THE BRITISHinfo@rarebooksociety.org |
|
DUST-JACKETS : THE DEBATE | |
CLICK ON REFRESH TO ENSURE YOU HAVE THE UPDATED VERSION OF THIS PAGE | |
FROM JULIAN ROTA : 13 APRIL 2005 | |
In recent months, a great deal of thought has been given and a great deal of correspondence written (especially in the Bookdealer) about the importance of dust-wrappers on modern first editions being the ones in which particular copies of the books were originally issued. There is a line of argument that, since dust-wrappers or dust-jackets (the terms are interchangeable) were originally put around books at the publishers in a random manner, it really doesn't matter which copies they are to be found on later. This argument gives dealers and collectors liberty to swap dust-wrappers about as they see fit, to financial advantage of course. In my opinion, this argument really doesn't hold water: one could make exactly the same case for bindings and besides, the value of a first edition, modern or otherwise, surely lies in the appeal of a book in the form in which it originally appeared to the world, to my mind at least. With presentation copies, the case for preserving a book as it was when given and inscribed seems to me even more forceful. In an ideal world, booksellers should really not be tampering with history or the bibliographical record. It seems to me unarguable that when sophistication of any kind takes place, often for the best of reasons (for example, creating a three-decker from two incomplete and otherwise disposable sets), booksellers should always describe fully what has been done. One particular problem with dust-wrappers of course is that it is so easy to move them from one book to another and it is by no means always obvious when that has happened. However, even when it isn't obvious (a mint dust-wrapper around a tatty copy of a book usually gives cause for concern, although some collectors do remove and store their dust-wrappers separately), it is more often than not possible to sense when a dust-wrapper has not been together with a book throughout. It cannot be denied that the supplying of dust-wrappers is a common practice and one that is robustly defended by many, but it should be remembered that a significant number of booksellers strongly oppose it. | |
FROM LAURENCE WORMS : 17 APRIL 2005 | |
Julian is of course correct in saying that many booksellers strongly oppose the switching around of dust-jackets* – almost always to “improve” or “enhance” a book – and almost always by supplying the “correct” jacket from an otherwise less desirable copy. He perhaps understates the case: some of us regard it as a complete anathema. In the case of a presentation or an association copy, the argument against is overwhelming. The value of such a book lies as much in the preservation of a biographical record as a bibliographical one. If owner, donor or recipient did not choose to retain the original jacket – then that may well tell us something of their attitude to the publication, its marketing or its design. The cumulative record of the known presentation or association copies of a book can tell us an extraordinary amount about the author and the circle of acquaintance and readership at that time. If this was how the author wanted to present the book – or the recipient to keep it – then who are we, bookseller or collector, to alter that record? If a presentation copy survives in a pristine and never price-clipped dust-jacket then what are we to determine? That the recipient (the author’s friend, colleague or significant contemporary) never bothered to read or even glance at the book? That the donor was crass enough not to take the price off before making a gift? Or that the possible evidential value of the book has been destroyed by tinkering with it? That the original and much worn jacket was actually retained but has now been replaced by a “better” one? We shall now never know. Or perhaps there was never a jacket at all. It may sometimes be that the publisher set aside copies of the book for the author to present that never had the commercial packaging and trapping of a jacket. Or perhaps the author received some copies in advance of publication – before the jackets were ever printed. And might it be that these copies differ slightly as to final text? Or, then again, perhaps a few extra jackets were printed without a price on for presentation purposes – certainly one occasionally sees jackets without a price in the regular place. How often can we know for certain that none of these things occurred? But the presentation copies of famous authors to famous friends are relatively few. Need we make such a fuss over the ordinary and humdrum books without such provenance? I suggest that we do. The more obscure the book, the less we generally have in the way of bibliographical record beyond the book itself and the copies we have handled. And the more books we handle (and the more carefully we look at them) the more variants we see. There are many books, from the pre-war period and even much later, where none of us can possibly have seen (and have adequately recorded) sufficient copies ever confidently to say that under each and every circumstance that this is the “correct” dust-jacket to supply. And why are the copies of the books that these supplied dust-jackets come from less desirable? – surely if they have survived in their jackets they will normally in any case be in better condition than those that have not – or is it perhaps that they are usually later impressions or book club copies – and so, in some subtle or not so subtle way, not the “correct” dust-jackets at all? And where are we then with the paying of premium prices for books in their "original" dust-jackets? * Let me just add, for the record, why I believe that dust-jacket rather than dust-wrapper should be the preferred term. It is simply that it in its shortened form the word jacket is not liable to cause confusion. Wrapper, on the other hand – when applied to a pamphlet for example, can mean something rather different. | |
FROM AGENT SMITH : 19 APRIL 2005 | |
In general I would agree that when jackets are supplied for modern first editions the bookseller should make this clear. Certainly I would agree that presentation copies should be kept in their original state. But surely at the lower end of the price range one could make a case for disregarding the dust-jacket rule. Take, for example, the hypothetical case of a first edition of a later Arthur Ransome children's book - NOT a presentation or association copy - priced at around thirty pounds. If the bookseller matches a good jacket with a good book, is it really such a big deal? The bookseller makes an extra fiver; the customer gets a nicer copy; end result, the sum of human happiness is increased all round. Book collecting (in some fields, at least) seems to me to have just as much to do with the pleasure of owning attractive objects as it does with issues of historical and bibliographical veracity. | |
FROM LAURENCE WORMS : 29 APRIL 2005 | |
The previous correspondent is of course right to caution us against taking ourselves too seriously. And certainly correct in emphasising that the game of book-collecting should be one of pleasure. But games have rules for their proper enjoyment - and I am troubled by this "extra fiver" concept. How does this work - this matching of a good jacket with a good book? To buy two books to sell one rather negates the extra profit. And why take a jacket off one first edition to put it on another? How does that generate the extra fiver? This only works if the original jacketed copy is in some way not worthy of selling on its own. This will rarely be on account of its condition - the jacket will have afforded it protection. Far more likely that it is not another first at all - but some kind of reprint. And to what extent would this increase the sum of the customer's happiness - being sold a pup? | |
FROM AGENT SMITH : 2 MAY 2005 | |
The customer would be perfectly happy as long as he didn't find out! ;-) Love and kisses, Agent Smith. | |
FROM ROY : 3 MAY 2005 | |
I confess I'm by no means an expert in this field, but the questions raised about the importance and merits of authenticity (for the buyer and seller) are fascinating. Leaving aside the issue of significant presentation copies then (which I agree should be left as intact as possible), perhaps an interesting parallel could be drawn with the music business... For example, when searching for a collectable record, I'd have no objection to discovering that a dealer had matched a near mint record to a similar condition sleeve and insert (providing the editions of both disc and packaging tallied exactly). The loss of the original sleeve may indeed deny me access to a biographical record
- as in the book trade - (e.g. the previous owner once split a cup of coffee over the sleeve/used it to lean on while writing christmas cards
etc) but one might question whether uncovering these incidences actually add to the pleasure of owning the item (or merely cause the new owner to curse the carelessness of his/her predecessors!). If the evidence of the habits of previous owners (in either record or book
trade) was genuinely so valued by dealers and buyers in these fields, would we not all be paying top dollars for clearly worn/used fair copies rather than pristine examples? | |
FROM JULIAN ROTA : 4 MAY 2005 | |
The comparison with collectable records is an interesting one. I collect records (as well as books) myself and agree that it wouldn't utterly ruin my enjoyment of the object were I to discover that the sleeve and disc had not always been together. It wouldn't be quite as good though, would it? Something of the romance would be gone, to say nothing of the authenticity. When I picked that record up something would niggle at me about it instead of it being truly satisfying. If the person who sold me the item had made the exchange himself but hadn't told me, I don't think I'd be rushing back to buy from him again. As far as the habits of previous owners are concerned, of course careful owners are to be preferred but if there is a bookplate or some other indication of ownership and I happen to know that that collector had always price-clipped his dust-wrappers, for example, I would rather have a price-clipped original dust-wrapper than an unclipped substitute. | |
FROM DAVE MULCAHY : 14 JULY 2005 | |
If one takes two copies of the same book, let's say the first UK hardback edition of Stephen King's Carrie, said to be worth £1000 in fine condition with dust-jacket. One copy has a complete dust-jacket and one has a price clipped dust jacket. How much would the latter be devalued by the clipping? | |
FROM LAURENCE WORMS : 14 AUGUST 2005 | |
This raises a number of separate issues. I am not at all sure that "serious" collectors will not even consider a price-clipped book. Certainly there are some collectors who adopt this approach - but only the sort of collectors who regard any sign at all of previous ownership or use as some kind of defect. The truth is, as we shall see in our parallel debate on provenance, that in many ways evidence of a past history should enhance the value of the book rather than detract from it. | |
RESPONSE PLEASE | |
Comment and response are up to you - if you would like to reply, then let us have your comments - these will be included on this page (subject only to the usual editorial discretion) - e-mail: info@rarebooksociety.org | |
| The Rare Book Society was founded by members of the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association (International) - and the Association enthusiastically endorses the programme. |
Return to the Rare Book Society home page. | |
