Effect of Rebinding

Having just acquired a book that has been reasonably nicely
rebound, I am wondering about rebindings.

First, the book. Longfellow, Evangeline, 4th printing,
1848, in very good condition, A.E.G. At some point the
original paper board binding described in BAL 12089 was
replaced with a patterned blue cloth binding with gilt
flower wreath decoration on front board and title and
floral decoration in gilt on spine. This binding is also in
very good condition.

On the one extreme there are those who rebind in fine
leather a book which would probably have been reasonably
valuable if left in its original state - or perhaps one,
such as Joyce's Ulysses, which came with paper covers. On
the other extreme, there is the inimitable library binding
whose major claim to fame is that it keeps the book intact.
In the middle is a rebinding such as I have acquired.

How do you all feel about rebinding? Is it worth it? When?
If a decision to rebind is made, where on the continuum
does one stop (cloth, vellum, leather, etc)?

--
Francis A. Miniter

ως ουκ αν αιων' εκμαθοις β�οτων, π�ιν αν
θανη τις, ουτε ει χ�ηστος ουτ’ ει τω κακος.

How do you all feel about rebinding? Is it worth it? When? If a decision
to rebind is made, where on the continuum does one stop (cloth, vellum,
leather, etc)?

If you have to rebind, only use snakeskin, alligator, crocodile or tortoise
shell. Rare bindings such as these will sharply increase the value of your
books over time.

Francis A. Miniter wrote:

Having just acquired a book that has been reasonably nicely
rebound, I am wondering about rebindings.

There used to be quite a big difference between UK and US perceptions.
Is that still the case? From a UK point of view, rebinding has
generally been seen as a Bad Thing. A Charles Dickens first edition in
the original cloth (for example) would generally be worth more than a
rebound copy, however fine the binding. And the same would apply to
all modern firsts. The main exceptions would be books from the period
when books were issued without an original binding and were taken to
the binders' to be bound at that time (i.e., up to about the middle of
the 18th century) and sets - a set of Dickens in a nice leather
binding (rebound or not) would be worth a fair bit more than one in a
cloth binding (original or not).

The UK wisdom would be to rebind only when necessary and to assume
that the book would increase in value only to about the same extent as
the cost of the rebinding. So a $500 dollar book with the cover
falling off might be valued at $600 if you spent $100 rebinding it.

I'd say it's probably worth it when it's necessary to save the book
from further deterioration, and as to where one should stop, well, as
long as it's *in keeping* it doesn't matter too much. There's no point
giving a tatty book a fine binding, and it's tacky to give a 16th
century book the kind of binding a student's graduation thesis might
be bound in. As long as the binding suits the book there's no harm
done, and perhaps some good.

When it comes to Longfellow specifically, I'd have thought that he's
not that much in demand (his reputation didn't really outlive him),
and surely the main thing is to have something that looks and feels
nice, just for the pleasure of it, rather than to satisfy the purist
requirements of the relatively small numbers of Longfellow freaks (who
- unless there's something I don't know about here - probably wouldn't
be all that drawn to a fourth printing anyway).

John

"Lorrie S." wrote in message
...
How do you all feel about rebinding? Is it worth it? When? If a
decision
to rebind is made, where on the continuum does one stop (cloth,
vellum,
leather, etc)?

If you have to rebind, only use snakeskin, alligator, crocodile or
tortoise
shell. Rare bindings such as these will sharply increase the value
of your
books over time.

Hey, thanks for the tip. The value of my Daneille Steele book will
really take off once its wrapped in reptile skin, ya think? Its only
a third printing, will that hurt it?

YGBSM

"ygbsm2008" wrote in message
...
Hey, thanks for the tip. The value of my Daneille Steele book will
really take off once its wrapped in reptile skin, ya think? Its only
a third printing, will that hurt it?

I forgot to mention that you should only rebind books that are collectible
and not worthless pig **** like Danielle Steel books.

"Lorrie S." wrote in message
...
"ygbsm2008" wrote in message
...
Hey, thanks for the tip. The value of my Daneille Steele book will
really take off once its wrapped in reptile skin, ya think? Its
only
a third printing, will that hurt it?

I forgot to mention that you should only rebind books that are
collectible
and not worthless pig **** like Danielle Steel books.

YGBSM.

You might also mention that you wouldn't know sarcasm or irony if it
bit you in your ignorant racist ass.

"Lorrie S." wrote in message
...
"ygbsm2008" wrote in message news:7fiRk.225
You
might also mention that you wouldn't know sarcasm or irony if it
bit you in your ignorant racist ass.

Most rappers have a low IQ. I just stated a fact. Statement of
fact
doesn't make one a racist.

YGBSM. You're a racist and your various postings show it.

First prove it's a "fact". Your opinion counts for nothing, coming
from someone who is of the opinion that Timothy McVey was a "patriot"
for murdering 168 men, women and children and injuring 800 more in
Oklahoma City. He was a terrorist and he got what he deserved.

So not only are you a racist, you're an unpatriotic, American-hating
racist. If you idolize killers like McVey, you may as well be a
card-carrying member of Al Qaeda's fifth column here.

"ygbsm2008" wrote in message news:7fiRk.225 You
might also mention that you wouldn't know sarcasm or irony if it
bit you in your ignorant racist ass.

Most rappers have a low IQ. I just stated a fact. Statement of fact
doesn't make one a racist.

"ygbsm2008" wrote in So not only are you a racist,
you're an unpatriotic, American-hating
racist. If you idolize killers like McVey, you may as well be a
card-carrying member of Al Qaeda's fifth column here.

McVey was just a misunderstood genius.