Rare and not-so-rare together!

Hi RCBers,

I am facing the following situation:

Let's say there are 2 rare books, "A" and "B", $2,000 each. They were
bound together with a not-so-rare book "C" ("C" alone priced at $30!).
Title of book "A" is on the spine.

These 3 books are at about the same period (20 years apart).

Does binding all three books into one volume make the books less
desirable ?

Does that reduce the book total price (i.e. less than $4,000) ?

I appreciate any comments.

Calvin

"Calvin" wrote in message
ups.com...

Let's say there are 2 rare books, "A" and "B", $2,000 each. They were
bound together with a not-so-rare book "C" ("C" alone priced at $30!).
Title of book "A" is on the spine.

These 3 books are at about the same period (20 years apart).

Does binding all three books into one volume make the books less
desirable ?

Does that reduce the book total price (i.e. less than $4,000) ?

If we are not talking about market value, Calvin does not
provide enough information. Books bound together 200
years ago may thus appreciate in value whereas old
books bound together 20 years ago have probably declined.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

on 13 Apr 2006 07:10:51 -0700, Calvin stated:


Hi RCBers,

I am facing the following situation:

Let's say there are 2 rare books, "A" and "B", $2,000 each. They were
bound together with a not-so-rare book "C" ("C" alone priced at $30!).
Title of book "A" is on the spine.

These 3 books are at about the same period (20 years apart).

Does binding all three books into one volume make the books less
desirable ?

Does that reduce the book total price (i.e. less than $4,000) ?

I appreciate any comments.

I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing, although I
think I've bought a few books where two were bound together.
I take it you've got relatively old books? I haven't seen
this binding-books-together for anything more recent than
about 1830, I don't think.

Personally, book "C" wouldn't detract from the whole for
me. I might consider it a bit of a nuisance. Moreso if it
were the first one bound into the group. It certainly
wouldn't make me want to pay more for the whole than if I
could just get A and B bound together.

That said, however, I'd think each one, alone, in its
original binding (if there was one) would net you more
money than the combination. Not because each is any less
valuable, but because of your audience. What if I only
want A? If I don't want B, no matter how valuable it is,
I'm not going to want to pay for it. So for me (in this
example) I'd only pay the value of A for all three bound
together. Not a great deal for the seller.

Usually I'm pleased with whatever the second title is (I
haven't bought anything yet with three things together),
but as a general rule, it'd be unlikely for both A and B
to be at the top of my wants list.


-Allison


--
..

Hi RCBers,

I am facing the following situation:

Let's say there are 2 rare books, "A" and "B", $2,000 each. They were
bound together with a not-so-rare book "C" ("C" alone priced at $30!).
Title of book "A" is on the spine.

These 3 books are at about the same period (20 years apart).

Does binding all three books into one volume make the books less
desirable ?

Does that reduce the book total price (i.e. less than $4,000) ?

I appreciate any comments.

Calvin

Original covers add considerably to the value of books. Binding
two or more texts together under one cover would reduce the value
of each text more than if it had simply been bound with a new
cover, since it messes with the binding along the spine of the
text. So, unless the texts are very old and very rare, value would
be substantially reduced.

It really depends on the first date of publication and the date of
rebinding. Books which were originally published in the 17th century
are not very often found in their first binding. So, a secondary
binding of the 18th century will not be either a major price denter nor
devaluer. If it is in lovely shape it might help make the price, which
will be based on the two good books, entirely.

Now 19th century books which are rarities primarily in their original
bindings, like some of the works of Byron and Keats will get a big dent
in a secondary binding. So, it depends on what as well as when.

I have often bought books which consist of 7 or 8 pamphlet poems of the
18th century, very occasionally of the 17th century, the major part of
the price often depends on one rare and significant text, with the rest
mostly along for the ride. And there are usually no recent [in the last
25 years] examples of original bindings on that text at auction. There
is another strategy with such volumes. A literature specialist in the
UK does this often enough. He takes the books apart and offers the
poems one by one, disbound at good prices.
Best,
Gabriel

I would like to thank you all for your comments. These books were bound
together prior to 1700 and the binding is in good condition.

Calvin