Rebacked...?

All sorts of questions today:

All other things being equal, which is a better: A book with the
original spine that is moderately worn...or the same book that has had
the spine "rebacked" ?

TIA (again)

Jonathan

In article om,
"Jonathan" wrote:

All sorts of questions today:

All other things being equal, which is a better: A book with the
original spine that is moderately worn...or the same book that has had
the spine "rebacked" ?

TIA (again)

Jonathan

In general (with all the disclaimers in place about special situations,
"it all depends"s, and so on), collectors like their collectables in
original condition. So all things being equal (which they never are),
it's better that you keep the original spine -- and this goes double if
the spine is only "moderately worn" as you say in your post.

- Scot Kamins
Modern Library Collectors website:
http://www.dogeared.com

Jonathan wrote:
All sorts of questions today:

All other things being equal, which is a better: A book with the
original spine that is moderately worn...or the same book that has had
the spine "rebacked" ?

TIA (again)

Jonathan

As rebacked often implies new endpapers, you're better sticking with
the original worn spine unless it has serious faults.

Shelf Space wrote:
As rebacked often implies new endpapers, you're better sticking with
the original worn spine unless it has serious faults.

Unless, of course, the book in question was written by John Pelan.
Then Barky wants you to burn it!

On 15 Jun 2006 08:22:05 -0700, "Jonathan" wrote:


All other things being equal, which is a better: A book with the
original spine that is moderately worn...or the same book that has had
the spine "rebacked" ?

Jonathan, as a rule of thumb, the more original the better.
"Moderately worn" is hard to judge without seeing it, but I would
never rebind or reback a book unless it was falling apart and the
spine was very incomplete.

Bud Webster wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 08:22:05 -0700, "Jonathan" wrote:


All other things being equal, which is a better: A book with the
original spine that is moderately worn...or the same book that has had
the spine "rebacked" ?

Jonathan, as a rule of thumb, the more original the better.
"Moderately worn" is hard to judge without seeing it, but I would
never rebind or reback a book unless it was falling apart and the
spine was very incomplete.

Thank you all for the advice. I think I knew the answer, but I wanted
to make sure. In his description of the book in question, the seller
makes it sound like rebacking is a plus rather than a flaw...I think I
needed reassurance. I wonder if Bud's "rule of thumb" would extend to
fixing hinges. I recently had the hinge of my favorite 19th century
Robert Louis Stevenson repaired. It was discreetly and beautifuly
done. Should I have left it alone?

Jonathan

Jonathan wrote:

In his description of the book in question, the seller makes
it sound like rebacking is a plus rather than a flaw

How old is the book? The responses you've had so far would hold good for
more recent books, but once you get back to, say, the 17th century,
those rules don't apply in quite the same way.

In any case, I guess if the spine was really falling to bits, and the
seller is comparing the book as it is now with how it was before, then
it *is* a plus. But if you're comparing it with a decent copy in
original condition it's a flaw.

Again, if it's priced comparably with a copy with a spine that's falling
to bits then the repair can be considered a plus, but if it's priced
comparably with an undamaged copy then it's a flaw.

I recently had the hinge of my favorite 19th century
Robert Louis Stevenson repaired. It was discreetly and
beautifuly done. Should I have left it alone?

Unobtrusive repairs - especially of faults which will progressively
worsen if not dealt with - are, in my view, a good thing. They don't
increase the value of the book very much beyond the cost of the actual
repair itself, but they prevent the book's condition from deteriorating
further.

John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org