Washed Books ?
 

Hi RCB-ers,

A rare book seller told me that a 400-year old book (that I just
found) was washed and rebound in the XIX century, to fit the style of
the library of the new owner. He said this was a common practice back
then.

Is this true ? How does that affect the book condition and book
value ?

Thanks,

Calvin

Washed Books ?
 

wrote:

A rare book seller told me that a 400-year old book (that I
just found) was washed and rebound in the XIX century, to fit
the style of the library of the new owner. He said this was
a common practice back then.

Is this true ? How does that affect the book condition and
book value ?

I can't vouch for the commonness of the practice in the 19th century,
but I can confirm that many books up until about the end of the 17th
century (and perhaps later) were printed on a tough, ribbed kind of
paper that will indeed withstand washing. The main reason for doing it -
in my case, at least - is when books have become really gunky, perhaps
because they were left in dank cellars for many years, or something like
that.

Here is an account of my first adventure washing a 16th century book:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c... c0ad2d79bb1e
(http://tinyurl.com/2snpv5)

The book in question (along with a companion volume of the Aeneid) is
still on my shelves five years later. Compared with the smelly volumes
they once were, covered with unsightly brownish-yellow stains, the pages
are bright and fresh and well worth what I paid for them, whereas when I
first got them I reckon I'd got a pretty poor deal.

As for the rebinding, as long as it is in keeping with the book it won't
affect its value all that much; it's always a plus if a book from that
period is in its original binding, but it doesn't make that big a
difference to the value. Books of that period were generally bought
unbound and taken to the bindery by the　purchaser, so the book and its
binding don't belong together in quite the same way as they do with
later books.

By the way, what book is it?

John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org

Washed Books ?
 

Hi John,

I'd like to second William M. Klimon's comment on the other thread on
how you washed your rare book. If it were me, I wanted an ambulance on
stand-by! ;-)

The book in question is "Histoire de l'expédition chrestienne au
Royaume de la Chine", 1617.

In addition to being washed, this book has a 3"x3" cut-out in the
title page and repaired with old paper. This cut-out does not touch
any text in that page.

There is another copy of the book, same edition. However, this copy
has 1-3 worm holes on the margin, without touching texts, on most
(~60%) of the pages.

If it were you, which book would you go for, the one with the cut-out
and being washed or the one with worm holes, if anything else is
equal ?

Thanks,

Calvin

On Jun 14, 6:38 pm, "John R. Yamamoto-Wilson"
wrote:
wrote:
A rare book seller told me that a 400-year old book (that I
just found) was washed and rebound in the XIX century, to fit
the style of the library of the new owner. He said this was
a common practice back then.

Is this true ? How does that affect the book condition and
book value ?

I can't vouch for the commonness of the practice in the 19th century,
but I can confirm that many books up until about the end of the 17th
century (and perhaps later) were printed on a tough, ribbed kind of
paper that will indeed withstand washing. The main reason for doing it -
in my case, at least - is when books have become really gunky, perhaps
because they were left in dank cellars for many years, or something like
that.

Here is an account of my first adventure washing a 16th century book:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...wse_thread/thr...
(http://tinyurl.com/2snpv5)

The book in question (along with a companion volume of the Aeneid) is
still on my shelves five years later. Compared with the smelly volumes
they once were, covered with unsightly brownish-yellow stains, the pages
are bright and fresh and well worth what I paid for them, whereas when I
first got them I reckon I'd got a pretty poor deal.

As for the rebinding, as long as it is in keeping with the book it won't
affect its value all that much; it's always a plus if a book from that
period is in its original binding, but it doesn't make that big a
difference to the value. Books of that period were generally bought
unbound and taken to the bindery by the purchaser, so the book and its
binding don't belong together in quite the same way as they do with
later books.

By the way, what book is it?

Johnhttp://rarebooksinjapan.org

Washed Books ?
 

By the way, the cut-out in the title page is to remove the library
stamp.

Calvin


On Jun 15, 8:41 am, "
wrote:
Hi John,

I'd like to second William M. Klimon's comment on the other thread on
how you washed your rare book. If it were me, I wanted an ambulance on
stand-by! ;-)

The book in question is "Histoire de l'expédition chrestienne au
Royaume de la Chine", 1617.

In addition to being washed, this book has a 3"x3" cut-out in the
title page and repaired with old paper. This cut-out does not touch
any text in that page.

There is another copy of the book, same edition. However, this copy
has 1-3 worm holes on the margin, without touching texts, on most
(~60%) of the pages.

If it were you, which book would you go for, the one with the cut-out
and being washed or the one with worm holes, if anything else is
equal ?

Thanks,

Calvin

On Jun 14, 6:38 pm, "John R. Yamamoto-Wilson"



wrote:
wrote:
A rare book seller told me that a 400-year old book (that I
just found) was washed and rebound in the XIX century, to fit
the style of the library of the new owner. He said this was
a common practice back then.

Is this true ? How does that affect the book condition and
book value ?

I can't vouch for the commonness of the practice in the 19th century,
but I can confirm that many books up until about the end of the 17th
century (and perhaps later) were printed on a tough, ribbed kind of
paper that will indeed withstand washing. The main reason for doing it -
in my case, at least - is when books have become really gunky, perhaps
because they were left in dank cellars for many years, or something like
that.

Here is an account of my first adventure washing a 16th century book:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...wse_thread/thr...
(http://tinyurl.com/2snpv5)

The book in question (along with a companion volume of the Aeneid) is
still on my shelves five years later. Compared with the smelly volumes
they once were, covered with unsightly brownish-yellow stains, the pages
are bright and fresh and well worth what I paid for them, whereas when I
first got them I reckon I'd got a pretty poor deal.

As for the rebinding, as long as it is in keeping with the book it won't
affect its value all that much; it's always a plus if a book from that
period is in its original binding, but it doesn't make that big a
difference to the value. Books of that period were generally bought
unbound and taken to the bindery by the purchaser, so the book and its
binding don't belong together in quite the same way as they do with
later books.

By the way, what book is it?

Johnhttp://rarebooksinjapan.org- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Washed Books ?
 

" wrote in message
ups.com...

By the way, the cut-out in the title page is to remove the library
stamp.

Calvin


That sounds odd. Are you sure the book was properly deaccessioned? Maybe
that cutout was to remove proof of ownership.

Alice

Washed Books ?
 

Hi Alice,

What is the difference between removing library stamp and proof of
ownership ?

The book is 400 years old. The binding was done in 1800s. There is no
other marking on ownership besides 2 initials U. B. on the book spine.

Considering the book conditions, which one would you pick ?

Thanks,

Calvin

On Jun 15, 9:43 am, "my-wings" wrote:
" wrote in message

ups.com...

By the way, the cut-out in the title page is to remove the library
stamp.

Calvin

That sounds odd. Are you sure the book was properly deaccessioned? Maybe
that cutout was to remove proof of ownership.

Alice

Washed Books ?
 

wrote:

The book in question is "Histoire de l'expédition chrestienne au
Royaume de la Chine"

"...entreprinse par les pères de la Compagnie de Jesus ... / tire�e des
memoires du R. P. Matthiev Ricci, de la Compagnie de Jesus, par le r.p.
Nicolas Trigault ... et nouvellement traduite en francois par le S. D.
F. de Riquebourg-Trigault"

A valuable book! There are three copies currently being offered on ABE
(http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchEntry), at prices between $8000
and $35000. This would sit nicely in the context of early European
voyages of exploration or of Catholic missionary activities...

In addition to being washed, this book has a 3"x3" cut-out in
the title page and repaired with old paper. This cut-out does
not touch any text in that page.

There is another copy of the book, same edition. However, this
copy has 1-3 worm holes on the margin, without touching texts,
on most (~60%) of the pages.

If it were you, which book would you go for, the one with the
cut-out and being washed or the one with worm holes, if anything
else is equal ?

How about the binding on the wormed copy? How unsightly is the worming?
If it's just two or three small holes it probably wouldn't bother me too
much. Does the washed copy look any the worse for having been washed?
The main thing that tends to happen is that the pages get kind of
warped, so they're wavy or bulgy.

It sounds like a hard call. I think I'd probably go for overall
freshness. Ideally, I'd like to handle both copies so as to be able to
decide which one is the fresher.

John

Washed Books ?
 

wrote:

What is the difference between removing library stamp and
proof of ownership ?

Alice is saying that maybe the the book had been stolen from the library
and the library stamp was removed to hide that fact.

If part of the title page has been cut out, I don't see how you can know
what may once have been on that section (unless it was printed text).
Are you just guessing that it may have been a library stamp? If so, it's
a reasonable guess, but surely it is just as likely to have been a
signature by a previous owner?

But perhaps you have more to go on and can identify the actual library
(perhaps because there are other stamps elsewhere in the book)? If so,
then it might be worth contacting the library to see whether the book
has indeed been properly deaccessioned.

John

Washed Books ?
 

On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "John R. Yamamoto-Wilson"
wrote:

Alice is saying that maybe the the book had been stolen from the library
and the library stamp was removed to hide that fact.

If part of the title page has been cut out, I don't see how you can know
what may once have been on that section (unless it was printed text).
Are you just guessing that it may have been a library stamp? If so, it's
a reasonable guess, but surely it is just as likely to have been a
signature by a previous owner?

But perhaps you have more to go on and can identify the actual library
(perhaps because there are other stamps elsewhere in the book)? If so,
then it might be worth contacting the library to see whether the book
has indeed been properly deaccessioned.

John

As said before,
"... The book is 400 years old. The binding was done in 1800s. There
is no
other marking on ownership besides 2 initials U. B. on the book
spine..."

Marking means library stamps or previous owner's name. The wormed copy
does have a library stamp located exactly at the cut-out section of
the washed copy.

About freshness, the washed copy overall looks much nicer than the
wormed copy.

Calvin

Washed Books ?
 

On Jun 15, 3:54 pm, "John R. Yamamoto-Wilson"
wrote:

It sounds like a hard call. I think I'd probably go for overall
freshness. Ideally, I'd like to handle both copies so as to be able to
decide which one is the fresher.

Rather than "which one is fesher." Your diction is to be admired.

David Ames