I’ve never torture tested a book and don’t plan to in the future.

Collectible type books I prefer Hardcover. Books that I don’t plan to keep I get in paperback.

The hardcover books sit on a shelf until I want reference them again. Still not abusing the book.

I don’t think torture testing a book provides any valuable information.

I think paperbacks are more durable since the cover can’t really fall off as easily.

I personally prefer paperback. After a while, I feel like hardcovers become way too fragile, so I only get hardcovers of the books I want to collect that I’ve already read i.e The Hunger Games, the Twilight saga, the classics, etc.

I personally don’t buy many hardbacks because they’re not as comfortable to hold and read, and a book is for reading. But the few hardbacks I own, I treat them a lot more delicately than I would a paperback which would probably mean my hardbacks seem more durable

Hardback for collection. Paperbacks to actually read.

I find with a lot of modern hardbacks, the binding is awful, and the pages start falling out very quickly. Older ones hold up better, or are at least easier to mend due to the older style of binding. Paperbacks seem to stay together regardless of age, although the covers are more fragile.

Paperbacks aren’t bound (the pages are glued on, not sewn), that’s why they have always been cheaper than hardbacks, and have the earned reputation of falling apart. My oldest paperbacks are from 1960s and the glue is so brittle that there are a lot of loose pages.

It depends on how the hardback is made. There are a variety of binding methods used now, which may look similar at first glance, but are very different underneath. Actually the same is true of paperbacks as well.

I think hardback books are more durable than paperback books. Hardback books have covers made from a thick cardboard or cloth material, and the binding is stitched or stapled rather than glued. Hardback books can withstand daily wear and tear and the test of time better than paperback books, which are easier to rip, wrinkle and stain.

Hardback books are also more resistant to environmental factors, such as humidity, heat and light, that can cause paper to deteriorate. If you want a book that will last longer and look nicer, hardback books are a better choice.

I’ve personally found hardbacks to be more durable, but when it comes to paperbacks the floppy kind tends to be more durable as the spine doesn’t crack. Wish we had more of those in the UK.

As u/CanthinMinna said, paperbacks are glued, not stitched as hardbacks are traditionally made. Paperbacks are made from much cheaper paper and ink. I have old paperbacks from the 60s where the paper is fragile and discolored. I remember reading paperbacks where the covers fell off, pages fell out, and the ink reeked of kerosene. Some of those have been replaced by special edition hardbacks. I had a couple of paperbacks rebound as hardbacks. It was a wasted effort, the books are unreadable because of the deterioration of the paper.

As my income increased, I switched from buying paperbacks to hardbacks. Mass produced hardbacks have decreased significantly in quality. They’re mostly glued now rather than stitched. Not much better production than paperbacks. The paper quality is typically better and I don’t smell the ink. I have hardbacks purchased in the 60s that are generally in excellent condition.

Library books have special, heavy duty bindings. Part of the reason they hold up toto multiple readers as well as they do.

My current purchases have switched from hardbacks to ebooks. I no longer have the room to store thousands of books.