Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -- Who wants to make it?

As far as I know there has never been a fine press edition of Galileo's The Dialogue. What a shame!
Hey, lots of talented people here! Okay, who wants to chip in and produce a fine letterpress edition of this classic?
:)

It’s not fine press per say, but Kronecker Wallis is currently working on a really neat version of this as part of their Discovering the History of Astronomy campaign, as seen here:

http://kck.st/2R3TCXe

The Kickstarter campaign is much delayed, but it seems they’ve finished four of the translations and are steadily making progress. I backed for all six books and am excited to see the results (however long it takes).

>1 astropi:

I know it is not fine press, but as a the nicest option until there is a fine press edition there is the Folio Society version.

I had the 1953 University of California trade hardback and replaced it with the FS edition. They are basically the same book both using Stillman Drake's translation with an introduction by Dava Sobel and foreward by Albert Einstein. It's interesting that 60 years later one would not find anything new but the FS edition has nicer production values and I doubt the 1953 paper was acid free.

>2 mnmcdwl: Thanks, although I have to say I don't like the look of the books. I also don't like the gimmicks
We have linked Copernicus' book to Mercury, as it's the first book within our collection. Mercury is a hot planet so part of the title is covered with thermochromic ink. As heat is applied by placing your finger across the black ink - the full title begins to emerge.
This actually shows me they don't really know what they're doing. First, Venus is hotter than Mercury. Secondly, one side of Mercury is hot, the other side is cold, very very cold.

>3 Jobasha: Does the FS version include both the Italian and English? I have to say I don't like the cover, but I don't know what the book itself is like.

Ultimately, I think we could do so much better than what's been done so far!

>5 astropi:
Good catch about Venus. I’ve actually ordered the set but because of the new translations and not the gimmicks. Really, though, many things about good books are gimmicks - limitations, signatures, even letterpress, all designed to justify higher prices.

>7 jroger1: I have to seriously disagree that signatures, limitations, and certainly letterpress is a gimmick.
Letterpress is an art. The quality of a letterpress book typically is far beyond offset or any modern technique. The price of letterpress is because of all the work that has to go into it. Having done a bit of letterpress myself, I can guarantee you that what is simple and quick using a computer can easily take hours by hand, and much of letterpress is indeed by hand. Not to mention that binding the book is a whole other issue, and again, typically done by hand. So the higher prices are easily justified.

>6 supercell: It can absolutely be done. It should be done!!

>5 astropi: Kronecker Wallis definitely generate strong opinions both ways for their non-traditional designs. I could give or take the binding gimmicks, but I think their text layouts are compelling, and give credit to them for attempting six commissioned translations. I own several of their past publications and think they are good quality for the price. Now of course, should a fine press publisher decide to take this on, I would be very interested.

>8 astropi:
Okay, maybe “gimmick” is the wrong word. I wasn’t using it pejoratively, but “enhancement“ might be better. Illustration is also a gimmick or enhancement, but one I value. In the case of the Kronecker-Wallis books, I’ll at least give them credit for being innovative.

>5 astropi:

I think that they do know what they are doing here. They said "a hot planet" whereas later when discussing Venus they say "brightest planet". They are right Mercury is the second hottest (even when averaged with both sides).

I think they had two gimmicks and wanted to use both even if Venus was the best for both of them.

>12 Jobasha: Perhaps they know what they are doing commercially, but scientifically it's wrong to say Mercury is a hot planet. Mercury is NOT a hot planet. Half of it is freezing. The average temperature is far below that of Venus. Mercury is NOT the second hottest by a long-shot when you consider exoplanets. Also, other statements they make are scientifically incorrect as well. Quite a few actually. One example
The main feature of Saturn is its great ring
Not true. Saturn has numerous rings, not a single ring. Call it "minor" if you want, but to me that shows lack of scientific rigor or understanding.

Also, did I mention gimmicky?
Earth is the planet of life, of growth. To discover the title of this book, you 'remove' part of the cover. You can then plant the removed piece into the earth and grow a plant, as the material we use is mixed with real seeds.

I think it'd be hard to justify doing Dialogue as a new press -- the risk of losing a lot of money due to under-interest would be very high (vs., say, Lyra's books starting off with Stardust). I think the only press who could both get away with Galileo right now and have any likelihood of actually doing it would be Thornwillow.

>13 astropi:

I agree that it is gimmicky and that Saturn's 'ring' sounds problematic, but I can't agree with the point about Mercury. If you want to be rigorous Mercury is the second hottest planet after Venus. According to IAU a planet must orbit the sun so the exoplanet point is irrelevant. Mercury's surface temperature is on average much greater than any of the other planets except for Venus. In terms of day temperature it is almost as hot as Venus. It is definitely not scientifically inaccurate to suggest it is a hot planet.

>15 Jobasha: The IAU definition is absolutely out of date and astronomers do not consider that definition accurate nor correct.
There are thousands of known planets outside of our solar system, and by any statistic Mercury is on average not hot.

>16 astropi:

It is definitely out of date, there is no reason to distinguish a planet from an exoplanet simply because one is significantly closer.

However I think it is unfair to say a publisher is not scientifically rigorous when it is as rigorous as the IAU.