expensive, glossy coated and heavilly illustrated volumes with lesser and lesser knowledge inside. I suppose nobody dropped such a brick on a toe.

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

You are at risk of not being taken serious if you continue this diatribe against Classic, who you only recently accused of printing books that were too thin.

1. paper not glossy
2. books too thin
3. not technical enough
4. etc

The list goes on, to me it appears to be a classic case of axe grinding.

Take it up with Ian Allan / Classic if you feel so strong about this issue.

Re: Interesing facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)
 

Jukka,

You did'nt answer the question posed in my first sentence. The simple legal tenet of: "He who asserts must prove" applies here. Show the financial facts, or, quite simply, don't bother to post such vague allegations in the first place.

"And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book." I have to say that this sentence appears to show a limited knowledge of the whole end-to-end printing process.


"Or maybe the UK is a place where everything is the opposite of the rest of the world." This kind of garbage is demeaning to UK residents. I don't know where you are from, or where you live, but I would never demean you or your country the way you have demeaned my country.