I agree completely.
The look of those Easton books reminds me strongly of…
… Reader’s Digest Condensed Books.
The Easton books may have better quality paper and leather bindings embossed with 22 carat gold 
, but they have exactly the same cheap glitzy look.
Bookshelf bling, not class.
I’ve not bought from Easton, but I think if you want a physical book collection there’s something to say for their products. I’ve bought books in bulk from library sales etc for most of my life and have cycled probably 15,000 or more books through my personal possession in my life, the vast majority not “physically high quality.” If you read a lot and go through a lot of books like I did, you actually notice a lot of problems that a nicer binder like Easton is trying to fix. Hardcovers last longer, sewn pages outlast glued ones, and the right paper and ink type outlast the cheaper versions. I’ve gone through many a book that definitely wouldn’t survive to be passed down to the next generation.
Now for me, I don’t particularly plan to pass a bunch of books down to the next generation. If I did, I could see the need/use for something like Easton’s products. I’m also kind of an early adopter too though, and despite having been a major purchaser of physical books, I went hard into ebooks like two decades ago and barely purchase physical books any longer.
If you don’t care about books, you tear the pages instead of slitting them 
You never have to tear/slit all the pages, so unless there’s a mixture of rough and clean edges, the rough edges you see are the way the book was produced.
I think that when I read about the 1920’s, slitting the pages refers to slitting only a few pages that the automatic slitting missed.
You had to slit all the pages, but not all the edges.
Up to the early 19th century, book pages were not slit. They were sold with the pages closed, and the reader had to slit them himself.
That’s what paper knives were originally for.
I get what people say about books for showing off and completely agree, but there are beautiful books that I like to buy nonetheless. I did not know about the Easton books and have never had one in my hands, they look OK in the pictures, though I see what GreenWyvern writes about the Reader’s Digest-look 
By the way, I like Reader’s Digest condensed books, they remind me of my late grandmother, she had several and I enjoyed them as a kid when I spent the summers at her place. Nostalgia is a valid reason, I hope.
Funny somebody mentioned the Folio Society, as I have recently bought my first book from them. I am very satisfied. I even toyed with the idea of buying this from an even posher publisher recently, but thought better of it after a while.
But the books that I really love are from Taschen, I have been buying them for decades. They have cheap ones and expensive ones, and they all look stunning. Krazy Kat must be this big (and 150 € is not that expensive for this quality), same for Little Nemo. Their art books (Rembrandt, Leonardo, Hyeronimus Bosch…) are a joy to behold. I hope to publish my comic with them if I ever finish it 
What I need now is a good stand to read those heavy books, they are to bulky to have them on your lap. Finding a nice one is turning out to be difficult. That one I fancy, but it happens to be sold only with the book (yes, I have asked), and that one is a book that does not interest me. Not for this price, anyway. Pity!
I guess nobody has bought that book and happens not to like the stand?
Many of the Easton Press editions appear to be mimicking the style of 18th-century bookbinding, particularly in the spine design. Some of them, particularly their Tolkien set, are way too ornate for my personal taste. The Philip K. Dick volume I mentioned earlier is an exception; as Easton books go, it’s actually rather plain.
Aesthetic considerations aside, though, the craftsmanship and build quality of Easton Press editions is amazing. I suspect that the folks in this thread who are dismissing Easton books based on how they look on the website might revise their opinion if they held one in their hands. They are light-years better than most other “fancy” books I’ve seen, such as those fake-leather editions that Barnes and Noble sells.
“Fine press” they call it now. Letterpress printing, engraving, custom binding, made by hand, etc. With prices (triple digits) to match.
That certainly looks far better than most of the books on their site, in fact pretty good.
I keep getting tantalized by the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion box set … Oh My Sweet Jumping Jesus I really really want them, but I seem to remember seeing the set is like $600 or something like that.
I will bumble along with my ebooks.
But put me right down as one who if I won the oh my god lottery tonight, I would be on the phone with Easton with an order for one of everything [well, not really, but I would get whichever of their books took my fancy, and I would then hit up ABEBook to find moar bookz!]
A very old New Yorker cartoon that I recall from time to time shows a man in a bookstore speaking with the worker: “I need 3 feet of green books”.
mmm
And yet, you can order three feet (or whatever length) of green (or whatever color) books at a site such as this. If The New Yorker of old thought that a joke, it’s very real today.
I use books as decoration. I find a stack of books make great stands for statues, a lamp, your favorite skull, stuffed raven, candlesticks and feather pen. Or tissue box, phone stand, cat perch.
Or your kindle.
The dream of an all ‘fancy’ binding library has no appeal for me. I much prefer the variety of all kinds of books, jumbled together, over uniformity. And I love dusty old books most of all.
I’ve seen decorators do this. Just dumb. I’ve also seen people who put all their books by spine color. Just horrible.
Would that make him a ped… something or other?
Absolutely. On my list for future gifts for my GF is a beautiful copy of Jane Eyre with illustrations that were included in one of the original early editions. It’s because it’s her favourite book, and means a lot to her - the beauty is an added benefit.
Really can’t see anything wrong with it at all.
I have a couple of “invisible” bookshelves that are great for displaying books horizontally (but not so great for books that I’d want to peruse on a regular basis):
Heartily agreed.
That’s beautiful.