Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

I know as in everything, its a matter of personal taste. However, when
assigning a value to a book, which would have more value ... a good copy in
original covers with faded spine and bumped corners, or a 1/2 leather nicely
rebound copy of the same book. The pair I'm looking at is the American
first of RL Stevenson's "A Child's Garden of Verses." What's your personal
taste, or, which do you believe is of greater value?

Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

I know as in everything, its a matter of personal taste. However, when
assigning a value to a book, which would have more value ... a good copy in
original covers with faded spine and bumped corners, or a 1/2 leather nicely
rebound copy of the same book. The pair I'm looking at is the American
first of RL Stevenson's "A Child's Garden of Verses." What's your personal
taste, or, which do you believe is of greater value?

My own view is that rebinding should only be done when the
original binding has utterly ceased to be useful as a container
for the leaves of the book. In other words, only when it is
falling apart or has lost one or both boards. Otherwise, discrete
restoration should be done to hold the book together. However, I
don't see a new cover as a reason to greatly lower the value of a
rare older book. Covers on books are like tires on cars -- sooner
or later they have to be replaced.

Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

Personally I always buy a book with original covers and don't have a
book that has been rebound other than the original wraps books such as
Ulysses. I consider a rebound book to be lower in value. I should,
however, mention that I am an amateur repairman and have rehabed many
cloth covered books and am proud of it. I do believe rebound books are
usually considered lower in value, with exceptions.

Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

I prefer a brand new nicely printed reprint.

Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

Jeff Armstrong wrote:

I know as in everything, its a matter of personal taste. However, when
assigning a value to a book, which would have more value ... a good copy in
original covers with faded spine and bumped corners, or a 1/2 leather nicely
rebound copy of the same book. The pair I'm looking at is the American
first of RL Stevenson's "A Child's Garden of Verses." What's your personal
taste, or, which do you believe is of greater value?



Original covers. Only a book whose covers have become utterly lost should be
rebound. If you have the covers, even as torn off items, it would be better to
have them reattached. As a result of some posts late last year, I have
undertaken - successfully, too - the reattachment of cloth boards to a couple of
books that are not terribly valuable - to see if I could do it.

I always wonder why anyone would willingly rip off boards and substitute a
leather binding. It reminds me of a Japanese Haiku:

An unknown poet wrote the following:

Lovely butterflies
Just remove the wings and see
Bright red pepper pods

Basho, a master poet, was offended and wrote the following reply:

Bright red pepper pods
All they need are wings and see
Lovely butterflies.


Francis A. Miniter

Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

Original covers. Only a book whose covers have become utterly lost should be rebound. If you have the covers, even as torn off items, it would be better to have them reattached. As a result of some posts late last year, I have undertaken - successfully, too - the reattachment of cloth boards to a couple of books that are not terribly valuable - to see if I could do it.

I always wonder why anyone would willingly rip off boards and substitute a leather binding. It reminds me of a Japanese Haiku:

An unknown poet wrote the following:

Lovely butterflies
Just remove the wings and see
Bright red pepper pods

Basho, a master poet, was offended and wrote the following reply:

Bright red pepper pods
All they need are wings and see
Lovely butterflies.


Francis A. Miniter


Basho the poet
Always had to disagree:
Now he lies in peace.

Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

"Jeff Armstrong" wrote in
:

I know as in everything, its a matter of personal taste. However,
when assigning a value to a book, which would have more value ... a
good copy in original covers with faded spine and bumped corners, or a
1/2 leather nicely rebound copy of the same book. The pair I'm
looking at is the American first of RL Stevenson's "A Child's Garden
of Verses." What's your personal taste, or, which do you believe is
of greater value?




I think, as you have stated, this is a personal preference. I have tried
to find the title for reference. Bookfinder does not show a multi-volume
first edition. Thus, I cannot issue a specific personal opinion. If the
prices were equal, I would be tempted to take the leather bound set. The
visual and tactile elements alone would dictate my taste.

I would also look and see how much it would cost to step up to Very
Good+ to Near Fine. These would no doubt be your better values.

If the really good copies demand a princely sum and the good copies are
far below that (way far below that), the leather bound copy may well be
the better choice. At The California International Antiquarian Book
Fair, leather bound sets of first editions of the Christmas Books are
quite pricey. These are of course more collectables than collector's
items.

If you are willing to post the publisher and date, I'm sure many people
here would be happy to give a learned opinion. If, as I suspect you have
found a trove, then find it on Bookfinder. If after all the caveat’s
listed above, you still feel confined to this choice, and you really
love "A Child's Garden of Verses" in this edition, take the leather. It
will always feel good to touch.

If you are looking for gain, may I suggest Small Caps.

Which do you prefer? Good original or nicely rebound?
 

kal53 wrote:
Personally I always buy a book with original covers and don't have a
book that has been rebound other than the original wraps books such as
Ulysses. I consider a rebound book to be lower in value. I should,
however, mention that I am an amateur repairman and have rehabed many
cloth covered books and am proud of it. I do believe rebound books are
usually considered lower in value, with exceptions.

One exception has to do with age of the
book and date of the rebinding. For
instance, a book from the Seventeenth
century which was finely rebound in
the Eighteenth century might not
lose any value at all, where a hardcover
Kerouac first edition from the Sixties
which was rebound in the Nineties
would most likely lose a great deal
of value.

[memo from the upstairs office]