Please note that I am not asking for famous books about typography (like this question does), although I imagine that such books would usually themselves be examples of great typography.
What I have in mind is this: in most fields, there is a more-or-less agreed-upon canon of exemplars (see e.g. here), a collection of outcomes that the profession considers to be the best that it has to offer, a collection of paradigmatically good fruits of the labor of the field's practitioners, as judged by the practitioners themselves. Such canons are often at least somewhat controversial, but they usually exist nevertheless, even if the practitioners don't use the actual term 'the canon' to describe them.
In order to keep the scope of the question manageable, let's restrict the exemplars to 'mass-producible Western' (MPW) ones. By 'mass-producible', I mean that they were made using some sort of process capable of mass production (even if the actual number of copies produced wasn't that large and could have reasonably been produced using some other method). Examples of such processes include movable type, hot metal typesetting, phototypesetting, offset printing, and the like.
I understand that this way, some extremely influential and admired work will not get mentioned. Later on, I may well post another question, this time asking about exemplars that are not MPW. But I'm starting with the MPW ones because they are the most relevant to the texts I am personally encountering every day, and indeed to the texts I am producing myself.
An example: the Gutenberg Bible
It seems clear that the typographers' canon of exemplars contains at least one book: the Gutenberg Bible. This book seems to be admired not only for its historical significance but also for its enduring aesthetic quality. For example, here the text points out a lack of major gaps or rivers and the even texture of the word block in the Gutenberg Bible. Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style references Gutenberg in many places. And here we find this sentence (emphasis mine):
The traditional book form is the classic example of concord: it is found in both the uniform, tightly woven, dense pages of the Gutenberg Bible and the light, open, gray pages of the conventional contemporary book set in roman types.
And from the Library of Congress:
This Bible, with its noble Gothic type richly impressed on the page, is recognized as a masterpiece of fine printing and craftsmanship and is all the more remarkable because it was undoubtedly one of the very first books to emerge from the press. (source)
So, my question is this: besides the Gutenberg Bible, what are some other books in the typographers' canon of exemplars?
The answers need not be primarily opinion-based
While there are sure to be some books about which typographers disagree among themselves whether they belong in the canon, there are also sure to be plenty of books that, like the Gutenberg Bible, nearly everyone in the profession will at least agree are widely considered to be in the canon. For such books, a particular typographer might tell you that they personally don't think that some of them deserve to be in the canon, but, characteristically for books that are established as canonical, the typographer will readily admit that their view is a minority one.
How can we know which books are canonical? Here is one way. I imagine that, as in almost any profession, typographers have to be initiated into their discipline. I don't know exactly how that is usually done these days (school/university? apprenticeship?), but however it is done, it is quite likely that the teacher/master of the trade would occasionally bring up examples of great work by the profession. Sometimes this would be recent examples, but other times, probably, it would be some kind of 'classic' work. Some of these 'classic', enduring examples are bound to be books (others will be magazines, brochures, posters, leaflets, etc.). Moreover, some of these examples will have probably made it into books about typography, which would turn the latter into reputable sources that one can cite in support of a claim that a particular book belongs in the canon. It seems to me that Jan Tschichold's The Form of the Book (see here) in particular might name some members of the canon, but unfortunately I don't have access to it at the moment.
Preliminary research on my part
I did do a lot of googling with search terms such as which books are admired by typographers and the like, but Google tends to interpret such querries as going after books about typography, which is not what I want at the moment. True, I could go to a library, locate a bunch of books about typography, and go through them one by one to see if any of them bring forward examples of particularly well-typeset books. But that is a bigger time commitment than I can afford right now. So I'm hoping that some people here have already read many books on typography and will recall which books those books praised for their typography.
What kind of information I hope the answers will include
If possible, it would be nice to know why these books are considered such good exemplars, i.e. which aspects of typography they do particularly well.
At the moment, I am particularly interested in exemplars that excel at the level of a paragraph, i.e. where the following things were done particularly well: kerning, tracking, word-spacing, line breaking, expansion, hanging punctuation, interline spacing, and the like. I'm sure that these days, such tasks are mostly done by software, but I suspect that even today, high-quality work requires manual tweaks. And so there should be some set of standards for what a high-quality result should look like, and I suspect that the 'canon of exemplars' provides important guidance here, in addition to that presented in books about typography and in addition to whatever canons of rules there might be (e.g. these).
However, finding out about 'canonical exemplars' of other aspects of typography would also be very interesting!
A further restriction to 'invisible' typography
I understand that some members of the canon are going to be 'experimental', in the same sense in which the magazine Ray Gun was experimental.1 I would like to say something like, 'I'm looking for members of the canon that are not experimental like that'. I realize that this is not terribly well-defined. I guess what I have in mind are members of the canon where typography is an instrument rather than the centerpiece. Another way to put it is that I'm looking for members of the canon which are trying to satisfy the dictum that good typography is invisible (see here). And if you print an article in Zapf Dingbats (here), then you are definitely not trying to obey that dictum.
1Thanks to user
curious for bringing up Ray Gun.