You may well be right about the break point, although I’d put it closer to 1,000. My question is, once the two start to converge, wouldn’t people naturally prefer offset production? I don’t think there’s any doubt you will get better quality, more flexibility in production, perhaps a longer lifespan for your books (although the jury is out on that one) and far lower reprint costs.

I do agree that the quality differences are getting smaller all the time, and I fully expect that at some date digital production will overtake offset; it’s just the nature of progress. Makes me think of that ancient Chinese curse (on the publishing industry, in this case): “May you live in interesting times.”

However, I see the offset-digital break point at 1500 copies (often even higher). With every book, I get quotes and run the numbers again, most recently four months ago. Even two years ago, I would have agreed with your 500-copy guideline, but not today.

Most of the time, a run of up to 1500 copies can be done digitally for the same price as offset or for an insignificant unit cost difference over offset. And setup costs are almost always lower.

Offset will still produce better graphics/photos (and some insist better text display, too — although I doubt many readers would notice anymore), even though digital is constantly improving.

Regarding quality, I think the two main printing options are converging at an accelerating rate. I’ve seen discussions claiming offset pricing for short runs is going down but have yet to see the evidence in responses to RFQs.