How To Care For 'Rare' Books?

[Michael Colton]

Then why buy the bugger in the first place? It would be like buying a sandwich and not eating it!

Well, to collect it? I do not have anything that is actually a notable monetary investment so I probably cannot be described as a collector, but it is still about collection. Have you no generational items in your possession that mean something to you even though you do not 'use' them? Grandmother's pearls, that sort of thing?

Same principle for me, just without the family bit.

 

[steelyglint]

One buys a limited or signed first for the investment. Well, I do. I also buy a paperback copy for reading.

Shrinkwrap is transparent - you can see what is in there.

Somebody paid several thousand US dollars for a piece of toast with the outline of 'the virgin Mary' singed into it. I very much doubt they actually ate it. A British comedian once paid several hundred pounds for two ounces of 200 year-old Tibetan cheese. I'd bet my wages that he didn't eat that either.

.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I buy them because they make me happy and I love books in a home esp. If they're lovely to look at, too.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I think my point was why spend all that money on something you'll never use? If you are going to invest purely for investment purposes in something invest in something that isn't so fragile. Gold is good. You can kick gold about and it doesn't loose it's 'value'.

It's like the 'Art' world. A market in expectation and optimism. Van Gogh really wasn't that good a painter and Tracey Emin is a f***ing joke but their stuff sells for millions. I really can't understand the miserly glee that must come from owning something (brand new) that is so precious that it mustn't be touched.

Re inheriting things. My paperback copy of Elizabeth David's French Provincial Cooking got damaged in a plumbing accident so my mum gave me her copy (1st edition with dust wrapper) I still use it in the kitchen as a cookbook. Just as my mum did. I think Ms. David would approve.

 

[JunkMonkey]

As for buying cheap copies to read, I'm more inclined to go the other way. I have several times read a cheap paperback, enjoyed the book - and then bought a more expensive hardback copy when I wanted to read it again.

And then given the paperback to a friend who I think might like it.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I use them all. but I try not to trash their value while I do so.

 

[Michael Colton]

I think my point was why spend all that money on something you'll never use? If you are going to invest purely for investment purposes in something invest in something that isn't so fragile. Gold is good. You can kick gold about and it doesn't loose it's 'value'.

It's like the 'Art' world. A market in expectation and optimism. Van Gogh really wasn't that good a painter and Tracey Emin is a f***ing joke but their stuff sells for millions. I really can't understand the miserly glee that must come from owning something (brand new) that is so precious that it mustn't be touched.

Re inheriting things. My paperback copy of Elizabeth David's French Provincial Cooking got damaged in a plumbing accident so my mum gave me her copy (1st edition with dust wrapper) I still use it in the kitchen as a cookbook. Just as my mum did. I think Ms. David would approve.

I guess I do not know how to explain it then. I do not place value on things solely based upon their usefulness. But, as always, to each their own.

 

[steelyglint]

I think my point was why spend all that money on something you'll never use? If you are going to invest purely for investment purposes in something invest in something that isn't so fragile. Gold is good. You can kick gold about and it doesn't loose it's 'value'.

It's like the 'Art' world. A market in expectation and optimism. Van Gogh really wasn't that good a painter and Tracey Emin is a f***ing joke but their stuff sells for millions. I really can't understand the miserly glee that must come from owning something (brand new) that is so precious that it mustn't be touched.

Re inheriting things. My paperback copy of Elizabeth David's French Provincial Cooking got damaged in a plumbing accident so my mum gave me her copy (1st edition with dust wrapper) I still use it in the kitchen as a cookbook. Just as my mum did. I think Ms. David would approve.

Different strokes....

I do agree on the 'art' point, though. Most artists are pretentious prats who produce a thing and then look down their noses at anyone who 'doesn't get it'. Most art afficionados are equally pretentious in that they 'don't get it' either, but like to pretend they do. They're the ones who perpetuate the whole sham by coughing up millions for this garbage.

We now have several tonnes of scrap bronze on Ilfracombe's sea front, put there by a fly-tipper called Damien Hirst - a fish merchant apparently. Well, according to his shark steaks, anyway.

Maybe I'm just a philistine.

The more fragile a collectable, the higher the value of a perfect example. Tear the one cent black-on-magenta British Guiana unique postage stamp in half and it is no longer a £4 million bit of paper. It is two worthless bits.

There's a story that in 1931 there was another example found and offered for sale. The chap who owned the other bought it for £15,000 - and burned it the moment he got it home. That made sure his original was still unique.

.

 

[J-Sun]

One buys a limited or signed first for the investment. Well, I do. I also buy a paperback copy for reading.

Odd conversation to be having on a science fiction board when most things date from the 20th century and came out in pulp magazines and paperback originals.

I have heard of paperback originals being released years later in hardcover. Does that work for collectors?

I think my point was why spend all that money on something you'll never use? If you are going to invest purely for investment purposes in something invest in something that isn't so fragile. Gold is good. You can kick gold about and it doesn't loose it's 'value'.

Indeed.

The more fragile a collectable, the higher the value of a perfect example. Tear the one cent black-on-magenta British Guiana unique postage stamp in half and it is no longer a £4 million bit of paper. It is two worthless bits.

There's a story that in 1931 there was another example found and offered for sale. The chap who owned the other bought it for £15,000 - and burned it the moment he got it home. That made sure his original was still unique.

So much for being a part of history and treasuring things that have survived time's cruelty against all odds (not to mention allowing someone the chance of fulfilling their own dream to have one if they wanted). I'm going to assume that's just apocryphal, else it's deeply disturbing.

 

[steelyglint]

Odd conversation to be having on a science fiction board when most things date from the 20th century and came out in pulp magazines and paperback originals.

I have heard of paperback originals being released years later in hardcover. Does that work for collectors?

SF goes back way before the 20th century. Cyrano de Bergerac was a SF author.

Many collectors aren't interested in paperbacks. The first hardcover edition is the thing. Hardcovers come in 'editions' and later 'impressions', paperbacks are all 'printings' as in first printing, second printing.

There are always 'completists' who want to collect every edition, impression and printing.

There are first editions, first edition UK, first edition US, first world edition - which is often one of the two previously mentioned.

So much for being a part of history and treasuring things that have survived time's cruelty against all odds (not to mention allowing someone the chance of fulfilling their own dream to have one if they wanted). I'm going to assume that's just apocryphal, else it's deeply disturbing.

Well, I've heard it a number of times. It may well be true. But consider the man - he has a unique item. Only he, out of several billion people, has this thing. Then another is found. He buys it and destroys it. Once again he has his unique distinction. To him, allowing somebody else onto his level in that particular field is abhorrent.

How would the Louvre feel if another, equally-perfect, example of the Mona Lisa turned up? Happy? Highly doubtful. Their prize would suddenly be just a copy (as in a book being just a copy), not the unique artwork it once was, nor necessarily the 'original'.

.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Odd conversation to be having on a science fiction board when most things date from the 20th century and came out in pulp magazines and paperback originals.

I have heard of paperback originals being released years later in hardcover. Does that work for collectors?

And before that what appeared in paperback often appeared in really tatty monthly magazines with lurid illustrations.

I'm desperately trying to remember an ancient SF story about LGM conducting an experiment where they conned the Earth into thinking collecting cow pats was a good idea and nearly ruining the global economy.

And you should always read in the bath. (Unless you can get someone to join you. I can't recommend reading when sharing a bath. I've knackered a couple of books that way. Reading in the shower isn't impossible either.)

 

[JunkMonkey]

How would the Louvre feel if another, equally-perfect, example of the Mona Lisa turned up? Happy? Highly doubtful. Their prize would suddenly be just a copy (as in a book being just a copy), not the unique artwork it once was, nor necessarily the 'original'.

Actually I would think they would say "Here we go again" as there are already several versions - some almost certainly contemporaneous with the Louvre's. Some probably painted by Leonardo. Just because theirs is the most famous doesn't mean it's the original.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculations_about_Mona_Lisa#Other_versions

 

[steelyglint]

And you should always read in the bath.

I'd say getting clean is the prime necessity in that position.

I don't have a bath, but the Atlantic ocean is about 20 feet from my lounge windows at high water. Hell of a job reading in the shower.

.

 

[J-Sun]

SF goes back way before the 20th century.

If I implied that, I sure didn't mean to. I said "most". "Almost all" in the 19th and 20th. But Alexander had a submarine and other Hellenes went to the moon.

Many collectors aren't interested in paperbacks. The first hardcover edition is the thing. Hardcovers come in 'editions' and later 'impressions', paperbacks are all 'printings' as in first printing, second printing.

Yeah, I was thinking the "first edition hardcover" was still considered a "first" by collectors. Odd. Another one of those things where the first is likely to have more proofreading errors than later "corrected" editions/printings and so should be less valuable by practical measures, yet the impracticality of "pure firstness" is not what the general collector is looking for. What's so special about an error-filled later edition that just happens to have stiffer covers?

Well, I've heard it a number of times. It may well be true. But consider the man - he has a unique item. Only he, out of several billion people, has this thing. Then another is found. He buys it and destroys it. Once again he has his unique distinction. To him, allowing somebody else onto his level in that particular field is abhorrent.

How would the Louvre feel if another, equally-perfect, example of the Mona Lisa turned up? Happy? Highly doubtful. Their prize would suddenly be just a copy (as in a book being just a copy), not the unique artwork it once was, nor necessarily the 'original'.

I don't know how they'd feel but, as curators, preservers, and (hah, idealistically) lovers, of art, they should be. I really feel like this psychological quirk of enjoying enforced scarcity and general deprivation explains a lot of the problems in the world. But I'm WAY off topic now.

Still, I can't help but go further off topic. Consider the man. Only he had this thing. Well, he didn't make this thing so he's nothing special there. It doesn't do anybody else any good, so there's nothing special there. If there's just going to be the one and he doesn't value the other any more than setting it on fire, he might as well burn both of them and be done with it.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Still, I can't help but go further off topic. Consider the man. Only he had this thing. Well, he didn't make this thing so he's nothing special there. It doesn't do anybody else any good, so there's nothing special there. If there's just going to be the one and he doesn't value the other any more than setting it on fire, he might as well burn both of them and be done with it.

Or eat them (like Mr Croup and the Tang dynasty statue in Neverwhere). The the thing thus becoming part of him. Making him unique. Or more uniquer* than he was. Really OT and I'll stop before some 'Artist' reads this thread and starts demanding the right to chew chunks off old masters in the name of creative expression.







*I know.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

For dryness can't you get hold of those little silica gel bags that you often find in the box with new electrical equipment from some DIY or art shops?

Silica Gel would be used up quickly in the Irish atmosphere unless the container is hermetically sealed.

It's pure Sodium Silicate and can be "reactivated" in the oven. It has other uses so I collect the little packets. Leak proof Gel Lead Acid batteries were first made in about 1930 for transportable radio sets by adding silica gel to a fully charged battery.

For a room full of books in a damp place a de-humidifer at the correct setting and the water collection tray plumbed to drain is good. A place I worked (Programming) used one for the paper store.

I also find that snails eat paper and card. I've had technical books and data sheets lying loose in my workshop damaged. Also a problem in the workshop is white to dark brown spots appearing on all flat exposed surfaces. May son claimed it's spider droppings, and researching seems to confirm this. Drawers get full of dead woodlice (slaters).

Vintage wooden stuff acquired is treated for woodworm. Often with blowtorch on inside, sometimes freezer and oven (Less than -21C and more than 32C kills them). The fluids often only really kill the eggs, up to 5 years later a grub can emerge. In theory they might damage books. The adult beetles only live a few days. Also if the storage area is very dry they will die.

Dry is good.

 

[steelyglint]

What's so special about an error-filled later edition that just happens to have stiffer covers?

Its the same size as all his other hardcovers?

Another minor point is that books are not like stamps. I had a paperback copy of a Heinlein novel where the last 20 pages or so were only printed on one side, so 10 pages of text were missing. I put it on eBay at 99p as a curiosity, but a couple of folks fought over it and it eventually sold for around £20.

That was a 'Harry Potter' influence. Some of those titles have textual errors and many people, thinking of errors on stamps, decided they should be more valuable.

They're not, of course. A book collector wants the most perfect example possible, so missing text might as well be a missing leaf - the thing is incomplete and so worthless. That is also why a wrapperless copy is worth less (often fantastically less) than a copy in original wrapper - because without it the book is incomplete.

Still, I can't help but go further off topic. Consider the man. Only he had this thing. Well, he didn't make this thing so he's nothing special there. It doesn't do anybody else any good, so there's nothing special there. If there's just going to be the one and he doesn't value the other any more than setting it on fire, he might as well burn both of them and be done with it.

The whole thing is in his mind, a part of his character. He has that thing and knows that even philatelists like HMQ Liz doesn't have an example. He probably sat gloating over it every day.

If he had burned both, what would he have to gloat over?

.

 

[K. Riehl]

If you want the one and only copy you should buy original manuscripts. Esp. one with corrections in the author's hand.
I corresponded with Lois Bujold when she donated one of her Vorkosigan manuscripts to a charity event and she was dumbfounded that it went for $ 15,000 plus. I told her to hang onto them all as they are secondary insurance in case of monetary distress.

As for the point of the thread, I use neutral boxes and lawyer cases with UV glass, a De-humidifier, neutral plastic bags for my pulps and mylar for my hardcovers. The thing I forget to do is dust weekly.

 

[tinkerdan]

Well. You should dust strongly anyway

If you want the one and only copy you should buy original manuscripts. Esp. one with corrections in the author's hand.
I corresponded with Lois Bujold when she donated one of her Vorkosigan manuscripts to a charity event and she was dumbfounded that it went for $ 15,000 plus. I told her to hang onto them all as they are secondary insurance in case of monetary distress.

As for the point of the thread, I use neutral boxes and lawyer cases with UV glass, a De-humidifier, neutral plastic bags for my pulps and mylar for my hardcovers. The thing I forget to do is dust weekly.

 

[Extollager]

I have a number of Walt Disney comics with the original appearances of some of Carl Barks's most noted Duck stories, such as "Tra La La" (the bottlecaps fable), "Old California," "The Old Castle's Secret," "Land of Square Eggs," etc., some of them in pretty decent condition, but I bought them from a downsizing fannish couple at $1 each as magazines to read and enjoy, not with the intention of building a Collection, or Investing. Cheap paper, but it's held up pretty well. I have a good Barks collection, but by far the majority of the stories are reprints, often bought in the form of used comics for 10c each or so, and that's OK. I don't know if we have any Carl Barks fans here. I've been reading him with enjoyment since about 1967, albeit I didn't start gathering a "library" of his works till the 1970s, and I haven't gone in for the expensive book-form reprints. I'm not a completist. But I do honor The Duck Man, and it pleases me that he is buried in the same cemetery (in Grants Pass, Oregon) as my dad's parents.