George Bayntun

In article ,
(John Yamamoto-Wilson) wrote:

"contemporary" bindings
(which,
if in good condition, tend to fetch a little more than later bindings),
but
one can't really speak of the "original" binding in quite the same way.

that's something i've wondered about - being fairly new to antiquarian
books, as opposed to c20 collectibles. on a book of, say, 1760, is a
binding of 1760 worth any more than one of 1770, given that neither is the
publisher's? in other words, as long as it's roughly contemporary, does
the precise year matter? not that it's often provable one way or the
other, in any case.

Michael,

Perhaps I am being too sensitive but I found your post curiously
antagonistic. I apologise if I didn't put my case clearly enough but
in mitigation it was quickly typed as I sat here in the library.

We agree, I'm sure, that the ideal for most collectors is to have any
book in as close to "as published" condition as possible. For books
published further and further back into the mists of time most
collectors will accept more and more signs of aging and wear, but
would ideally like the book unaltered. There does come a point,
however, as we go further into the past, when a nice early rebinding
is quite acceptable to anyone other than those collectors with large
wallets. It is less acceptable to most collectors to have a modern
rebinding, but if like my correspondent that is all that is on offer
and you must have that book . . .

I believe we may be writing from the same position here. I made my
initial post because it seemed odd to me that you could pay $x for a
modern first edition, but would be asked $x+ for a rebound copy which
in "modern first" terms was a worthless copy.

My "hide-bound" pun was obviously a bad one, but my position is that I
personally prefer an unaltered book, and would rather have a copy with
damaged boards and only a scrap of jacket tipped-in, than even the
most handsomely rebound copy. I would never suggest that a scrap of
jacket constituted "maintaining an unaltered condition", but I'd
rather have a scrap of a rare jacket than none at all.

Regards,

F.B.

barney wrote:

on a book of, say, 1760, is a binding of 1760 worth any more
than one of 1770, given that neither is the publisher's?
in other words, as long as it's roughly contemporary, does the
precise year matter? not that it's often provable one way or the
other, in any case.

I haven't come across a case where it was provable one way or the other (at
least, not with a book from before the 19th century; I have one or two
Victorian period books where the binder has inserted some identifying mark,
which may make it possible to date the rebinding to within a few years). The
best that can normally be said is that the binding is "contemporary" (i.e.,
dates from roughly the same time as the book itself) and that the book has
never been rebound. Apart from the general *look* of the binding (one
acquires a "feel" for the bindings of various periods) the endpapers are an
important hint. If these are of the same type of paper as the rest of the
text then it can generally be assumed that the book has never been rebound.
Replaced endpapers generally indicate rebinding, though sometimes it may be
that the original boards have been repaired and replaced, and it does
occasionally happen that the book was bound from the beginning with
endpapers that differ from paper used in the rest of the book.

If a book has been rebound then, generally speaking, the earlier the
rebinding the better. Recent repairs and rebindings don't usually increase
the value of the book beyond the cost of the actual work done (assuming the
work to be judicious and necessary for the conservation of the book).

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

I haven't come across a case where it was provable one way or the other (at
least, not with a book from before the 19th century; I have one or two
Victorian period books where the binder has inserted some identifying mark,
which may make it possible to date the rebinding to within a few years). The
best that can normally be said is that the binding is "contemporary" (i.e.,
dates from roughly the same time as the book itself) and that the book has
never been rebound. Apart from the general *look* of the binding (one
acquires a "feel" for the bindings of various periods) the endpapers are an
important hint.

John -
Interesting comment about the "feel" for bindings of various periods -
have you seen any good books or websites which document what style
bindings are contemporary with what periods? I have a few titles that
need rebound in a period style (like a copy of Hutton's Theory of the
Earth 1795), but don't have this "feel" yet having not handled much in
pre-19th century material. In your experience can you trust a good
binder to know these things and just tell them to put it in a period
binding?

Best,
John

In article ,
(John Yamamoto-Wilson) wrote:

barney wrote:

on a book of, say, 1760, is a binding of 1760 worth any more
than one of 1770, given that neither is the publisher's?
in other words, as long as it's roughly contemporary, does the
precise year matter? not that it's often provable one way or the
other, in any case.

I haven't come across a case where it was provable one way or the other

i was thinking it might be 'circumstantially provable', as it were, from
ownership inscriptions and the like, or maybe from a binder's bill found
in the same library - things like that rather than the forensic evidence
of the binding itself.

John Kuenzig wrote and I snipped
.....have you seen any good books or websites which document what style
bindings are contemporary with what periods?

John,

Here's three books:

Bernard C. Middleton, in The Restoration of Leather Bindings,Chicago,
1984, Revised edition, devotes an entire chapter to the binding styles
and decoration of antiquarian books.

Douglas Ball, in Victorian Publishers' Bindings, Williamsbrug,1985,
provides detailed accounts of cover designs and cloth grains. In an
appendix, Ball also provides the signatures of nineteenth- century
bookbinders.

Robert L. Collison, in one of the chapters in Book Collecting,
London,1957, provides a brief outline of the evolution of bookbinding.

Here's a website where bookbinding is discussed, and where I lurk and
learn:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bookbinding/

Jerry

I haven't come across a case where it was provable one way or the other
(at
least, not with a book from before the 19th century; I have one or two
Victorian period books where the binder has inserted some identifying
mark, which may make it possible to date the rebinding to within a few
years). The best that can normally be said is that the binding is
"contemporary" (i.e., dates from roughly the same time as the book
itself) and that the book has never been rebound. Apart from the general
*look* of the binding (one acquires a "feel" for the bindings of various
periods) the endpapers are an important hint.

John -
Interesting comment about the "feel" for bindings of various periods -
have you seen any good books or websites which document what style
bindings are contemporary with what periods? =A0 I have a few titles
that need rebound in a period style (like a copy of Hutton's Theory of
the Earth 1795), but don't have this "feel" yet having not handled much
in pre-19th century material. =A0In your experience can you trust a good
binder to know these things and just tell them to put it in a period
binding?
Best,
John


Welcome to Moi's Books About Books: http://www.tinyurl.com/hib7
My Sentimental Library http://www.picturetrail.com/mylibrary and
moislibrary.com http://www.tinyurl.com/hisn

Here's my one Baytun book:
http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/book...re_binding.htm
I don't regret the purchase; it's most beauteous.

Here's some light:
http://www.georgebayntun.com/index.htm

It's amusing to see people trying to figure out why other people collect
this or that. It's not so amusing when people argue about it.

---Mike
http://www.booktouronline.com


"Fred Baudelaire" wrote in message
m...
Can any one shed any light on the activities of the company of George
Bayntun? Just lately on ABE I've spotted a number of first editions
that this company has rebound and now offers as a "first edition", but
at a premium because of their presumably lovely rebinding. One case in
point is "The French Lieutenant's Woman", a book that is probably
worth up to $250 in collectible condition with an unclipped jacket,
but for which they want over $700 rebound.

I'm sure they do a lovely job, and it is presumably very labour and
materials expensive, but do any collectors buy their volumes? I assume
they are obtaining copies of books where the contents are fine, but
where the jacket is missing and/or the boards are damaged. But surely
any serious collector of firsts would consider these uncollectible,
even if they are beautifully done.

Are there people out there who collect Bayntun books?

F.B.

Jerry -
Thanks! I'll start lurking on the binding group and look up the books.
I appreciate it.
John

Jerry Morris wrote:

John Kuenzig wrote and I snipped
....have you seen any good books or websites which document what style
bindings are contemporary with what periods?

John,

Here's three books:

Bernard C. Middleton, in The Restoration of Leather Bindings,Chicago,
1984, Revised edition, devotes an entire chapter to the binding styles
and decoration of antiquarian books.

Douglas Ball, in Victorian Publishers' Bindings, Williamsbrug,1985,
provides detailed accounts of cover designs and cloth grains. In an
appendix, Ball also provides the signatures of nineteenth- century
bookbinders.

Robert L. Collison, in one of the chapters in Book Collecting,
London,1957, provides a brief outline of the evolution of bookbinding.

Here's a website where bookbinding is discussed, and where I lurk and
learn:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bookbinding/

Jerry

I haven't come across a case where it was provable one way or the other
(at
least, not with a book from before the 19th century; I have one or two
Victorian period books where the binder has inserted some identifying
mark, which may make it possible to date the rebinding to within a few
years). The best that can normally be said is that the binding is
"contemporary" (i.e., dates from roughly the same time as the book
itself) and that the book has never been rebound. Apart from the general
*look* of the binding (one acquires a "feel" for the bindings of various
periods) the endpapers are an important hint.

John -
Interesting comment about the "feel" for bindings of various periods -
have you seen any good books or websites which document what style
bindings are contemporary with what periods? I have a few titles
that need rebound in a period style (like a copy of Hutton's Theory of
the Earth 1795), but don't have this "feel" yet having not handled much
in pre-19th century material. In your experience can you trust a good
binder to know these things and just tell them to put it in a period
binding?
Best,
John


Welcome to Moi's Books About Books: http://www.tinyurl.com/hib7
My Sentimental Library http://www.picturetrail.com/mylibrary and
moislibrary.com http://www.tinyurl.com/hisn









--
Sincerely,

John Kuenzig, Bookseller

Kuenzig Books
PO Box 452, Topsfield, MA 01983
978-887-4053 9am-7pm Eastern Standard Time
(orders or inquiries)

Important Books in Science, Technology and Speculative Fiction

Secure, direct ordering at http://www.kuenzigbooks.com
Save time, money and earn other exclusive benefits.

We are proud members of:
MARIAB http://www.mariab.org
IOBA http://www.ioba.org

and graduates of the Book Seminars International Programs:
http://www.bookseminarsinternational.com

Buying 18th-21st century books, manuscripts, ephemera,
scientific instruments, artifacts, and related material in
our fields of interest

John F. Kuenzig wrote:

Interesting comment about the "feel" for bindings of various periods
- have you seen any good books or websites which document what
style bindings are contemporary with what periods? I have a few
titles that need rebound in a period style (like a copy of Hutton's
Theory of the Earth 1795), but don't have this "feel" yet having
not handled much in pre-19th century material. In your experience
can you trust a good binder to know these things and just tell them
to put it in a period binding?

Jerry's already answered your first question. As for the second, I think you
need to choose your binder with care. To my mind, the keyword when it comes
to rebindings is "appropriate". A binding may belong to the right period but
still not be appropriate for that type of book, but this is largely a matter
of personal taste and judgement, not something a binder could just trot out
to order.

For example, I have a copy of Gray's Odes (1759), the first book issued
(unbound) by the Strawberry Hill press. As one ABE seller puts it,
"Strawberry Hill books have become sought after for their historical
importance and modest, elegant, and unique design". In my view, what really
matters here is that the binding should be equally elegant and modest. My
copy falls somewhat short of that requirement. It is in a late 19th century
binding with a slipcase. I find the binding - although leather - a little
*too* plain; the brown spine leather, with its gilt title, is fine, but the
red boards and plain vellum corners give it the look of a textbook, or a
ledger, or something like that. Still, I vastly prefer it to a copy being
offered on ABE (by the exorbitantly-priced Kitazawa bookshop in Tokyo) in a
binding of "Full maroon crushed levant morocco" with a "richly gilt floral
design at corners of both covers" and all edges gilt. I would consider this
incongruously gorgeous, and not at all in keeping with the "modest, elegant"
style of the contents.

My copy of Wordsworth's Lyrical Ballads (3rd edition, 1802), which is also
in a late 19th century binding, is equally modestly bound, again with brown
leather and gilt lettering (the title on a black backing) on the spine and
plain vellum corners, but with marbled boards. To my mind, this works better
than the Gray binding and is quite appropriate for this set.

Follow this link to see both the above bindings:
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/scans/19...rybindings.JPG

The two plain vellum bindings in the following scan are early 15th century
Latin editions of the works of Homer. When I acquired them they, too, were
in marbled boards. Now, what worked for the Wordsworth set seemed quite
inappropriate to works dating from the 15th century. The rebinding of the
boards was my first attempt at doing such work, and I consider the binding
to be much more appropriate to the contents now. The other other book shown
here (Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government, 1698) was
respined, with as much of the leather of the original boards retained as
possible, before I got it. The book had obviously reached the stage where
this kind of repair work was necessary.

Here's the link: http://rarebooksinjapan.com/scans/bindings.JPG

I don't claim to have any special sixth sense as far as the "feel" for
bindings is concerned, but I spent years in research libraries handling
books like this (at that time I was purely interested in the contents and
had no interest whatsoever in book collecting), with the result that, when I
ordered and received my first antiquarian book (James Mabbe's translation of
Mateo Aleman, The Rogue, 1623, bought from Bernard Shapero via ABE), the
sense of recognition when I received it was totally kinetic, a matter of
smell, look and feel. It took me straight back to the days when I was a
research student. It may be that there is another way to gain that sense of
recognition, apart from simply spending a lot of time handling such
material, but if there is I don't know it!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

barney wrote:

i was thinking it might be 'circumstantially provable', as it were, from
ownership inscriptions and the like, or maybe from a binder's bill found
in the same library - things like that rather than the forensic evidence
of the binding itself.

Right. My copy of Lyrical Ballads bears the legend "R. Warbrick. Bookseller
Binder & Stationer Lime Street Corner of Great Western Street Liverpool.
English & French Circulating Library", tipped in on the front pastedown of
the first volume. I managed to track down some information on the company
(which I can't now lay my hands on), showing it was active in the late 19th
century. That's circumstantial evidence of the kind you suggest - quite
strong evidence, but not conclusive, since Warbrick may not have been the
binder but merely the seller. Still, the cap fits, and in all likelihood
this is the binder.

When it comes to what you call the "forensic" evidence of the binding, I
think some bindings probably do have features that would make it possible to
pin them down to within a few years (though I don't profess to know much
about this), but there are many others that don't. As I say, the crucial
feature (in my experience) is usually the endpapers. If the book has been
rebound the endpapers will, in 99 cases out of a hundred, have been
replaced, so books with endpapers that are not original tend to have been
rebound.

This doesn't always work. My Lyrical Ballads are a bit of a mystery, because
the endpapers do appear to be original, though the binding is clearly later.
Could they have remained unbound for many years after publication, so that
this is actually their first binding? Or could the pastedowns have somehow
been salvaged from a previous binding? And, of course, along with cloth
bindings, the fashion grew up in the 19th century of using endpapers which
were different from the paper used in the rest of the book. And there are
other problems that may sometimes make it difficult to judge from the
evidence of the endpapers.

Still, the endpapers generally tell the tale of whether a book has been
rebound or not. And if the paper has a watermark (as was quite often the
case up until the end of the 18th century and sometimes even later) it can
often be dated quite accurately, even if the book itself is undated, so the
endpapers can sometimes be a better forensic clue than the actual binding
itself.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com