Tommy and I are finishing up our introduction to the CBGM right now. It will be jointly published by SBL and the German Bible Society and they are hoping to have it out at the SBL meeting in November. There are some details for the book over on Amazon. But you’ll notice that there’s no book cover, which brings us to the point of this post. One of the fun things about this project is that SBL is letting us design the cover ourselves and we need some feedback on our final two. Which do you like better?
(Both manuscript images were taken on an expedition with CSNTM at the National Library of Greece and will be used by permission.)
A. | B. |
 |  |
(Both manuscript images were taken on an expedition with CSNTM at the National Library of Greece and will be used by permission.)
I like option B. Better image of the manuscript, with the artwork on it too. The hand appears to be reaching for the edge of the cover to open it.
ReplyDeleteWhile the title is larger than the subtitle in B, the contrast in home value provided by the subtitle creates a stronger draw than the title. Additionally, while what resembles an illuminated capital in B adds a pleasant accent color, it also creates a competing focal point on the cover (in addition to chopping off the fingers of the hand). A might not be as "eye-catching" as B, but the content isn't geared toward someone who is window-shopping at the library. A is more cohesive, but both function in the desired manner.
ReplyDeleteTo tell a secret, at first SBL Press were sceptical about letting us design the book cover, but when they saw what Peter could do, we got the green signal at once. That is, they would never had let me do this (just remember what this blog use to look like).
ReplyDelete"They would never had let me do this" -- perhaps because as a loyal Swede you would have wanted the drawing from the Djävulsbibeln (fol.290) on the cover?
DeleteThat's a Latin manuscript so we didn't want to pick that one.
DeleteWhy let a little matter like that get in the way of an entertaining graphic?
DeleteAfter all, the Wallace-Ehrman DVD of the "Can we Trust the Text of the New Testament" debate pictured on its cover some obscure Greek MS containing the life of a saint rather than anything in the NT or even LXX....
Hey now! I designed that DVD cover and the MS does have Revelation in it—just not the portion that was in view. See here. But I knew not to make that mistake for this one ;)
DeleteDear, Peter. Although I voted B, specially because the black background makes the title much more interesting, I have to say that the manuscript used in it is too sharp and the arttsy font kind of claims for your eyes to see it instead of the title, subtitle and author's name. My suggestion is to use the option A image, but cut that manuscript part on the far upper left and make the background on that whole upper part black. Then, you could just use the fonts' colors as in the option B. I hope this is helpful.
ReplyDeleteI liked A better, because the background image is more subtle. But I must say that I'm mostly excited about the book itself. I hope it will be available in kindle format?
ReplyDeletePaulus, we have received word that it will be available in Kindle and some other e-book formats.
DeletePaulus, if SBL Press books are available on kindle, I guess ours will. That is up to the publisher.
ReplyDeletethe image in B looks, to my eyes, crisp, clean, and new. The image in A, in contrast, is darker, dowdier, and more muted. The latter looks like it has been in storage in a dusty old library. The latter looks like it's hot off the press.
ReplyDeleteGiven the title - that this book offers a "new" method - I think image B would be more suitable.
Also, the yellow title is easier to read.
Voted B. But I like the manuscript on A better. Make a third combo? :)
ReplyDeleteA is too close to 18% grey. B really pops. B for sure.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the others: B works better than A.
ReplyDeleteI liked the color scene of A better, but the sharpness of the ms photo in B. In other words, I think either is good.
ReplyDelete