Making books your own

On 21 Aug 2004 18:15:00 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

It occurs to me that some of the disagreement which
arises in this newsgroup crops up because a number of
posters write from the standpoint of the dealer and/or
investor, rather than from the collector with a love of
books. While in many cases the resulting viewpoints
do not need to conflict at all, sometimes they create
certain mindsets that do on occasion clash.

For the most part I buy my books off-line and at far
below the going price on the net. I buy books because
I like them. I get the low prices because I spend time
checking out thrift shops, library sales, garage sales,
etc. -- and I know which used book stores have the
bargain finds and which are so well-organized that you
will rarely find a great bargain on anything they have.

Most people do something in their spare time, and while
some folks are out on the golf course, I am poking
around at that library sale. Whee... Yesterday
I bought six books for .25 cents each...and I would
not trade the feeling I got for all the birdys and
bogies in the world, either.

For instance, one of those six books I got for
.25 cents each was a children's book on American
Indians. Sounds ho-hum, maybe, but I happened
to notice it was illustrated by Jack Davis, of
EC horror comic, MAD, and Time Magazine cover fame.

Most collectors make buying decisions controlled
by their special interests, and one of my special
interests is illustration. Getting a children's
book for a quarter at a thrift store is not
exactly anything special. Finding a Jack Davis-
illustrated book in excellent condition for a
quarter is.

Anyway, as a book lover, one thing which is important
to me is making my books my own. After all, I have
to live with them. Dirty books I can't stand. If
there exists any way to wash a grimey book without
hurting it, I will find that way.

Price stickers are an affront to any civilized collector
-- they go, and when they can't be peeled right off,
they go usually with the help of a few drops of
lighter fluid, or, with other types of stickers,
sometimes after a bit of soaking in a few drops of
water and dish detergent.

Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is)
are immediately removed with white-out. In some
cases, I later cover the white-out area with
appropriate pitures or graphics removed from
damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the
same vintage.

As far as discards, with any of those I acquire,
all the library stuff goes. Ink lettering on
the pages is immediately whited out (and you have
already heard about my experiment getting the lettering
off the page edges). Any of those pasted-in pockets
for cards are immediately removed, and any resulting
damage to the endpaper is covered by carefully pasting
a new "endpaper" over the old one or by gluing in
an appropriate illustration to cover the rough area.

One execption to this is with very old books
having a neatly-written ink inscription. Those
can lend a quaint charm to the book. Another
exception is a book trader's stamp inside a
paperback. I let those alone, although I have
in fact toyed with idea of printing a miniature
"book plate" and pasting it over traders'
stamps in my paperbacks.

Now, I don't CARE one bit if a dealer or an
investor type tells me some of those practices
of mine will keep down the price of the book in
some hypothetical future sale. If I were sticking
those books in some climate-controlled outbuilding
with the idea of letting them appreciate for a few
years and them re-selling them, that would be one
thing. That is hardly the case, though.

Those procedures I outlined above are things I do
because they make me feel better about my books.
For instance, I personally don't care if a book on
my shelf has "Property of Ed Smith," "San Franciso
Public Library" or "Joe's Bar and Grill" stamped
in black ink on the page edges. Seeing something
like that detracts from the pleasure of owning the
book. It further detracts, in a very small way,
from the atmosphere of my home. I am, you will
remember, a book lover.


Mr. Palmer
--writing from the upstairs office above rec.arts.prose


Fortunately most of your vandalism seems limted to library discards,

Your book collection is no doubt every bit as valuable as your written
works.

Good day,

John

"Mark Healey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is)
are immediately removed with white-out. In some
cases, I later cover the white-out area with
appropriate pitures or graphics removed from
damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the
same vintage.

I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some other
type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine
sand-papar.

I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books and
it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing dammage.

--
Mark Heaely
marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com

I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who are
bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but they're your
books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century volumes for which you owe
society some responsibility to keep them just so. Do what you like.

And the idea that posts about different senses of collecting and enjoying
books bring down the standard of the group, an idea coming from people who
snicker over ejaculation jokes like ten year olds, is much more laughable
than anything you have discussed.

- Todd T.

Which you therefore go to the trouble of quoting in full.

Entire diatribe posted again below for posterity:


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"John Pelan" wrote in message
...
On 21 Aug 2004 18:15:00 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

It occurs to me that some of the disagreement which
arises in this newsgroup crops up because a number of
posters write from the standpoint of the dealer and/or
investor, rather than from the collector with a love of
books. While in many cases the resulting viewpoints
do not need to conflict at all, sometimes they create
certain mindsets that do on occasion clash.

For the most part I buy my books off-line and at far
below the going price on the net. I buy books because
I like them. I get the low prices because I spend time
checking out thrift shops, library sales, garage sales,
etc. -- and I know which used book stores have the
bargain finds and which are so well-organized that you
will rarely find a great bargain on anything they have.

Most people do something in their spare time, and while
some folks are out on the golf course, I am poking
around at that library sale. Whee... Yesterday
I bought six books for .25 cents each...and I would
not trade the feeling I got for all the birdys and
bogies in the world, either.

For instance, one of those six books I got for
.25 cents each was a children's book on American
Indians. Sounds ho-hum, maybe, but I happened
to notice it was illustrated by Jack Davis, of
EC horror comic, MAD, and Time Magazine cover fame.

Most collectors make buying decisions controlled
by their special interests, and one of my special
interests is illustration. Getting a children's
book for a quarter at a thrift store is not
exactly anything special. Finding a Jack Davis-
illustrated book in excellent condition for a
quarter is.

Anyway, as a book lover, one thing which is important
to me is making my books my own. After all, I have
to live with them. Dirty books I can't stand. If
there exists any way to wash a grimey book without
hurting it, I will find that way.

Price stickers are an affront to any civilized collector
-- they go, and when they can't be peeled right off,
they go usually with the help of a few drops of
lighter fluid, or, with other types of stickers,
sometimes after a bit of soaking in a few drops of
water and dish detergent.

Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is)
are immediately removed with white-out. In some
cases, I later cover the white-out area with
appropriate pitures or graphics removed from
damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the
same vintage.

As far as discards, with any of those I acquire,
all the library stuff goes. Ink lettering on
the pages is immediately whited out (and you have
already heard about my experiment getting the lettering
off the page edges). Any of those pasted-in pockets
for cards are immediately removed, and any resulting
damage to the endpaper is covered by carefully pasting
a new "endpaper" over the old one or by gluing in
an appropriate illustration to cover the rough area.

One execption to this is with very old books
having a neatly-written ink inscription. Those
can lend a quaint charm to the book. Another
exception is a book trader's stamp inside a
paperback. I let those alone, although I have
in fact toyed with idea of printing a miniature
"book plate" and pasting it over traders'
stamps in my paperbacks.

Now, I don't CARE one bit if a dealer or an
investor type tells me some of those practices
of mine will keep down the price of the book in
some hypothetical future sale. If I were sticking
those books in some climate-controlled outbuilding
with the idea of letting them appreciate for a few
years and them re-selling them, that would be one
thing. That is hardly the case, though.

Those procedures I outlined above are things I do
because they make me feel better about my books.
For instance, I personally don't care if a book on
my shelf has "Property of Ed Smith," "San Franciso
Public Library" or "Joe's Bar and Grill" stamped
in black ink on the page edges. Seeing something
like that detracts from the pleasure of owning the
book. It further detracts, in a very small way,
from the atmosphere of my home. I am, you will
remember, a book lover.


Mr. Palmer
--writing from the upstairs office above rec.arts.prose


Fortunately most of your vandalism seems limted to library discards,

Your book collection is no doubt every bit as valuable as your written
works.


Which you therefore go to the trouble of quoting in full.

cheers

michael adams





Good day,

John

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
news

"Mark Healey" wrote in message



t...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is)
are immediately removed with white-out. In some
cases, I later cover the white-out area with
appropriate pitures or graphics removed from
damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the
same vintage.

I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some other
type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine
sand-papar.

I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books and
it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing dammage.

--
Mark Heaely
marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com

I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who
are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but
they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century volumes
for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just so.
Do what you like.



A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves
a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future.
As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts
of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material
from the past to collect at all.

Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it
during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations
for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other
things is what the word "Culture" actually implies.

And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term
"trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally
valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future
generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a
different perspective than we do.




michael adams


You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it across the
board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise crummy copies of
common or even less common books will lose all their utility, such as it is,
through things like pasting in pictures. It's certainly true that future
folks might see things differently, but we can't account for that by saving
everything in exactly the shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking
about books that already are recognized as items of great value, then
different standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for
a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them, I can't get
too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost jewel. But as an
overarching philosophy, yours is a good one.

- Todd T.

"michael adams" wrote in message ...
"Todd T" wrote in message
news

"Mark Healey" wrote in message


t...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:



A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves
a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future.
As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts
of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material
from the past to collect at all.

Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it
during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations
for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other
things is what the word "Culture" actually implies.

And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term
"trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally
valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future
generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a
different perspective than we do.

Interesting. Please remember, though, that what
infuriated some people was my action of removing
a library card pocket and gluing an appropriate
(meaning one of generally the same vintage and
topic as the library discard) illustration over
the rough spot on the endpaper. In the first
place, the library mutilated the book by making
its customary alterations. So, despite the
foolish howls of derision I received for my
sensible comments (not from you, but from a
couple of keyboarding mandrills who would seem
to have ensconced themselves in rec.collecting.
books for the sole purpose of clumsily feigning
intelligence while annoying others) a casual
reader would almost get the impression that I
am someone who goes around pasting pictures
in any or all books to improve the graphics,
or some such poppycock.

No, we simply are talking about
taking a mutilated book and (not "un-
mutilating" it, of course; you can't
unmutilate mutilated objects) making the
mutilation less offensive, at least in
terms of my own books in my own home.

Now, let us turn to your "future generations"
notion. That, too, was interesting. I see
matters like this, though: Unless books
themselves become rarities, it is unlikely
that future generations will not be able to
find all the books they want to showing the
ways libraries frequently mutilated books
in the twentieth century. After all, there
are millions of such books in climate-
controlled libraries right now. That being
the case, it is likely that anthropologists
of some future day might very much like to
see the way someone worked on his or her
books to make the library mutilation less
noticeable. Therefore, the notion that
somehow people should feel guilty about
further altering a mutiliated book
when millions of examples of the results
of such a mulitation process remain in
book-protective environments is pretty
silly, when you really think about it.

Mr. Palmer
Room 314.




michael adams

snip



- Todd T.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Todd T" wrote in message
news

"Mark Healey" wrote in message


t...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:



A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves
a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future.
As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts
of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material
from the past to collect at all.

Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it
during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations
for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other
things is what the word "Culture" actually implies.


What a shame public libraries dont see things that way? Appears to me that
they are one of the largest destroyers or vandalisers of books collectable or
not.

Stan

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
news
"Mark Healey" wrote in message





t...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC,
(Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is)
are immediately removed with white-out. In some
cases, I later cover the white-out area with
appropriate pitures or graphics removed from
damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the
same vintage.

I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some
other
type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine
sand-papar.

I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books
and
it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing
dammage.

--
Mark Heaely
marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com

I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who
are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but
they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century
volumes
for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just so.
Do what you like.



A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves
a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future.
As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts
of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material
from the past to collect at all.

Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it
during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations
for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other
things is what the word "Culture" actually implies.

And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term
"trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally
valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future
generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a
different perspective than we do.




michael adams


You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it
across the board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise
crummy copies of common or even less common books will lose all
their utility, such as it is, through things like pasting in pictures.
It's certainly true that future folks might see things differently,
but we can't account for that by saving everything in exactly the
shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking about books that
already are recognized as items of great value, then different
standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for
a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them,
I can't get too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost
jewel. But as an overarching philosophy, yours is a good one.

- Todd T.


Obviously nobody's advocating saving every scrap of paper, but
the fact remains that, as with the past, the things which will
become rarest* in the future are the things people most easily
throw away today. So that there's probably more chance of all
million copies of a pulp paperback ending up in the dumpster*
than there is of one copy of a limited collectors edition. Both
because of the "value" placed on them at the time, and because
the latter will be made of more enduring materials.

*Rarest in terms of their availability to future cultural
historians.

This has nothing to do with monetary value at all. Simply that
if only collectors editions and high end literature are preserved
and collected, future generations may come to have a very
distorted view of a culture, as has probably already happened
with the past. Although by definition we cannot be certain,
because much of the evidence may have already been lost.

Maybe the digital age will make a difference, but this still robs
us of the reality of the printed object, book pamphlet etc as a
tangible cultural artefact we can hold in our (gloved) hand.



michael adams


* any excuse to use my favourite word of the moment.
...


All true. Yet there is a distinction between utterly destroying something
vs. modifying it in a way that is aesthetically distasteful to some
collectors. The original objections to the OP were about painting over
inscriptions, pasting in pictures, etc. The only value being lost to
society in those cases is the incremental value between the crummy but
unadulterated copy and the adulterated copy, which in cultural terms I'd
have to feel is pretty minor. I agree entirely about giving thought before
discarding something.

- Todd T.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:16:16 -0700, "Bad Weather"
wrote:

Which you therefore go to the trouble of quoting in full.

Entire diatribe posted again below for posterity:


SNIPPED

Ah, I see that the Adams creature is still lurking about as fatuous
and obnoxious as ever. Does he still make owl noises?

He really ought to take up residence with Palmjob in Room 314, they're
two of a kind: verbose wastes of human energy.

Thanks for posting the whole reply, I put Adams in the Barkerfile long
ago, but I suspect that he can't resist responding to one of my posts
even though (as usual) he has nothing relevant to say.

Cheers,

John

"Todd T" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
news
"Mark Healey" wrote in message






t...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC,
(Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is)
are immediately removed with white-out. In some
cases, I later cover the white-out area with
appropriate pitures or graphics removed from
damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the
same vintage.

I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some
other
type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine
sand-papar.

I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books
and
it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing
dammage.

--
Mark Heaely
marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com

I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who
are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do,
but
they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century
volumes
for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just
so.
Do what you like.



A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves
a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future.
As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts
of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material
from the past to collect at all.

Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it
during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations
for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other
things is what the word "Culture" actually implies.

And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term
"trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally
valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future
generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a
different perspective than we do.




michael adams


You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it
across the board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise
crummy copies of common or even less common books will lose all
their utility, such as it is, through things like pasting in pictures.
It's certainly true that future folks might see things differently,
but we can't account for that by saving everything in exactly the
shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking about books that
already are recognized as items of great value, then different
standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for
a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them,
I can't get too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost
jewel. But as an overarching philosophy, yours is a good one.

- Todd T.


Obviously nobody's advocating saving every scrap of paper, but
the fact remains that, as with the past, the things which will
become rarest* in the future are the things people most easily
throw away today. So that there's probably more chance of all
million copies of a pulp paperback ending up in the dumpster*
than there is of one copy of a limited collectors edition. Both
because of the "value" placed on them at the time, and because
the latter will be made of more enduring materials.

*Rarest in terms of their availability to future cultural
historians.

This has nothing to do with monetary value at all. Simply that
if only collectors editions and high end literature are preserved
and collected, future generations may come to have a very
distorted view of a culture, as has probably already happened
with the past. Although by definition we cannot be certain,
because much of the evidence may have already been lost.

Maybe the digital age will make a difference, but this still robs
us of the reality of the printed object, book pamphlet etc as a
tangible cultural artefact we can hold in our (gloved) hand.



michael adams


* any excuse to use my favourite word of the moment.
...


All true. Yet there is a distinction between utterly destroying something
vs. modifying it in a way that is aesthetically distasteful to some
collectors. The original objections to the OP were about painting over
inscriptions, pasting in pictures, etc. The only value being lost to
society in those cases is the incremental value between the crummy but
unadulterated copy and the adulterated copy, which in cultural terms I'd
have to feel is pretty minor. I agree entirely about giving thought
before
discarding something.

- Todd T.

That inscription may have historical importance, either now or in the
future. Did the OP research the names he obliterated? How could he know who
the next Pulitzer Prize winner, President or Nobel Prize winner is going to
be?

Rich

"Scrooge" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
news
"Mark Healey" wrote in message







t...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC,
(Bill
Palmer) wrote:

Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is)
are immediately removed with white-out. In some
cases, I later cover the white-out area with
appropriate pitures or graphics removed from
damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the
same vintage.

I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some
other
type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine
sand-papar.

I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your
books
and
it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing
dammage.

--
Mark Heaely
marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com

I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some
who
are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do,
but
they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century
volumes
for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just
so.
Do what you like.



A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves
a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the
future.
As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts
of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material
from the past to collect at all.

Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it
during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations
for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other
things is what the word "Culture" actually implies.

And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might
term
"trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are
equally
valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future
generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a
different perspective than we do.




michael adams


You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it
across the board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise
crummy copies of common or even less common books will lose all
their utility, such as it is, through things like pasting in
pictures.
It's certainly true that future folks might see things differently,
but we can't account for that by saving everything in exactly the
shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking about books that
already are recognized as items of great value, then different
standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for
a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them,
I can't get too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost
jewel. But as an overarching philosophy, yours is a good one.

- Todd T.


Obviously nobody's advocating saving every scrap of paper, but
the fact remains that, as with the past, the things which will
become rarest* in the future are the things people most easily
throw away today. So that there's probably more chance of all
million copies of a pulp paperback ending up in the dumpster*
than there is of one copy of a limited collectors edition. Both
because of the "value" placed on them at the time, and because
the latter will be made of more enduring materials.

*Rarest in terms of their availability to future cultural
historians.

This has nothing to do with monetary value at all. Simply that
if only collectors editions and high end literature are preserved
and collected, future generations may come to have a very
distorted view of a culture, as has probably already happened
with the past. Although by definition we cannot be certain,
because much of the evidence may have already been lost.

Maybe the digital age will make a difference, but this still robs
us of the reality of the printed object, book pamphlet etc as a
tangible cultural artefact we can hold in our (gloved) hand.



michael adams


* any excuse to use my favourite word of the moment.
...


All true. Yet there is a distinction between utterly destroying
something
vs. modifying it in a way that is aesthetically distasteful to some
collectors. The original objections to the OP were about painting over
inscriptions, pasting in pictures, etc. The only value being lost to
society in those cases is the incremental value between the crummy but
unadulterated copy and the adulterated copy, which in cultural terms I'd
have to feel is pretty minor. I agree entirely about giving thought
before
discarding something.

- Todd T.

That inscription may have historical importance, either now or in the
future. Did the OP research the names he obliterated? How could he know
who
the next Pulitzer Prize winner, President or Nobel Prize winner is going
to
be?

Rich




A good point.

- TT