Fin Fang Foom wrote:

DC chronicles there


I think a book on absorbant paper is probably less likely to show degredation of the ink -- again, after seven-and-a-half years (assuming a first printing of the initial volume), I think this is a consequence of changes in the paper over time (as that tends to get darker). But however you want to interpret it, it's only something to be overly alarmed about it you're the type to get overly alarmed about that kind of stuff. I'll bet any DC Chronicles volume will be just as much fun (and as easy) to read, say, fifty years from now as it is today.
It is very hard to find a perfect line of vintage comics collection, I think the closer we have today are the latest Marvel omniboo, the latest MMW softcovers and a few of the latest MMW HC. There are pros and cons in each format. The old Barnes and Noble editions had old style printing and coloring technology (er.. I mean if by old we mean early 2000s), but I insist that the materials/paper used were very good because they don't look a day old since I bought the first one.
I am not against the DC chronicles, one of the very few good ideas that publisher had lately was to give us those cheap collections of the most iconic characters they have. With good things come bad things as someone said. I don't like the super cheap newsprint paper that DC uses for them and used for some of the other collections like Greatest Stories Ever Told. I also don't like the fact that DC keeps making each new chronicle thinner and thinner. But I admit that newsprint paper seems to print a cleaner linework reproduction, the lines seem to get all blurry and feathery in very glossy paper (like old MMWs and Archives), and I also like the format about every story reprinted in chronological order regardless of the title, so we get one Superman chronicle that includes all Action Comics, Superman and World's Finest stories instead of having to buy Superman Archives or Superman in Action Comics Archives, etc.