Question On Signature

Let's say a certain first edition/first printing in "Good plus" to "Very Good
minus" condition is listed on average at 300 USD without a dustjacket (this
average has been compiled from many sources), at 650 USD with for the same with
a dustjacket, and 3000 to 6000 USD as a signed first edition/first printing
with dustjacket. Let's also say one has come across a seller with a signed but
dustjacketless first edition but NOT first printing of the same book (same
publisher, same year, etc.) What rule of thumb would you use in setting a
value?

Given that this is a famous American literary figure, would you work down from
the high price or up from the low price? My instinct is to halve the 3000 USD
price and work from there, but I'm curious how others would reason in this
instance.

Thanks for any input.

"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor
citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang, as when
single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."

--Benjamin Franklin

if you want to play 'let's say,' let's say you tell us what book it is.

j

Absolutely impossible without knowing the book in question.

"Famous American literary figure" means nothing in this context. Are
examples of this book frequently encountered signed as opposed to
other works by the author? How common is the book itself signed or
unsigned?

I tend to examine all mitigating factors in a case like this.

Cheers,

John

Ernest Hemingway, "For Whom The Bell Tolls." The inscription is to a friend of
his.

><< if you want to play 'let's say,' let's say you tell us what book it is.

Okay, now this makes more sense... There is a huge premium involved
for authentic signed Hemingway books. I would suggest finding a jacket
for it as that will give you a much more attractive item. As to price,
the other questions that arise are "How much do you have tied up in
this volume?" "How quickly do you need to recoup costs?" "Can you
afford to put a high price on it and let it sit, or must you move it
fairly quickly?"

I think the optimum could be as high as the low four-figures (assuming
you find a jacket for it).

As you can see, this is an excellent example of a book where the
signature makes all the difference in the world. Firsts are not at all
uncommon (expensive, yes; uncommon, no), however, SIGNED firsts are
very desirable, particularly if the inscription is to someone of note.

Cheers,

John

I have not been able to find one so far.

this volume?" >><BR><BR>

$500

<< "How quickly do you need to recoup costs?" >><BR><BR>

Well, it'd be nice to turn it around quickly, but it's not absolutely
necessary.

fairly quickly?" >><BR><BR>

See above.

you find a jacket for it). >><BR><BR>

How about without a DJ? Would you still try to get $1000+ or would you fall to
the high hundreds?

>><BR><BR>

However, as I've said it's not an actual first (it lacks the "A" on the
copyright page) so I was wondering whether being signed by Hemingway trumps the
fact that it's not a first. The $3000-$6000 prices I saw were for signed
firsts. That's really what I'm wondering. How much does a signed non-first go
for as opposed to a signed first?

><< Okay, now this makes more sense... There is a huge premium involved

I don't think I'd have any problem getting $1500.00 for it.

Find a dj... It's worth it even if you have to shell out a few bucks
for another copy. A later impression in jacket should be fairly
inexpensive and the presence of the jacket will greatly increase the
attractiveness of the book you're offering.

Cheers,

John

I'll see what I can scare up. Thanks!

It seems to me that if one can obtain a jacket fairly easily,
then to a *rational* person, such a jacket should not increase
the value of a book very much. But of course, we are talking
about book collectors, aren't we?

= Eric

Precisely. ;-)

Cheers,

John

But book collectors buying a book "with jacket" reasonably expect the
book to have lived within that jacket and be in better condition than a
book that has gone naked into the world. Full disclosure might include
acknowledging the marriage when offering the book - and jacket - for
sale.

dick w

in the forty years i've been dealing books, one way or another, i've married
plenty of dustjackets. and i mention that marriage when there is an obvious
condition discrepancy -- i.e., a flawless spine arc on the book with some
wrinkling that doesn't match on the spine panel extremity of the DJ. but is
there really a point, if the marriage is undetectable? they weren't
produced off the same press, they aren't numerically serialized...

tell me this: if a book printed in 1970 loses it's DJ on the day it's
printed, and somebody else has a book they took the dustjacket off of on the
same day so they could read it -- and you find that dustjacket and put it on
the DJ-less copy thirty years later, is that fair not to mention? oh? what
about if you're at the bindery the day the books are assembled, and within
the first thirty seconds of the two books coming down the chute, you switch
the DJs -- if you save them both for thirty years, should you mention the
switch?

i guess i see it that you describe condition accurately and clearly -- but i
note that books and dustjackets are two separate things, and are always
described as such.

j

If the friend is anyone of any consequence at all, or a close friend
mentioned in Hemingway Bios you probably have something with a good
bit more. This sounds like a legitimate 'association copy'.
Assuming, of course, that the autograph is genuine. There are quite a
few forged Hemingways out there-- nobody ever seems to forge
Hemingstein....

Good luck, you 'bought it right' as they say in the trade.

David

David Holloway, Bookseller

As book and jacket are described seperately, I really see no
compelling reason to mention a marriage unless the condition is not
compatible. A fine book in a fine jacket is just that, it doesn't
matter one iota. Both were printed at the same time. A fine book with
a vg jacket is also to be expected. However, a vg book with fine
jacket necessitates a bit of explanation, though most knowledgeable
parties would immediately assume a marriage of convenience had taken
place.

There are some sub-groups of my collection (1960's SF from Doubleday)
that are almost entirely the product of marriages through the good
offices of library sales. You get yourself a nice copy of Way Station
or Ubik, no one's going to care if book and jacket didn't start the
journey to your shelf together.

Cheers,

John

If no one's going to care, what's the objection to noting the marriage?

I don't mind made-up books--I just think they should be properly described.

j

Well, would you not also not describe other undetectable changes?

Yes, but the edition is also specified. It's just as important and it has
nothing to do with condition.

Actually, I think it does, anyway. For one thing, you noted that a book that
has been without a dj will necessarily be in _different_ condition than one
with.

No need: "Dustjacket supplied."

Whereas I, once I hear that some of what I consider the essential history of
a copy of a book is not necessarily described accurately, would tend to
worry about other more serious omissions.

Let's say you supplied a missing leaf. Would you describe that? How about if
it were undetectable?

Since I've never read any of his bios, I wouldn't know. But that's probably a
point worth mentioning.

Hemingstein.... >><BR><BR>

Well, I'm not an expert, but I've checked it online against published copies of
his signature and it seems so to me. Clearly more checking is required.

<< Good luck, you 'bought it right' as they say in the trade. >><BR><BR>

I had to fight off another book dealer to do it, and even he wasn't exactly
sure it was authentic, but he was willing to go to 490.00 on the chance it was
before we beat him by bidding 500.00. From what I know of this fellow, he's
seldom mistaken in judging the real value of lots.

you're assuming that i could detect them ;-)

the edition of the book is specified, yes. the basic assumption of this
thread is that the dustjacket supplied is the correct one -- yes?

i think this is really the root of your worries... and of course any honest
bookseller would mention this: it pertains to the condition of *the book*.
and it is equally true that any honest bookseller would mention any
restoration/conservation that had been done to the dustjacket; because it is
part of the condition of *the dustjacket*.

but the point that i, and most other booksellers who perform marriages
(i.e., most booksellers), make, is that while the condition and state (or
printing) of each item is pertinent, their previous life together *is NOT*.
they are two separate things, and mix 'n' matching *in no way, detracts from
their value* -- other than in cases where the match is poor (wear points in
non-matching locations, etc.).

if you take the engine out of a collectible jaguar, and replace it with
another, it lowers the value of the car because the engine is serialized --
and the car is no longer considered 'original' by collectors. but if you
reupholster the seats with connolly leather (the same kind used by the
factory), and have a professional do it to exacting standards, those same
collectors - ALL of them - will tell you that the value of the car has
increased.

j

In this example, I was assuming you made them.

No. One of the OPs actually suggested taking a DJ from a subsequent
impression. That's _probably_ from the same DJ print run as the "first" DJ,
but as a customer I'd still want to know about it. Why wouldn't you want to
tell me?

What's the difference between a missing leaf and a missing dustjacket?
What's the difference between supplying one and supplying the other? Having
supplied one or the other, why would you describe one of these actions in a
catalog, but not the other?

You're specifying how booksellers feel--which is perfectly legitimate. I'm
saying how one collector (moi) feels, and I want to know if a DJ is married.

Look, it's perfectly simple. Either

1) A significant number of your buyers care whether DJs are married.

or

2) They don't.

In the first case, you're clearly obligated to note the marriage. In the
second case, you might as well, since it won't affect your sales. So why
wouldn't "Dustjacket supplied" be noted, where it's true?

that is a completely unwarranted assumption on your part. of course i'd
note a dustjacket not of the same state as the book.

ahhh - the crux of the matter. the difference between the two is huge, and
precise.

a missing leaf that has been replaced involves *actual physical manipulation
of the material of the book itself*, through the use of tools, glues, irons,
chemicals, and etc. a book that has been altered or restored in this way is
no longer completely original. any such changes or restoration *must* be
noted by an ethical seller, just as he/she would note re-casing, re-sewn
signatures, or any other 'touch.'

HOWEVER:

a married dustjacket involves *no* manipulation whatever of the physical
material of the book. it is original. the dustjacket is original. neither
have been touched. i don't object to it as a collector, or as a dealer.

tell me this -- would you object to not being told that a book was married
with a dustjacket other than the one the bindery machine originally wrapped
around it: but that the dustjacket it now sported was the DJ belonging to
the very next book on the assembly line; and that the marriage was
accomplished within thirty seconds of that bindery process?

j

In the case of modern firsts, it is not. IMO.

For SF collectors in particular, and MF collectors in general, the
distinction between "the book itself" and "dustjacket" does not exist. If
this were not true, we wouldn't be having this argument, since it is quite
clear that MF collectors do _not_ separately distinguish the dustjacket from
the rest of the book, as the DJ represents most of the value of a modern
first.

Or is the issue (sic) simply that it's easier to replace a missing DJ than a
faulty leaf? There does seem to be a fundamental difference between
replacing a leaf (which would be quite hard to do undetectably) and
replacing a DJ (which even I could do). I wonder, though, how many
collectors judge the "firstness" of a copy by how easy it is to simulate.

You're defining "book" in the hand-press manner--as a set of sheets. In my
opinion, modern first collectors regard the binding and the dustjacket as an
equal part of the "book"--defined as what the first publisher first
published. If this were not the case, then a nice DJ would be equivalent to
a nice re-binding--but it's not. The essence of "first" is first physical
manifestation--including the dust-jacket that accompanied the sale of every
copy.

Fine--you come across a situation like this in the real world and we'll
debate it. :)

Look, Jaime, let's cut the crap, OK? You seem like a good guy, and I enjoy
reading your posts. But you and I both know good and g*d*mn well why a
dealer would not draw attention to a married jacket, so let's just leave it
at that.

i understand that it's more profitable for a dealer not to point out the
marriage of a dustjacket... but perhaps it is part of the curmudgeonly
consistency of my bookishness, that i honestly don't care about it in my own
collection. maybe it's just hanging around book dealers since i was eight,
but 'parts is parts' -- as long as they're the right ones, and untouched.
maybe my chosen area of specialty -- paperbacks -- has something to do with
it. oh well, we disagree.

interesting -- y'know, i just re-read the first paragraph of this reply, and
i noticed an amazing fact... in my lifetime, the normal meaning of
'classical physics' has changed: from newtonian to einsteinian. now *that*
is mind-boggling.

j

Some SNIPPAGE>>>

This is somewhat silly; what you're suggesting here is the same thing
as a rebind or the addition of new endpapers. A "restoration". Not the
same thing at all.

One involves an item that is as issued by the publisher (the
dustjacket). The other involves work of physically altering an item
(book or jacket) with tools and actually alterign (restoring) an item.
If this has been done, I damn sure want to know about it.

However, there is no difference between the fifth dustjacket to come
off the press and the 500th (well, at least if the pressman knows what
he's doing ;-) ) . To illustrate this point, I have just removed the
dustjacket of my copy #1 of NO PLACE LIKE EARTH by John Wyndham and
fetched another dustjacket out of the box.

Yep, looks okay to me...
I shall now marry it to my unique copy #1...

*****drum roll*****

It's a match! Looks just fine to me, I shall now put the book back on
the brag shelf where it belongs.

It would seem (at least to me) to be unecessary information. I just
bought a book that's a prime candidate for this sort of marriage.
GOBLIN RESERVATION by Clifford Simak. It's of the time period where
libraries were buying a lot of SF, it's a Putnam's, which like
Doubleday is noteworthy for relatively small printings and huge
numbers of library sales. It didn't occur to me for a second to ask
Lloyd Currey if the book and jacket were married. I simply don't care
and can't imagine why anyone else would.

There simply doesn't seem to be any reason to mention to mention a
marriage of book and jacket from the same issue.

Cheers,

John

Why not? Again, is it just because it's so easy to replace a dustjacket?

So is the distinction in your mind whether tools were used?

You're missing the point.

If you want to marry, fine. Just tell me about it if you want to sell me a
copy, that's all. I don't understand what the big deal is.

If we disagree, it's because you're still talking about how you, as a
collector, feel about marrying dustjackets, which is irrelevant to my point.

My point has to do with how your CUSTOMERS feel. If you think they don't
care about marriages, then there's no drawback to adding two words to a
catalog entry. If you think they do, you need to add them anyway.

Is is possible that a bookseller would not indicate a marriage because he
thinks it detracts from the description?

--
fanatics are always wrong -- whether i happen to agree with their
conclusions, or not.

news:vcmub7j...@news.supernews.com...

yes, that was my point in agreeing to disagree. we don't understand what
the big deal is, either...

j

I wonder if it's a matter of genre. I don't collect SF, but I have a kind of
gut feeling that in that context it would be OK to marry a book and a dust
jacket, and it would be reasonable to assume that a fair number of the books
in any SF collection had been married to their jackets in that way.

Somehow, though, I have a very different gut feeling about a Hemingway
first, or a Steinbeck first, or something like that. In that kind of context
I'd like to feel that my copy had a kind of *integrity*, that it had been
like that since it was issued, and if it hadn't I'd at least like to know
about it.

Mark's example of a missing leaf isn't really a very good analogy, for the
reasons people have spelled out, but how about provenance? I think the
integral oneness of the book and the dust jacket could perhaps be compared
(up to a point at least) with provenance. I have a few books which merely
have a pencilled note on the front pastedown (or similar) saying
"So-and-so's copy". Now, I take it on trust that the book really *was*
so-and-so's copy. It may not make much difference to the economic value of
the book, but it's somehow nice to know the book was once in that person's
hands. If it wasn't, I would be harbouring a delusion. The same applies to
bookplates, telling me I have so-and-so's copy of a particular book. It's no
good telling me the bookplate would look just as well steamed off and pasted
into another book; if they didn't *belong* together I would feel let down.

Similarly, I hold a Steinbeck first (or whatever) feeling I'm holding a
little bit of history, something that's just as it was when it first hit the
bookstalls. If it isn't so, well, again, I'd feel just a bit let down.

I can't quite put my finger on *why* I feel that would bother me more with a
Steinbeck first but not so much (if at all) with an SF first, but that's
what my gut tells me.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

If that's the unspoken assumption in SF, that would be OK, I guess.

The only reason I've seen spelled out is that it takes a lot more work to
replace a leaf than a dustjacket. There is the historical dissociation of a
book's sheets from its covering, but that's archaic at this point in
printing technology.

The book, including its leaves and its dustjacket, was published as a unit.
I fail to see the difference between replacing a leaf of a modern book,
replacing an endpaper, rebinding the book, or marrying the dustjacket. In
each case, you are altering the book as it was originally published. The
results in all cases are similar--you are making-up the ideal copy from
other copies.

Which is the crux of the matter. It's not what the bookseller feels is
important or "necessary to note"--it's what the customer wants that matters.
If SF customers don't care about married DJs--fine. I'd just like to hear
that from customers who aren't also dealers. :)

Here's what the big deal is--you're exchanging the physical components of
different copies of books. You're breaking one copy (which is controversial
in itself) and making-up another one. And you're not telling anyone you did
it.

If anyone else is reading this, would it be possible to see a show of hands?
Should supplied dustjackets be noted? How about if they are taken from a
different impression?

*sigh* when i was twenty, i would have laid into that... i think what
you're saying is that SF is not really as-good-as/up-to-the-standards-of
'real' literature, so a certain looseness with it's collectibles is
permissible. in my advanced decrepitude, i am forced to concede the point
to some degree... SF writers do get away with an awful lot of crap: i
think that, in general, genre fiction is populated by a lot of really good
story-tellers, but very few really good writers.

however, having grievously hindered the karma of several upcoming lives by
admitting that, i must point out that our artistic judgements are irrelevant
to judgements about the nuts-and-bolts of collectibility. if it's true for
SF, then it *must* be true for MF's.

and gee, while we're at it, why don't we suck some folks into a debate about
the relative values of signed books v/s laid-in signed bookplates? odd. i
can't bring myself to use the term 'flat-signed' any more. i wonder why?
;-)

j

*sigh* when i was twenty, i would have laid into that... i think what

your use of the word 'breaking' is intentionally inflammatory. a dustjacket
marriage is an _exchange_ of equal *and separate* parts. a book is a book.
a dustjacket is a dustjacket. a book is *not* a book and a dustjacket.

yes. i'd be interested in a show of hands as well, from those who have read
the entire thread. but only about *correct state* dustjackets. you keep
mentioning 'different impression' DJ's but you are the only person in this
thread who's brought the subject up. i have consistently pointed out that
our objections in this are congruent.

j

and, at this point, i can only believe that you're being intentionally
obtuse about the difference between actual restoration work and dustjacket
marriages. it is not a difference in degree, it is a difference in kind.

j

Yes it is. :) But if you take a dustjacket from a book, that book is broken,
since it can never have its original form restored, just as if you sold one
of its plates.

This is your definition, and that's fine. I maintain a "book" is the
physical artifact that the publisher sold. There are many other components
to it beside its dustjacket and its sheets, but in this day and age, they
all belong to the same physical publishing unit. I maintain that the
dustjacket is as much a part of the publishing unit as the thread used in
the binding, since they are always together when published.

Yes they are. Please understand this, Jaime. You don't go to one store for
your text and another for your dustjacket (as you might have done for
binding in the old days). The publisher sells boxes and boxes of "things,"
and these things include pages, thread, cloth, and, oh, yes, dustjackets.

Yes, as are the binding and the plates. Even the printing can be distributed
geographically and temporally. It doesn't matter because...

Which is the definition of a publishing unit.

I don't waste my time on trolls. If you think I'm being intentionally
obtuse, yet you continue to respond to my messages, there's something wrong.

I am suggesting a new perspective on this issue that clearly you are not
comfortable with.

>"Jaime Frontero" <hendy_nospam@nospam_unique-software.com_nospam> wrote in

And such should be duly noted. The discussion which follows is in
regard to same state book/jacket marriages.

Cheers,

John

Thanks, Jaime. You've put your finger on why I felt a slight uneasiness with
my posting. I caught myself thinking, "What if the SF book in question was
Fahrenheit 451 or The Day of the Triffids or Childhood's End? Wouldn't I
feel much the same way about those as I would about a Hemingway or a
Steinbeck first?" It's all a bit hypothetical, since I don't collect SF
anyway, but I had half a feeling I *would* want to know about a marriage in
cases like that. Still, I went ahead and posted anyway.

So was that what was at the bottom of my "gut feeling" - a half-conscious
perception that different standards apply when the book in question is
"crap"? There may have some half-formed feeling in my mind that much of SF
is a kind of cultural ephemeron and hence a reconstruction is more
acceptable.

On the other hand, since I definitely agree that

Which leads pretty inevitably to

So, back to the drawing board! I took a look back through the thread to see
if there was anything that might give me a hint and found this by John
Pelan:

That struck a chord. Over the years, there have been continuous references
in this newsgroup to marriages between books picked up in garage sales (or
wherever) and dust jackets picked up in library sales. The one without the
other is relatively worthless, but a marriage of the two is collectible.

Does this just apply in the US, or does it happen in other countries (if so,
which)? It seems to me that if you have a culture in which the book-buying
readership tends to discard the dust jacket and the libraries scar the book
but leave the dust jacket pristine then this leads pretty naturally to a
culture where marriages become the norm, and an unstated assumption that any
given book/dj combination may be a reconstruction, rather than an untouched
original. And since no one can tell anyway it just gets taken for granted.

Jaime has a pretty strongly-entrenched US mindset (at least, that's how I
felt when I learned he thought my Britishisms were a function of my not
actually being a native speaker) and Mark, though American, became a
book-collector on the other side of the Atlantic, and is heavily immersed in
the works of a British writer (see http://mwilden.com/forester/index.htm).

Perhaps, then, rather than this being a matter of SF versus "real"
literature, it's all about what collectors expect given the cultural
background against which they are operating. Here in Japan, for instance,
readers rarely throw away the dust jacket and most books are published with
a wraparound band. I noticed two copies of an early Mishima Yukio title
sitting alongside each other in a bookshop recently, one in nice condition,
with the band intact, at some $400, the other a bit worn and with the dust
jacket but no band at around $30. Each country has its own norms and
expectations when it comes to bookcollecting. Maybe that's what this
basically boils down to.

Let's just keep it simple and try to reach some kind of conclusion about
married dust jackets!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

>"Jaime Frontero" <hendy_nospam@nospam_unique-software.com_nospam> wrote in

Okay, I'm calling "bullshit" right now... I have published over two
dozen books in the last couple of years. They are all produced by a
printer who specializes in short-run books. I get a big pallet set
down in front of my house with between 14 and 20 cases of books.

The next day the nice folks from Fed-Ex show up with a long box...
want to guess what's in the box?

Cheers,

John (over 10,000 marriages performed) ;-)

Mark commented:

Well, it was pointed out that one comes under the category of restoration,
while the other doesn't. I would categorise a marriage of book and dj as
*reconstruction*, not restoration. That's why I felt it was more comparable
to switching a bookplate from one book to another.

I don't think being a dealer disqualifies one from having a fairminded take
on this. As I replied to Jaime, though, I'm wondering whether it's more a
difference between British bookcollecting norms and those in the US than a
matter of genre, as I at first suggested.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

nice sub-thread ender...

j

yes -- you see the difference in kind, rather than in degree. but i would
never use a word like 'reconstruction,' or any word which implied any work
actually being performed. i really feel that to be misleading. marriage
works... 'shuffling,' perhaps.

you may be right about that. you expound at greater length in your other
post. i'll respond there.

j

I've been talking about what the publisher issues. You are the publisher.

Right--and it's the "comes under" verb that I'm questioning (who put it
there?). What I'm gathering (sic) is that if one Thing that a publisher
includes with the price of a "book" is glued or sewn to another Thing, then
that's a hugely different Thing than if it is _not_ glued or sewn to another
Thing.

As far as publishing is concerned, this distinction is now irrelevant. The
publisher sells the whole thing as a unit--glued, sewn, tipped in, and
wrapped.

As far as the ability to make-up a faulty copy, the distinction is very
important. But that's not exactly a bibliographic distinction. :)

I agree that's a better example.

No, but the problem is that there's a conflict of interest (as is often the
case, of course). The dealer prefers to believe that dustjacket marriage
doesn't necessarily require noting, and it's not coincidental that such a
belief would lead to more sales rather than fewer.

this is very well reasoned, except i don't really believe that there's an

reconstruction." i honestly believe that nobody really thinks about it...
at least not here. and it may very well be for the reasons you've outlined.
it may even be a more deeply seated cultural thing than that... it's not as
though we're a culture of purists -- we're pragmatists, really; and that
fits your assessment quite well.

perhaps. it would certainly be an interesting cultural questionnaire to get
responses to.

in any case, i think john pelan's recent post pretty well settled it for
me... at least on this side of the pond. ;-)

j

OK, cool. Do you even care to be told about the marriage? (I'm thinking
not). And if you were told about it, would you consider two pretty identical
copies--one married, and one w/original dj--equal in value? Would you pay
any premium for the latter?

I like your choice in authors--I wish I had the bucks. :)

> OK, you wanted to hear from collectors...

Actually, could it be that at least some collectors would _not_ want to know
about a marriage? Ignorance is bliss, and all. That would support Jaime and
JohnP's position.

Are you sure you're talking about collecting? Because it's hard to think of
too many things that are less pragmatic than that. :)

Boy, that's for sure! I thought you guys knew what a publisher was.

John is publishing these books. He is not publishing the sheets and the
dustjacket separately. They are manufactured separately, just as many other
parts of the book are, but they are _published_ as a unit--you can't buy one
without the other.

It's the end-result of publishing that defines a Modern First Edition. What
the FedEx man brings to the publisher _before_ that event is irrelevant to
the definition of the publishing unit..

now *that's* pragmatism!

of course, collecting is really about the thrill of the kill... there's
nothing more depressing than getting the last book in a series. nothing to
do but sell 'em all -- what're you gonna do: look at 'em forever and waste
all that shelf space?

j

immaterial, and such a notation will only confuse the issue.

definitely, if there is any difference at all in the dust jacket
between the two impressions.

robert

"None of us can predict the final outcomes of our actions, and few of us even try;
most of us just do what we do to prolong a moment's pleasure or to stop the pain.
And even when we act for the noblest reasons,
the last link of the chain all too often drips with someones blood"

>"John Pelan" <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote in message

so if a bookstore gets a shipment of new books and one has a misbound
page and a perfect dj, and another has a torn dj but a perfect book,
you want to know that the bookseller did the obvious thing and swapped
djs so they would only have to return one book to the publisher.

And don't forget about me, the little book buyer. I swap jackets on new
books at the store all the time. That copy you bought spanking new at B&N
might not be "as published" if I got there first. 'Course, a collector
probably wouldn't want the bumped-book-crinkled-jacket copy I leave behind.

--
Jon Meyers
[To reply,
lose your way.]

Of course I do that too... I just wasn't going to cop to it in a
newsgroup. ;-)

I did have one employee at B & N question what I was doing and they
backed away ve-r-r-r-r-y slowly when I tried to explain...

Cheers,

John

>SNIPPAGE>>>

Bingo! I do believe you've hit on it... My collecting covers a rather
broad timespan but includes some pretty distinct groups. Let's look at
the norms within those groups:

1. British supernatural fiction 1930's-1940's. Almost all of these
books were marketed to the lending libraries which promptly threw away
the dustjackets. In the case of these books the presence of a dj not
only adds tremendous value, it may in some quarters be viewed as a
minor miracle.

2. US supernatural fiction 1920's-present. Often published in decent
numbers (no different from other firsts) the marrying of superior book
with superior jacket is commonplace.

3. Science Fiction from 1930's to present. Oddly enough, the specialty
press stuff is very easy to find in jacket, (they all went to
collectors who took care of the books, at least to some extent). The
offerings of trade publishers are far trickier as most went to
libraries. However, as vicious as US libraries are to the books
themselves, they are often quite good at preserving the jackets. This
also applies to (2.), and leads to the "marrying" practice being taken
for granted.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned cultural
expectations. I don't collect Japanese books, but the presence of a
band would (to me) seem an exciting "extra" like a review slip. While
there are any number of US books issued with such bands, you almost
never see reference to them as US readers seem to have discarded such
things almost universally.

Cheers,

John

Your vote has been counted! :)

I don't understand this, though. Could you elaborate?

No, I mean if there is no apparent difference.

Yes, but it's irrelevant what I want here, since bookstores that receive
shipments of new books do not catalog them individually.

I think analogies and hypothetical situations can be useful, but clearly,
what I'm talking about here is a MF dealer who supplies a jacket in order to
_hugely_ enhance the price of his product. That happens all the time. The
situation you describe would be much rarer, I think, and hence not
illuminating.

All the time? That seems weird. How often do you find good jackets on bad
books and bad jackets on good books right next to each other?

However, it does remind me of a joke: I was in a taxi, and the driver went
right through a red light. "It's OK--my brother always does it." We come to
another red light, and the driver zooms through it again. "No problem--my
brother does this all the time." When we come to a green light, though, the
driver stops.

"My brother might be coming..."

Sorry, I didn't see this the first time. Thanks for the plug, John.

I'm a British citizen who was born in Canada but has spent most of his life
in the U.S. I also collect Aldines and Kelmscott.

Gotcha! So far the voting is leaning toward the J/J side. :)

However, I did have the other question: Do you think you might actually
prefer _not_ to know if a DJ were married?

Okay--figure of speech. I've done it several times over the years, without
hesitation or shame.

I recall one instance a few years ago, though I can't remember the specific
book, when I took a book to the counter for purchase and only then noticed a
small tear in the rear panel. It was the only copy in the store, and I said
something like, "Hmmm, I'm not sure I want to buy it like this." The clerk
said, "Hang on a sec," and went to a back room. He returned with a pristine
flat, unfolded jacket and told me that the distributor had passed along a
couple extra jackets for promotional purposes--window displays or whatever.
I was quite happy to take the replacement.

I've also bought two or three new books that came with two identical
jackets--the result of a minor production glitch, no doubt. Which one is
the "real" jacket that belongs with the book? Should both be attached to
that particular book for life? (Wouldn't that be bibliopolygamy? Or a livre
a trois?)

I see; I jumped the gun a bit there, calling you an American, then. But I
think the main point is that as a book-collector you are focused on the
British scene, hence it's the norms that would apply to British books that
have rubbed off on you.

I'd seen several references to marrying djs with books in this newsgroup,
always I think in an American context, and vaguely wondered about what you
are asking - Do the dealers declare such marriages? In Britain the libraries
just don't provide us with collectible dustjackets in discardable books in
that way, so suh marriages are fairly scarce and the expectation that they
would be declared as such would, I think, be higher.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Right. My copy of Birnbaum's translation of Pinball 1973 is seriously
defective from a Japanese point of view, because it lacks the wraparound
band, but even if it had the band, that's just not a collectible book in
Japanese terms. The market for that book is in the US, where people will pay
hundreds of dollars for it without even asking whether it has the band or
not, or knowing that it was originally issued with one.

Interesting. So it seems to have to do with the cultural norms and
expectations. Do you think US collectors would take a different attitude
towards a Hemingway first and an SF first? Or was that just a red herring?

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

news:bqeocv4rnjk9c5352...@4ax.com...

> Cheers,
>
> John
>

for what it's worth, i know several fairly heavy American MF collectors, and
they're all pretty constantly on the lookout for dustjackets or books to
mate (no civil ceremonies permitted) with parts they've got... i have some,
but i do specialize in SF&F, and i don't count, anyway...;-). a couple of
them have expressed the need for extra care when dealing with books into the
high five figures and above (wear points, restoration, & etc.), but on the
whole, the lack of concern about marriages seems to be endemic.

j

Not sure if this was addressed to Mark or to me, but I'll attempt to
answer as a purist. I say attempt insofar as I personally would prefer
to have a F/F copy of WAY STATION to almost anything by Hemingway.
Both were published in the US by trade publishers, both were published
with dustjackets. Expectations should be the same. If I buy a $2000
Simak or a $2000 Hemingway, I want the book in as good shape as
possible within the constraints of my budget, this means I want the
book in jacket. DO I care where the jacket came from? Not at all.

The PINBALL 1973 wrinkle is an interesting one, as I know (thanks to
this ng) that the band should be present. My gut feeling is that if
decide to go after a copy I would not settle for one lacking the band
any more than I would buy a modern US first lacking the jacket.

But would I care if the band from another copy? No. ;-)

Cheers,

John

Yes, that's no doubt true.

But if a book is "properly" described, then my norms and their norms can
both be satisified. They don't care about marriages? Fine--they can ignore
that part of the description. I do care about marriages--so I need to know
about them.

speaking in reference to a previous poster (i've forgotten -- was it you?),
who asked <paraphrase> "if you don't care about dustjacket marriages, would
you really want to know, anyway?" -- what if you can't tell? i can almost
guarantee you that there isn't a rare book dealer on the north american
continent who will ask that question of anybody bringing in books to sell
(or of another dealer they're buying from, either). and most decent rare
books in *any* bookstore have gone through two or three dealers hands before
finding the most appropriate bookstore. that means that, in virtually every
single case, the best you can do with any book you may be interested in
that's for sale in north america, is to have the book seller say "i don't
know." what does that mean to you? when hearing "i don't know," will your
immediate assumption be that a marriage has been performed -- or that it
hasn't? are you prepared to pay for and own a rare book that will always
have a faint, cloud-like question mark hanging above it on your shelf, or
will you instead turn away from the largest rare book marketplace on the
planet? and how much consideration will you give to the fact that a
*significant* percentage of the books for sale in all other english-speaking
countries have passed through the US market -- certainly most of the
american firsts -- and that it's *extremely* doubtful you'll ever know which
ones? how many of the really high-end books that you truly lust for (a LotR
1st set, or "on the road," etc.), should you ever run across one at the same
time you have the dough to buy it, will come with a chain of provenance that
specifically mentions marriages (let alone any meaningful provenance at
all)?

j

But in this case the copy the band had been taken from would be worth as
much as the copy the band had been transferred to. That is, *any* printing
of Pinball 1973 (with the exception of the 1996 printing, since by then
collectors had begun to catch on, making it worth perhaps half as much)
would be worth several hundred dollars. So unless we were talking about
transferring a band from a reprint worth hundreds to the very fist printing
(which, if it ever turned up - and *I*'ve never seen it - would perhaps be
worth thousands), or unless it was a transfer from the 1996 printing to an
earlier printing or from a very beat-up copy to a nicer copy (unlikely,
since the first thing to get beat up is usually the cover band), there
wouldn't be much point!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

This is a problem with all descriptions of the history of physical
artifacts--it is not specific to the American market in collectable books.
How do I know a signature wasn't forged? You can never be 100% sure.

The only recourse is trust, of course. In this case, I need to buy from
dealers who I trust have the same opinion of married jackets I do.

I had a "first" of Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" that
had two DJs. The interesting thing is that the DJs weren't
identical - one was mostly grey, the other mostly gold.

No one could ever explain it.

Kris

No, I'm trying to understand a viewpoint that is different from my own.

the book was issued with one of the two colors. don't know which one
, if either, has priority.

>"MindElec" <mind...@aol.com> wrote in message

by that logic any used bookstore that doesn't keep a computerized
inventory wouldn't have to note it either.

not rare at all, depending on the publisher it could happen as often
as once or twice a week.

>"MindElec" <mind...@aol.com> wrote in message

great and i don't live in florida, so it'a a "real" vote ;-)

it's similar to the problem with noting remainder marks, easily 90% of
book buyers don't care about them. many of those buyers don't even
know what they are, but when seeing the notation will figure there
must be something "wrong" with the book when in fact there really
isn't except to the 10% that care.

then no it doesn't matter.

Where do you go to find samples of both authentic and forged Hemingway
signatures?

"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor
citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang, as when
single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."

--Benjamin Franklin

> > I would categorise a marriage of book and dj as
> > *reconstruction*, not restoration.

And Jaime commented:

> yes -- you see the difference in kind, rather than in degree. but i would
> never use a word like 'reconstruction,' or any word which implied any work
> actually being performed. i really feel that to be misleading. marriage
> works... 'shuffling,' perhaps.

The following is as much by way of showing off another area of
collecting I'm interested in as of responding to Jaime's point!...

Japanese statues are frequently housed in a kind of casing, like this:
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/Kotouhin/Statue1.JPG
Usually, the statue is removable from its case. As far as I know, this
statue has lived in this case ever since it was made, but I can't be 100%
sure.

Here is another Buddhist statue:
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/Kotouhin/Statue2a.JPG
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/Kotouhin/Statue2b.JPG
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/Kotouhin/Statue2c.JPG
Now, this looks really great inside its case, but I *know* it isn't the
original case, because I "married" it with this case myself! In fact, it
wouldn't even fit in the case but for the fact that it has lost its hands.

Finally, here is a statue of a deity known as Ebisu:
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/Kotouhin/Ebisu.JPG
This kind of statue typically sits inside a simple box like this. I bought
this one from a dealer whom I know frequently matches up old boxes and old
statues, and didn't even ask whether this one came in this box.

So, I posted these links to rec.antiques to ask what they thought was the
best way to describe statues that had been matched to casings that weren't
original. There was just one problem; there was only one response, and it
came from someone who has been following this thread!

Still, since his reply hasn't been criticised I guess it has the tacit
admission of others in rec.antiques. Basically, he said,

> "Marriage" is an appropriate term, and most people would
> understand it. It implies that something is made of parts
> from various pieces that were never together in their original
> state.

He also said,

> If you find an
> identical case to that which has been lost, there's no need
> to mention "marriage". You may have found the original ;)

(Reality check: in the case of the statues, I think it's almost impossible
to get to the bottom of what the original case might have looked like.) His
way of applying this to books was that, if the dust jacket was identical, it
was not necessary to mention that it had been "married", but that this
should be noted if the dj came from a later issue and was not identical.
(I'm not sure where that would leave us if it came from a later issue that
happened to be identical to the first issue.)

Anyway, it seems that "marriage" is the term of choice among antique
dealers, and that Jaime's judgement relating to books is reflected in the
world of antiques (i.e., if the match is identical it does not need to be
mentioned at all).

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com