Glassine wrappers

In article ,
"John Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote:

So it looks like you get a plus for having the glassine wrapper, but you
lose points for not having the publisher's box!

John,
Is it possible that this book was originally issued with a slipcase and
the publisher later issued it with a glassine instead of the slipcase
(or vice-versa)? I know this was the case with certain Modern Library
illustrated editions. The original book+covering could have picked up
the additional covering over time by some dealer/collector who thought
that the book should have had both.

Scot

Scot Kamins
--
Collecting the Modern Library 1917-1970
Modern Library Collecting Website at:
http://www.dogeared.com

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:11:02 +0000 (UTC),
declared:

In article ,
(Kestrel) wrote:

I have a copy of a book by Gene Stratton-Porter that I bought because
of the gorgeous art nouveau decoration on the binding. However, it
also had a glassine wrapper, like a dust jacket. The glassine wrapper
detracts from the colors of the binding but I can't like the idea of
taking it off.

If the wrapper is detachable, there's no harm done to the book in taking
it off and keeping it safe somewhere, to be restored if you ever want to
sell the book. You (or a friendly bookseller) could cover the binding with
something transparent like Brodart for protection in the meantime.

(Strictly IIRC a "wrapper" is not detachable while a "jacket" is,
though the terms are often used interchangeably. But -- having just
written that, I see Glaister's Glossary of the Book is not quite clearcut
on the matter. Anyone know the gospel on this?)

a "wrapper" is detachables, perhaps what you are thinking of is "in
wraps". i hear the term "wrapper" used for dj more from british
dealers than anywhere else.


robert

"I've been long, a long way from here
Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos,
And drank til I was thirsty again
We went searching through thrift store jungles
Found Geronimo's rifle, Marilyn's shampoo
And Benny Goodman's corset and pen"

In article ,
(MindElec) wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:11:02 +0000 (UTC),
declared:

(Strictly IIRC a "wrapper" is not detachable while a "jacket" is,
though the terms are often used interchangeably. But -- having just
written that, I see Glaister's Glossary of the Book is not quite
clearcut on the matter. Anyone know the gospel on this?)

a "wrapper" is detachables, perhaps what you are thinking of is "in
wraps". i hear the term "wrapper" used for dj more from british
dealers than anywhere else.

Sure it's used that way -- the point I was making is that the usage may be
incorrect. For example, Glaister defines "wrapper" as "a paper cover
*attached* to a book or pamphlet *as an integral part of it*" (my
emphasis). Etherington & Roberts
(http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/don/dt/dt3820.html -- an excellent
bookbinding terminology resource BTW) defines "wrappers" in the modern
sense as "the paper cover of a book, such as the modern paperback".

I'm not trying to be a pedantic protector of language here -- I think we
all know what "dustwrapper" indicates! -- I merely thought it was an
interesting differentiation, and I wonder when the usage changed.

Barnaby

"michael adams" wrote...
"Jon Meyers" wrote...
"michael adams" wrote...

The ABC for Book Collectors
John Carter 1978

start quote:

Wrappers

Paper covers, plain, marbled or printed. A wrappered
book in antiquarian parlance, is what would normally be
called a paper-back, and it has nothing to do with
dust wrappers or dust jackets.

:end quote

So there are wrappers which have always been a class by themselves.

And dust wrappers which have always been the equivalent to dust
jackets.

According to Carter at least.

And neither of which presumablty, have anything to do with
the glassine wrappers which are the ostensible subject of
this thread.

Eh?


I read the title of this thread as Glassine wrappers

What do you read it as then?

Same as you, but I don't understand why you say that Carter's
classifications don't apply.

You noted Carter's distinction between "wrappers" ("which have always been a
class by themselves") and "dustwrappers" ("which have always been the
equivalent to dust jackets"), and then wrote that "neither...presumably,
have anything to do with the glassine wrappers which are the ostensible
subject of this thread." But in the body of the original post, Kestel's
"glassine wrapper" is described as "like a dust jacket"--i.e. a dustwrapper.


--
Jon Meyers
[To reply,
lose your way.]