Appraising my book collection

I use a Treo 650 and RW works fine with it. Keep in mind that the
capabilitities of the handheld are limited in searching, querying,
etc. And yes it's b&w. But it does do what it was meant to do, in my
case, which is to make sure I don't buy a book I already own!

Denton

On Mon, 29 May 2006 08:57:20 -0400, LiRM wrote:


Another prereq for me would be Palm support and I see they also have
that - as part of the regular product. However, they are talking
about some rather old devices - Handspring's Visor, etc.

Have you (or anyone) used this product with one of the newer Palmone
devices (like a Zire 72)?

I'll assume, that the product doesn't support the features of the
newer Palms like screen colors and depths, etc., but if someone knows
of another product that does, that would be great.

on Mon, 29 May 2006 09:09:50 -0400, LiRM stated:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 13:56:01 -0400, Denton Taylor
wrote:

Not knowing how best to protect my books, I've kept them stored in Zip
Lock bags - sometimes 2 if it won't fit in one. It may not be the
classical way to store books, but I'm sure glad I have. You wouldn't
believe how crappy the Zip Locks have become over the years.

I have over the years, seen the mylar covers and can understand their
value to protect the dust jacket. But one thing I've never understood
- if that's your sole method of protecting the books - what about the
eventual dust accumulating on the upper edge of the book and grime and
other stuff that will settle on it over time and just add to destroy
the edges of the pages?

Another example: I'm a smoker. So for years I smoked in the house.
You know now why I wanted to keep my books actually inside something
as nothing gets that smell out once it's in. Nor will anything remove
the disgusting yellowing stains. I now only smoke outside, so end of
that problem, but again it's just another thing that can attack the
book - and probably attack the mylar jacket, too.

In spite of these few examples of how books can be ruined by just
what's in the air, I wonder why it's become the standard to use just a
mylar cover for protection. Any ideas?

Others will know this better than I do, and probably give
you a more complete answer. But ziploc bags are made from
a plastic that exudes stuff, and they break down (as you
have noticed) into nasty stuff as well. You don't want your
books in contact with that stuff for long periods of time.
Pretty much any plastic will do this, but mylar does not.
Hence, mylar dust jackets.

I guess the dust on the top of the books is something you
want to watch for; regular house cleaning (anyone know of
a good housecleaner? I'm woefully bad at this) will keep
the dust down. And a huge component of sticky grimy dust
is cigarette smoke, so you've solved that problem. You
could always put your books behind glass; I've thought of
building some doors onto the fronts of all my bookshelves.
That would keep the dust out. Or you could put them in
archival boxes, if you really want them protected from the
dust. But I'd rather have my books out where I can see
them; otherwise my whole collection would just be an
additional burden on the non-existent closet system in my
house. And I wouldn't get to gloat over the rows and rows
of cool looking books.

People here have also written about allowing the books to
"breath". If you seal them up in plastic, the amount of
moisture inside might be too much or too little, and you
might seal microbes in there, creating yet more problems,
some of which could be very nasty. I'd avoid it.


As to the value of a signature, there can be no doubt that a book
signed by the author is always more valuable than a book not signed,
everything else being equal. But after that, it gets complicated. I
sense that with a non-fiction title, there is less of a premium than
with a fiction title. Unless, of course, the author is a celebrity.

I suspect the fiction/nonfiction difference is true. I
certainly don't see signed copies of the nonfiction books
(old, verging on antiquarian) that I collect going for much
if any more than the unsigned ones. Of course, I rarely run
across signed editions anyway.


Something I've wondered about is whether or not a signature inscribed
to a particular person weighs in as part of the value. I can think of
obvious cases where it would increase the value tremendously (oh, I
don't know, but let's say a copy of Stephen King's "Misery" inscribed
to Kathy Bates with the words "You should really consider acting in
addition to your daytime job" g).

But let's say "Regular Joe" gets the same book signed. He opts for SK
to sign it "Dear Regular Joe - Best Wishes - SK" as opposed to simply
Stephen King's signature.

Signed copies inscribed to someone who is important for
association with that particular title or author are, as
you suggest, valued higher. Others here have mentioned
that the sigs to "regular joe"s are either more or less
valuable than a "flat signed" copy, depending on who you
ask. Me, I'd take the one signed to someone in particular,
even if I don't have any idea who it is. Makes the book
have another thread to another human, rather than just
being one off the stack of the original 50,000 print run.
But I don't know whether my preferences are reflected in
the general value of signed editions.

I have a copy of a pharmacognosy book (now there's an
obscure genre) published in 1897. In the front, in
wonderful brown ink, it says: "To Prof. Henry Kraemer,
from his friend the author, O. A. Wall. St. Louis, July
22^d, 1901." Kraemer also wrote at least one p'cog book.
This would appear to be a terrific find, and I've
certainly not seen many signed pharmacognosy books.
This is the first edition, and I have a second edition
as well (much expanded, and therefore worth more since
this is a technical/academic book); the 2nd has some
student's name in the front. I paid $9.99 for the 2nd
edition (plus shipping; ebay) and don't seem to have a
record of what I paid for the signed copy, but I
remember it was pretty cheap - probably under $10.

This either means that nonfiction books aren't worth
much more even if signed, or that obscure books of very
little value (to everyone except me, in this case) are
still of very little value even if signed with cool
associations.

Or that no one who cared was paying attention that day
on eBay. But I'm leaning toward the nonfiction / 'very
little value' theories.


-Allison


--
..

"Allison Turner-" wrote in message
...
on Mon, 29 May 2006 09:09:50 -0400, LiRM stated:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 13:56:01 -0400, Denton Taylor
wrote:

Not knowing how best to protect my books, I've kept them stored in Zip
Lock bags - sometimes 2 if it won't fit in one. It may not be the
classical way to store books, but I'm sure glad I have. You wouldn't
believe how crappy the Zip Locks have become over the years.

I have over the years, seen the mylar covers and can understand their
value to protect the dust jacket. But one thing I've never understood
- if that's your sole method of protecting the books - what about the
eventual dust accumulating on the upper edge of the book and grime and
other stuff that will settle on it over time and just add to destroy
the edges of the pages?

Another example: I'm a smoker. So for years I smoked in the house.
You know now why I wanted to keep my books actually inside something
as nothing gets that smell out once it's in. Nor will anything remove
the disgusting yellowing stains. I now only smoke outside, so end of
that problem, but again it's just another thing that can attack the
book - and probably attack the mylar jacket, too.

In spite of these few examples of how books can be ruined by just
what's in the air, I wonder why it's become the standard to use just a
mylar cover for protection. Any ideas?

Others will know this better than I do, and probably give
you a more complete answer. But ziploc bags are made from
a plastic that exudes stuff, and they break down (as you
have noticed) into nasty stuff as well. You don't want your
books in contact with that stuff for long periods of time.
Pretty much any plastic will do this, but mylar does not.
Hence, mylar dust jackets.

Mylar is Dupont's registered brand name for polyethylene film,
and is Polyethylene Terephthalate (also known as PET).
http://www.grafixplastics.com/mylar_what.asp
http://www.grafixplastics.com/mylar_prop.asp

Some migration has been identified:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Pol...te-Sheftel.htm
(This page also gives variant trade names)

Kris

Hi Allison:

Yeah, that's one of the arguments where Mylar beats ziploc, boxes, or
whatever. If you're dabbling in stuff from the latter half of the 20th
century and later, which seems the case with the OP, nothing like
walking by a line of bookcases filled with Mylar-covered wraps.

Denton

On 29 May 2006 07:47:09 -0700, Allison Turner-
wrote:

But I'd rather have my books out where I can see
them; otherwise my whole collection would just be an
additional burden on the non-existent closet system in my
house. And I wouldn't get to gloat over the rows and rows
of cool looking books.

People here have also written about allowing the books to
"breath". If you seal them up in plastic, the amount of
moisture inside might be too much or too little, and you
might seal microbes in there, creating yet more problems,
some of which could be very nasty. I'd avoid it.

Hi Kris:

Yeah, shame on me for allowing the term 'mylar' to go unchallenged!
Brodart makes the jackets in polyester, which they claim to be
archival, and polypro, which they don't. Altho I know from other areas
of life that polypro is a very stable material.

The OP should look at the info on Brodart's website and other places.

Denton


On Mon, 29 May 2006 16:59:05 GMT, "Kris Baker"
wrote:

Mylar is Dupont's registered brand name for polyethylene film,
and is Polyethylene Terephthalate (also known as PET).
http://www.grafixplastics.com/mylar_what.asp
http://www.grafixplastics.com/mylar_prop.asp

Some migration has been identified:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Pol...te-Sheftel.htm
(This page also gives variant trade names)

Kris

"Denton Taylor" wrote in message
...
Hi Kris:

Yeah, shame on me for allowing the term 'mylar' to go unchallenged!
Brodart makes the jackets in polyester, which they claim to be
archival, and polypro, which they don't. Altho I know from other areas
of life that polypro is a very stable material.

The OP should look at the info on Brodart's website and other places.

Denton

I've always thought that the main value of a mylar book cover
is that its design allows the book to breathe, which a
ziploc-type enclosure would not.

Kris

On 29 May 2006 07:47:09 -0700, Allison Turner-
wrote:

on Mon, 29 May 2006 09:09:50 -0400, LiRM stated:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 13:56:01 -0400, Denton Taylor
wrote:

Not knowing how best to protect my books, I've kept them stored in Zip
Lock bags - sometimes 2 if it won't fit in one. It may not be the
classical way to store books, but I'm sure glad I have. You wouldn't
believe how crappy the Zip Locks have become over the years.

I have over the years, seen the mylar covers and can understand their
value to protect the dust jacket. But one thing I've never understood
- if that's your sole method of protecting the books - what about the
eventual dust accumulating on the upper edge of the book and grime and
other stuff that will settle on it over time and just add to destroy
the edges of the pages?

Another example: I'm a smoker. So for years I smoked in the house.
You know now why I wanted to keep my books actually inside something
as nothing gets that smell out once it's in. Nor will anything remove
the disgusting yellowing stains. I now only smoke outside, so end of
that problem, but again it's just another thing that can attack the
book - and probably attack the mylar jacket, too.

In spite of these few examples of how books can be ruined by just
what's in the air, I wonder why it's become the standard to use just a
mylar cover for protection. Any ideas?

Others will know this better than I do, and probably give
you a more complete answer. But ziploc bags are made from
a plastic that exudes stuff, and they break down (as you
have noticed) into nasty stuff as well. You don't want your
books in contact with that stuff for long periods of time.
Pretty much any plastic will do this, but mylar does not.
Hence, mylar dust jackets.

Gotcha. And ya - they are turning into some kind of substance that
seems to be a shell of its former self. As others have kindly
mentioned already, I need to pursue an alternative.

I guess the dust on the top of the books is something you
want to watch for; regular house cleaning (anyone know of
a good housecleaner? I'm woefully bad at this) will keep
the dust down. And a huge component of sticky grimy dust
is cigarette smoke, so you've solved that problem. You
could always put your books behind glass; I've thought of
building some doors onto the fronts of all my bookshelves.
That would keep the dust out. Or you could put them in
archival boxes, if you really want them protected from the
dust. But I'd rather have my books out where I can see
them; otherwise my whole collection would just be an
additional burden on the non-existent closet system in my
house. And I wouldn't get to gloat over the rows and rows
of cool looking books.

My wife - not wanting to see row upon row of ziplocked books - kindly
suggested I put them elsewhere - as in hidden. They do - in
retrospect - look like crap in those bags.


People here have also written about allowing the books to
"breath". If you seal them up in plastic, the amount of
moisture inside might be too much or too little, and you
might seal microbes in there, creating yet more problems,
some of which could be very nasty. I'd avoid it.


Thanks for your thoughts, Allison. You make lots of good points.


As to the value of a signature, there can be no doubt that a book
signed by the author is always more valuable than a book not signed,
everything else being equal. But after that, it gets complicated. I
sense that with a non-fiction title, there is less of a premium than
with a fiction title. Unless, of course, the author is a celebrity.

I suspect the fiction/nonfiction difference is true. I
certainly don't see signed copies of the nonfiction books
(old, verging on antiquarian) that I collect going for much
if any more than the unsigned ones. Of course, I rarely run
across signed editions anyway.


Something I've wondered about is whether or not a signature inscribed
to a particular person weighs in as part of the value. I can think of
obvious cases where it would increase the value tremendously (oh, I
don't know, but let's say a copy of Stephen King's "Misery" inscribed
to Kathy Bates with the words "You should really consider acting in
addition to your daytime job" g).

But let's say "Regular Joe" gets the same book signed. He opts for SK
to sign it "Dear Regular Joe - Best Wishes - SK" as opposed to simply
Stephen King's signature.

Signed copies inscribed to someone who is important for
association with that particular title or author are, as
you suggest, valued higher. Others here have mentioned
that the sigs to "regular joe"s are either more or less
valuable than a "flat signed" copy, depending on who you
ask. Me, I'd take the one signed to someone in particular,
even if I don't have any idea who it is. Makes the book
have another thread to another human, rather than just
being one off the stack of the original 50,000 print run.
But I don't know whether my preferences are reflected in
the general value of signed editions.

I have a copy of a pharmacognosy book (now there's an
obscure genre) published in 1897. In the front, in
wonderful brown ink, it says: "To Prof. Henry Kraemer,
from his friend the author, O. A. Wall. St. Louis, July
22^d, 1901." Kraemer also wrote at least one p'cog book.
This would appear to be a terrific find, and I've
certainly not seen many signed pharmacognosy books.
This is the first edition, and I have a second edition
as well (much expanded, and therefore worth more since
this is a technical/academic book); the 2nd has some
student's name in the front. I paid $9.99 for the 2nd
edition (plus shipping; ebay) and don't seem to have a
record of what I paid for the signed copy, but I
remember it was pretty cheap - probably under $10.

This either means that nonfiction books aren't worth
much more even if signed, or that obscure books of very
little value (to everyone except me, in this case) are
still of very little value even if signed with cool
associations.

If that be true, I'm like you - they have tremendous value to me even
if they don't to others.

I need to run, but thanks again for your help and ideas, Allison. Will
talk more later.

Regards,

LiRM


Or that no one who cared was paying attention that day
on eBay. But I'm leaning toward the nonfiction / 'very
little value' theories.


-Allison