[Nathan A.]

Does anyone know if the photos are better in the hardcover version? Is it worth it to track down a copy? They do look better in my hardcover copy of The Sword in the Age of Chivalry compared to Records.

[Nathan Robinson]

There really aren't better photos in the paperback version; the pages are identical. The binding on the softcover just happens to fall apart and isn't very well constructed so people tend to prefer the hardcover version due to its durability.

There is a version of the softcover made with a very bad uncoated paper. If you have that version, it's definitely better to get another version.

[Chad Arnow]

I’ve seen some newer printings of the paperback where the images aren’t as good, actually.

[Victor R.]

This is the copyright page from my copy - it's a paperback that I got around that 2009 "digital publishing" timeframe.

The pictures within often look a bit washed-out - the paper is extremely white, and many of the photos have white backgrounds and simply don't "pop" very well off the page.

When I compare this to my hardbound Waldman the paper is very "matte" compared to the "slick" of Waldman, wherein the photos seem to be of better visual quality with better contrast, and the paper seems to have a little bit of yellow - not visually "yellow" but "white with depth", if that makes sense.

I'm thinking an older copy, and probably one that's hardbound, will be printed with superior images on superior paper. Yes, the "new" version is "acid free", so it will theoretically hold up well, but, visually, the Oakeshott is a bit disappointing, particularly when comparing to the Waldman. Pretty big price differential as well.

And, yes, my photo is pretty rotten, but the camera on this phone is worse than on my last one, and a curling page just is not a terrific subject. :wtf:

[Nathan A.]

That is interesting about the two paperback versions. Mine looks simlar to the one Victor posted, but just a slightly earlier printing.

[Chad Arnow]

I'd say the hardback version is worth it. The paperback versions are known to fall apart at the binding as Nathan Robinson mentioned. Hardcover versions used to be very expensive but have come down a bit in price.

[Victor R.]

My version is the one with this cover.

[Nathan A.]

Yeah, that cover looks just like mine. Thanks for the comparison. It sounds like the hardcover is worth it if the price is right. I don't think I'll pay $100 for a copy, but occasionally they come up for a lot less.

[Chad Arnow]