I was browsing a second hand book store and stumbled upon a 1968 facsimile of the 1768 1st edition Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
I am aware that a facsimile is an exact replica, but I still assumed that the publisher would provide some small hint somewhere that it was not the original but was unable to find one.
Other than the obvious sensual differences the naturally aged original has to the faux aged facsimile is anyone aware of any difference (intended or not) by the publisher?
Not according to Google.
With the aid of modern technology we have skillfully retained the antique look of hand-set type, the rust marks of age, the watermark of the paper and the richly decorated binding of the original set. Beautifully illustrated with engravings by Andrew Bell, one of the founders of Encyclopaedia Britannica, these three volumes, virtually indistinguishable from the First Edition original, are a book collector's dream.
I'd take "virtually indistinguishable from the First Edition original" as meaning that there were no intentional differences. And Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc are still reprinting this edition.
