I have a copy of his 50 portraits book.
Obviously some top class images well supported by interesting insights.
I was a tiny bit disapointed by the print quality, but it is probably standard stuff.
Now, if I were to give one caveat, it would be some of his 11x14 images such as the Liv Tyler blurred formal portrait. I did read the text but to me the partial blur still doesn't add anything to the image, it just shows that the wrong tool was selected for the job (at least without additional lighting). I do fully understand the romantic appeal of joining a long tradition relying on the 11x14 and the hope that the camera will help shape a special moment with the subject... but I see it as a failed attempt if basic technical quality cannot be achieved.
Accidental failure can be charming and I do agree that sharpness isn't always critical to deliver an aesthetically pleasing result, but that image wasn't designed that way and the portrait would IMHO be more powerful and the image more impressive with suitable detail in miss Tyler's face.
He gets away with it because of who he is. Right or wrong, the same image shot by a less known photographer with a less known subject would probably not make it past the lightbox.
Cheers,
Bernard