It wouldn’t be as bad if they got rid of the spine and the quote. And incorporated that photo a bit better somehow (just don’t ask me how). Even the fonts are passable.
In that case, I’d get rid of everything but the chest and… is that a rifle next to it? That could stay too, but I’d cut out everything else. Might call for a better photo of the entire chest though, not just the gold bars.
Yep, that is a rifle. Trapdoor Springfield, a post-Civil War model first made 1866 as a conversion of muzzleloader to breechloader for using cartridges. (The novel is set in 1864.)
Modified to use “5-in-1” blanks that fit most cowboy-style guns, trapdoor rifles were used as movie prop stand-ins for Civil War muskets. Kinda like using a Ford Trimotor airliner as a Fokker Trimotor in a 1930s movie.
But accurate replicas of Civil War muzzleloaders became commonly available during the Civil War Centennial 1961-1965 and Sesquicentennial 2011-2015, so why use an anachronism that might irk purist Civil War buffs who could be a submarket for a Civil War novel?
Maybe there’s timetravel in the book? But really, you expect historical accuracy from an LBC? The guy couldn’t pay for a pro cover, couldn’t pay for a pro photographer, and you expect him to pay for a genuine replica? *shakes head in disbelief*
I’m in awe that you can tell what rifle it is from this little blurry bit. I can hardly tell that it is a riffle.
I expect historical accuracy from book covers, and indie small press does not mean we should accept inept. There are Civil War reenactors who would be tickled to have their possessions photographed for a low budget book cover, plus would nitpick the novel for historical accuracy, just for a credit.
No need for awe: I “Opened Image in New Tab” on a 19″ diagonal monitor and clicked control-plus. (A few participants in the local vintage military matches use Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfields so I knew what to look for.)
It’s not that the covers, all covers, shouldn’t be held to certain standards. If we didn’t believe that, none of us would be here. It’s just that, seeing how this author hasn’t shown enough care about his cover, I’m not at all surprised the “details” are off. For me, it’s a much more serious issue then simply having a bad cover. I know some authors are simply not visual enough to see just how sucky their cover is, and others might save on a designer to pay for an editor, so I know that bad on the outside doesn’t always mean bad on the inside. But when I see that an author hasn’t bothered to do his research, I’m not going to bother reading his book. Especially when it involves real historical figures and events. I prefer reading someone who knows what he’s talking about.
I don’t have a problem zooming in. It’s the fact that I can barely tell a musket from an AK-47 that’s the problem :D.
Actually…unless I’m cracked (don’t say it!), I’m pretty sure that those are loaves of bread, wrapped in gold foil. they’re almost exactly the size of those frozen take-n-bake loaves. They’re the wrong shape/hardness for painted bars of lead (if you ever want to really grasp what it would take to steal bars or anything else of bloody gold, move bars of lead–it’s eye-opening), and too rounded to be wrapped boxes, etc. I know it sounds whacky, but I’d swear that’s small loaves, wrapped.
Vis-à-vis the gun: authors and cover designers always get those wrong. No, not all authors and not all cover designers, but we shoot competitively in my house, so it’s something we notice. It’s really quite amazing. (Not as amazing as watching movies or TV, with the Magic Awesome Endless Clip o’Bullets, of course, but, still…)
In the same idea pool as “you have to read the book to unscramble the cover,” it seems appropriate to make a followup comment to try to explain the first one.
![cover[1]](https://lousybookcovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/cover16-500x681.jpg)
This one struck gold!
It wouldn’t be as bad if they got rid of the spine and the quote. And incorporated that photo a bit better somehow (just don’t ask me how). Even the fonts are passable.
And I would eliminate the hands. They are too distracting.
In that case, I’d get rid of everything but the chest and… is that a rifle next to it? That could stay too, but I’d cut out everything else. Might call for a better photo of the entire chest though, not just the gold bars.
Yep, that is a rifle. Trapdoor Springfield, a post-Civil War model first made 1866 as a conversion of muzzleloader to breechloader for using cartridges. (The novel is set in 1864.)
Modified to use “5-in-1” blanks that fit most cowboy-style guns, trapdoor rifles were used as movie prop stand-ins for Civil War muskets. Kinda like using a Ford Trimotor airliner as a Fokker Trimotor in a 1930s movie.
But accurate replicas of Civil War muzzleloaders became commonly available during the Civil War Centennial 1961-1965 and Sesquicentennial 2011-2015, so why use an anachronism that might irk purist Civil War buffs who could be a submarket for a Civil War novel?
Maybe there’s timetravel in the book? But really, you expect historical accuracy from an LBC? The guy couldn’t pay for a pro cover, couldn’t pay for a pro photographer, and you expect him to pay for a genuine replica? *shakes head in disbelief*
I’m in awe that you can tell what rifle it is from this little blurry bit. I can hardly tell that it is a riffle.
I expect historical accuracy from book covers, and indie small press does not mean we should accept inept. There are Civil War reenactors who would be tickled to have their possessions photographed for a low budget book cover, plus would nitpick the novel for historical accuracy, just for a credit.
No need for awe: I “Opened Image in New Tab” on a 19″ diagonal monitor and clicked control-plus. (A few participants in the local vintage military matches use Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfields so I knew what to look for.)
It’s not that the covers, all covers, shouldn’t be held to certain standards. If we didn’t believe that, none of us would be here. It’s just that, seeing how this author hasn’t shown enough care about his cover, I’m not at all surprised the “details” are off. For me, it’s a much more serious issue then simply having a bad cover. I know some authors are simply not visual enough to see just how sucky their cover is, and others might save on a designer to pay for an editor, so I know that bad on the outside doesn’t always mean bad on the inside. But when I see that an author hasn’t bothered to do his research, I’m not going to bother reading his book. Especially when it involves real historical figures and events. I prefer reading someone who knows what he’s talking about.
I don’t have a problem zooming in. It’s the fact that I can barely tell a musket from an AK-47 that’s the problem :D.
Jumbo-sized, foil-wrapped chocolate bars?
I was thinking foil-wrapped bricks (and poorly wrapped at that), but I like your idea much more.
Now I need chocolate.
I’m getting much more excited over the idea of that much chocolate than that much gold.
Actually…unless I’m cracked (don’t say it!), I’m pretty sure that those are loaves of bread, wrapped in gold foil. they’re almost exactly the size of those frozen take-n-bake loaves. They’re the wrong shape/hardness for painted bars of lead (if you ever want to really grasp what it would take to steal bars or anything else of bloody gold, move bars of lead–it’s eye-opening), and too rounded to be wrapped boxes, etc. I know it sounds whacky, but I’d swear that’s small loaves, wrapped.
Vis-à-vis the gun: authors and cover designers always get those wrong. No, not all authors and not all cover designers, but we shoot competitively in my house, so it’s something we notice. It’s really quite amazing. (Not as amazing as watching movies or TV, with the Magic Awesome Endless Clip o’Bullets, of course, but, still…)
Now again the cover looks a lot less exciting. I’d much rather imagine it as chocolate 🙁
Shout out to Gatlinburg!
As for the book cover: while cheap-looking, it’s kind of passable for me. I’ve never seen that font before.
I kinda like the font. It’s weird, but it fits.
Then, like Papyrus, the Goldbar font gets used to death.
Oh my GOD, are those Lincoln’s REAL, ACTUAL HANDS??!
They look like bad zombie makeup to me (but “Zombie Lincoln’s Treasure” might make a LBC title).
Another satisfied customer of Stonehenge Brand arthritis suppositories.
ouch!
In the same idea pool as “you have to read the book to unscramble the cover,” it seems appropriate to make a followup comment to try to explain the first one.
This cover reminds me of the seat in an outhouse.