> but I think it's still wrong to use "cheap" to refer to the typefaces available for the Caxton and KJV Bibles. I suspect they were quite expensive.
I don't think this argument quite works; something can be stunningly expensive, in an absolute sense, at the same time that it's the shoddy low-price option people choose for budget reasons.
(Grrr! I've been saying Caxton Bible but I meant Tyndale Bible.)
Sure, it can be, but was it?
The KJV was very expensive as it was. ("Robert Barker invested very large sums in printing the new edition, and consequently ran into serious debt" says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version .) That doesn't mean they used a shoddy low-price option.
I don't think this argument quite works; something can be stunningly expensive, in an absolute sense, at the same time that it's the shoddy low-price option people choose for budget reasons.