How do truffles taste?

[tryska]

if it's something i'll use a lot, definitely hardback, and preferable spiral bound. laminated and i'd be in heaven.

[Suzanne F]

Suzanne, is Amazon UK listing a hardcover edition?

Alas, I don't think so (haven't checked, though). If you look at the thread Mrs Woman started, in which she posted the link to Amazon, it says the revised British version won't be out until even later in 2004. As far as everyone here has said, it's just about impossible to get it there at present.

edited to add link

Edited December 3, 2003 by Suzanne F (log)

[fresco]

Perhaps it shouldn't make a difference, but it does. Hardcovers are much more of a pleasure to read, except for purely escapist reading, where paperback somehow fits the disposable nature of the subject matter.

[Alex]

Now that I own 150 or so cookbooks and other food-related books I'm trying to be more selective about new acquisitions, so I'm opting for quality over quantity: hardcover all the way! I'm with fresco; they just feel better. (Although a great deal on a paperback at Bargain Books or Amazon feels pretty good, too.)

[Carolyn Tillie]

Hardback - there is a sense of permanancy with a hardcover book.

[budrichard]

Harcover! Compare original volumes of Pepin to the soft cover reprints like La Method and La Technique. -Dick

[bloviatrix]

Without a doubt, hardcover. They just stand up better. Plus they use better quality paper.

[tejon]

if it's something i'll use a lot, definitely hardback, and preferable spiral bound. laminated and i'd be in heaven.

Exactly. Though I am a serious cheapskate and the low cost of paperbacks appeals to me....good thing I get cookbooks as gifts pretty often

[SobaAddict70]

A mix. Preferably hardcover, but softcover has its strengths (mostly to do with cost).

Soba

[Comfort Me]

Now that I own 150 or so cookbooks and other food-related books I'm trying to be more selective about new acquisitions, so I'm opting for quality over quantity: hardcover all the way! I'm with fresco; they just feel better. (Although a great deal on a paperback at Bargain Books or Amazon feels pretty good, too.)

Only 150? I'm somewhere around 700, and I've got 10 more or so I want to buy right away. Plus my MIL keeps threatening me with her collection, which would easilly bring me over 1000. (I don't look for that to happen soon, though. As many of you can, I'm sure, relate -- she'd go crazy without her cookbooks!)

As for hard vs. soft, I come down on both sides. There are books I will read but probably not cook from that are just fine for soft cover. But stuff I'm going to cook from with any frequency had better be hard bound.

I avoid the problem of the book slipping from my sleep-laxed hands onto my lovely wife's windpipe by reading them while laying on my stomach. Then I can absorb information through my cheek by osmosis! Occasionally this has resulted in a wee puddle of drool -- but nothing too destructive.

[Hest88]

For books I'm going to use: hardcover. They stay open easier. For ones I'm just going to read: paperback. (Unless they're heavy, coffee-table books.)

[cakewench]

mmm spiral bound

Hardcover.

[Mayhaw Man]

For books I'm going to use: hardcover. They stay open easier. For ones I'm just going to read: paperback. (Unless they're heavy, coffee-table books.)

Exactly.

[pjs]

Hardcover if it's going to be used. With a SEWN binding.

My old paperback copy of the NY Times Chinese Cookbook just deconstructed itself into four pieces, dammit. Just like my hardback copy of Marcella's first book that was glued together. I think it was a cheap bookclub edition.

PJ

[rgruby]

Mostly hardcover, for the reasons so well stated by many: in short, if a cookbook is going to be used a lot, its going to be abused.

But, if the book is just a collection of recipes, softcover is fine (I'm less likely to make reference to books that just give recipes and don't give me context). And, I'm hoping to move in the next year or so - softcover has advantages there.

So, yes.

Cheers,

Geoff Ruby

[peanutgirl]

I prefer hardcover (most of mine are), but will not turn away a softcover if I really covet it and that's all that's available.

[maggiethecat]

i like paperbacks because they're cheaper.

An excellent point.

Yeah, sure I prefer hardcovers because of their sturdiness and permanence, but softcover is just fine if there's a big difference in price and it's a book I'll read through once, use as reference, and cook from only occasionally.

[Busboy]

Hardcover, because they stay open better and you can set the hot saucepan down on one page while you study the other page to find out what to do next. Also, hardbound books tend to spend less time wandering outside the kitchen.

Edited December 4, 2003 by Busboy (log)

[Hest88]

Just like my hardback copy of Marcella's first book that was glued together. I think it was a cheap bookclub edition.

It actually amazes me how cheaply many non-bookclub hardcovers are nowadays. Few are sewn anymore. I've picked up hardcovers in bookstores that I swear felt as light as a bookclub. My husband has a really nice art book that he can't even read because the Amazon reviews have warned people how easily the pages separate from the binding!