Charles Dickens autograph

1853 copy of Bleak House appears to be first US... Harper with Dicken's
sinature. I am with Friends of the Library in Ithaca, NY and we cannot
find any information which would give us an idea of what to charge for
this item during our October sale. Any help would be appreciated or if
you could tell us where to check.

Thank you
Regina Lennox

"MindElec" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:28:55 -0400, Cort Bassett
declared:

1853 copy of Bleak House appears to be first US... Harper with
Dicken's sinature. I am with Friends of the Library in Ithaca,
NY and we cannot find any information which would give us an idea
of what to charge for this item during our October sale. Any
help would be appreciated or if you could tell us where to check.




If, as you say, the book is signed and not a facsimile signature which occurs
alot with Dickens books then you shouldnt be selling at the sale at all but
putting into a good auction house.

Stan

In article , R. Totale

Thanks. We have checked and we are pretty sure it is his signature. But
we will ask Jack Goldman who ownes the Bookery in town. We have a lot of
book dealers in this town. We have checked the signature with a
magnifying glass to make sure it was not an imprint.. and as I said it
looks good.

And yes, it is a two vol. set. It seems that we can, as I said find
references to letters but not in his books.

Regina Lennox

wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:28:55 -0400, Cort Bassett
wrote:

1853 copy of Bleak House appears to be first US... Harper with Dicken's
signature. I am with Friends of the Library in Ithaca, NY and we cannot
find any information which would give us an idea of what to charge for
this item during our October sale. Any help would be appreciated or if
you could tell us where to check.

I would strongly suggest you show this to a professional with some
experience. You don't even have to leave town - I checked in a NY
directory and there's a guy in the DeWitt Building, business name is
the Bookery (no plug, I've never been there). He will be able to spot
if the signature "looks right" in a way no one here who has not held
the book in their hands can do, and can probably advise you further.

BTW, is this a two-volume set?

In article ,
(Cort Bassett) wrote:

1853 copy of Bleak House appears to be first US... Harper with Dicken's
sinature.

Where in the book (presumably in Vol. I) is the signature? Is there any
other text apparently written with it?

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:46:59 +0100, "michael adams"
declared:


"MindElec" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:28:55 -0400, Cort Bassett
declared:

1853 copy of Bleak House appears to be first US... Harper with
Dicken's sinature. I am with Friends of the Library in Ithaca,
NY and we cannot find any information which would give us an idea
of what to charge for this item during our October sale. Any
help would be appreciated or if you could tell us where to check.




$1 like the rest of the books. after all it was donated the same way.


robert


...

I'm not familiar with US Library Sales, but surely books are donated
on the assumption they'll be disposed of in a way which will bring
maximum benefit to the Library - at least where possible - not simply
knowingly almost given away?

In addition, if the above description is in any way accurate, then the
book merits surely an appropriate price. Not one which would allow an
unknowing purchaser to subsequently discard the book without a thought.


because, in my view, if a thrift shop or library sale wants to be a
bookstore, then that is what they should open and pay for their stock
like the rest of us.

seen too many overpriced "collectibles" at these places.


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 ,
wrote:

In article ,
(Cort Bassett) wrote:

1853 copy of Bleak House appears to be first US... Harper with Dicken's
sinature.

Where in the book (presumably in Vol. I) is the signature? Is there any
other text apparently written with it?

In vol 1
and it says "faithfully yours,"
"Charles Dickens" with lines under and words run together

Thanks for any help...

michael adams wrote:

surely books are donated on the assumption they'll
be disposed of in a way which will bring maximum benefit
to the Library - at least where possible - not simply
knowingly almost given away?

That is certainly what one would hope. Of course, one can also hope that one
will be lucky, and come across books which have slipped through the net!

In addition, if the above description is in any way accurate, then the
book merits surely an appropriate price. Not one which would allow an
unknowing purchaser to subsequently discard the book without a thought.

A very good point.

If individuals feel that libraries and charities [snip] are performing
a useful service to the community, then why should they be prevented
from offering them things ?

Absolutely.

Or perhaps you'd rather pay higher taxes, thus enabling Govt, both
national and local, to perform the functions currently undertaken by
the charities, and contribute more towards the upkeep of local
libraries?

I don't know if that's supposed to be a rhetorical question, but ideally,
yes, that would be better than depending on charity. I always feel charity's
a double-edged sword. As William Blake put it:

"Mercy would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor
And pity no more could be
If all were as happy as we."

But reality rules, and when the proclamatory fanfares (e.g.,
http://www.developmentgoals.org/About_the_goals.htm) die down, we're stuck
with the fact that, in order to achieve the world's governments' stated aim
of combating poverty, donor countries need (as a minimum) to reach the UN
target of giving 0.7% of gross domestic product in Overseas Development Aid
and yet, while agreeing in principle, very few donor countries have even
approached this figure (the US, even taking into account its vast subsidies
to Israel, gives 0.12%). So I guess we are stuck with charity shops for the
time being.

The fact that secondhand bookshops are closing down in many towns
in the UK at least, has nothing whatsoever to do with charity shops,

Well, that *seems* reasonable; charity shops have been around a good while,
and managed in the past to coexist with secondhand bookstores, secondhand
clothes shops, etc.

and everything to do with the rise of the multiple chains, redevelopment
of town centres, and spiraling rents.

Hmm. But those things have been around for quite a while, too, and managed
in the past to coexist with secondhand bookstores. And the multiple chains
don't - as a rule - deal in secondhand goods.

In my own local area in the
suburbs of London, there used to be three s/h bookshops of varying size
up until around 15 years ago. Now there are none. Two were forced out
after rent reviews at the end of their leases. The charity shops are
now the only source of any way decent secondhand books in the area.

So the economic environment has on the one hand squeezed out the secondhand
bookstores and on the other made it possible for the charity shops to
survive and take over some of the business (or, in your area of London,
*all* of the business) that the secondhand bookshops used to do? But this is
not the result of any direct competition between charity and secondhand
shops? Maybe, but I wonder what the evidence is.

good ex-public library books are now wantonly ruined prior to sale.

That raises a beef about public libraries that comes up here with great
frequency. The aims of libraries are frequently in conflict with those of
collectors, and discussion of that topic has led to some heated
disagreements in this newsgroup.

I see the criticisms collectors make of libraries as a healthy thing (though
I am not always in complete agreement), and I wouldn't like to see charity
shops treated as a kind of sacred cow, beyond reproach and exempted from the
same kind of scrutiny.

seen too many overpriced "collectibles" at these places.

As to the above remark and the sickening degree of sneering
condescension shown by Tom in the Hay thread, towards Oxfam
and the volunteers who staff the shops -

Anyone with any judgment whatsoever would realise that the staff in
such shops, being volunteers, are presumably doing their best and
aren't seeking to steal from or defraud anybody. Furthermore anyone
with any judgment would realise that not everybody can be expected
to know everything - not even how to spell correctly. If I went into
Maggs or Quaritch and found "first addition" penciled on the fly leaf
of a book, I'd have cause for concern. In a charity shop I wouldn't.

Point taken, and I agree to some extent, but isn't it standard now for Oxfam
and other charity shops to have an advisor come in and price their books (or
at least sift out items of value and/or collectible interest)? I had a
pleasant exchange with one such in an Oxfam shop last summer, and he seemed
to be reasonably competent. I didn't ask him what his professional
relationship to Oxfam was, but since he appeared to spend his days going
from one shop to another pricing up books I didn't take him for a volunteer.
If part of the price I'm paying for an Oxfam book (or article of clothing,
etc.) is going to pay the salary of a valuator, then I think it is perfectly
relevant to consider whether the valuation is or is not reasonable (though I
agree, the spelling ability of the volunteer who writes up the labels is
neither here nor there).

I got most of my clothes at charity shops as a student, and still browse
around for books and other bits and pieces when I am in the UK, and over the
years what I have noticed is that, while there is still the noble workforce
of volunteers, the infrastructure of paid workers has burgeoned
considerably - and the prices have gone up accordingly. Indeed, I've heard
bitter complaints about this from volunteers in charity shops. In
particular, it seems that the pricing of items is largely out of their hands
these days. A bit of googling shows Oxfam and other charities advertising
extensively for shop managers, area managers, consultant managers, financial
managers, etc. Charity shops may not be out to steal or defraud, but they
are seeking to defray the cost of supporting the infrastructure of paid
workers, and I don't see why those paid workers should be any less open to
scrutiny - and, where applicable, criticism - than you or me or anyone else.

In 2001-02 the management costs of Oxfam shops were 5.1 million pounds, the
operating costs were 45.5 million, and the total income 65.1 million (go to
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/atwork/annrev02/review.htm, download the PDF "Annual
Review" file and check page 26). That means some 78% of the money you spend
in Oxfam gets swallowed up immediately in costs. A further 27% of the
remainder goes to the administrative overheads of projects (ibid.).

That doesn't stop me from buying in Oxfam shops or supporting Oxfam (and
other charities) in other ways, but it does put it in perspective. At a
certain point, the line between "charity" and "self-sustaining institution"
(or "mer-charity", a term my googling brought up) needs to be drawn. Holding
charities exempt from critical scrutiny is not, in my view, helpful and my
feeling is that if a reasonably acute person observes things like those Tom
observed, that's a point to be noted.

And in any case, anyone who's unduly swayed by the descriptions of
vendors, whether as to the overpriced "collectibles", or the
misdescribed first "additions" in charity shops - rather than being
able to form their own judgment on the evidence of their own eyes -
probably shouldn't be allowed out on their own, in the first place.

Absolutely! Now we're back in agreement!

I might add that I myself, and no one known to me, has any connection
with Oxfam or any other charity, except as an occasional customer,
donor etc.

Oh, I've supported them for years! As charities go, they're one of the best.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:27:17 +0100, "michael adams"
declared:


"MindElec" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:46:59 +0100, "michael adams"
declared:


"MindElec" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:28:55 -0400, Cort Bassett
declared:

1853 copy of Bleak House appears to be first US... Harper with
Dicken's sinature. I am with Friends of the Library in Ithaca,
NY and we cannot find any information which would give us an idea
of what to charge for this item during our October sale. Any
help would be appreciated or if you could tell us where to check.




$1 like the rest of the books. after all it was donated the same
way.


robert


...

I'm not familiar with US Library Sales, but surely books are donated
on the assumption they'll be disposed of in a way which will bring
maximum benefit to the Library - at least where possible - not simply
knowingly almost given away?

In addition, if the above description is in any way accurate, then
the book merits surely an appropriate price. Not one which would
allow an unknowing purchaser to subsequently discard the book
without a thought.


because, in my view, if a thrift shop or library sale wants to be a
bookstore, then that is what they should open and pay for their stock
like the rest of us.

...

But why should libraries or thrift stores, have to pay for their stock
"like the rest of us "? If individuals feel that libraries and
charities (which run thrift stores in the UK at least) are performing
a useful service to the community, then why should they be prevented
from offering them things ?

never said that they shouldn't...


Or perhaps you'd rather pay higher taxes, thus enabling Govt, both
national and local, to perform the functions currently undertaken by
the charities, and contribute more towards the upkeep of local
libraries?

an overpriced "collectible" that sits in a thrift cabinent unsold,
because everyone but the thrift knows it's overpriced, isn't helping
solve that either.


The fact that secondhand bookshops are closing down in many towns
in the UK at least, has nothing whatsoever to do with charity shops,

never implied that it did...



seen too many overpriced "collectibles" at these places.

...

As to the above remark and the sickening degree of sneering
condescension shown by Tom in the Hay thread, towards Oxfam
and the volunteers who staff the shops -

Anyone with any judgment whatsoever would realise that the staff in
such shops, being volunteers, are presumably doing their best and
aren't seeking to steal from or defraud anybody. Furthermore anyone
with any judgment would realise that not everybody can be expected
to know everything - not even how to spell correctly. If I went into
Maggs or Quaritch and found "first addition" penciled on the fly leaf
of a book, I'd have cause for concern. In a charity shop I wouldn't.

which is exactly why they shouldn't be pretending to be bookdealers,
price em across the board.

And in any case, anyone who's unduly swayed by the descriptions of
vendors, whether as to the overpriced "collectibles", or the
misdescribed first "additions" in charity shops - rather than being
able to form their own judgment on the evidence of their own eyes -
probably shouldn't be allowed out on their own, in the first place.

so it's ok if some newbie collector overpays for something, as long as
it's not in a bookstore....


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"

michael adams wrote:

Indeed it's quite possible that
charity bookshops
have created an entirely new outlet
for books which might otherwise
have been discarded anyway.

I don't think they'd have been
discarded. A few years ago the same
books were being given to charity
shops, just as now. But then they'd
have been stuck in a cardboard box at
a few bob each and the punters could
take pot luck, whereas now they employ
people to sift through them, mark them
up accordingly and (in Oxfam's case at
least) sell them on ABE.

The new rents being asked made the
shops uneconomic to run. What then
happens is that hopefuls move into
these premises at inflated rents
full of new ideas - one reopened as
a florist, with a shop full of
galvanised poat and then close down
within months.

Well, but Henley on Thames (where the
rocketing of prices means little
rabbit warrens change hands for over
half a million pounds) boasts one
"proper" antiquarian bookshop
(Jonkers), one basically secondhand
bookshop (in Friday Street; I can't
remember the name), several antique
shops that "do" books, and a couple of
charity shops, including an Oxfam.
There seems to be room for pretty much
the whole spectrum. Something similar
applies in Lyme Regis. You could say a
sample of two is pretty small, but
since these are the only two towns
I've spent much time in in the UK
recently and it applies in both of
them perhaps it is not so unusual.

I don't know if
one of the regular rent reviews is
due after 100 years but a lot of
businesses ceased trading at what
was probably their building's
centenery.

Sounds very much as if the businesses
were leasehold (a lot of buildings are
on a 99-year lease, for some reason);
small businesses with a relatively
small turnover would have had a window
of opportunity as the lease drew
towards its close and properties could
be had - for a limited time - for a
very low cost.

Many High Streets feature large
numbers of charity shops
and I'm not certain whether they
enjoy prefential arrangements such
as rolling leases etc.

I would hope they get *some* kind of
preferential treatment. Their
overheads on their shops are
appallingly high as it is; as the link
I gave last time shows, Oxfam's
charity shops are by far the least
profitable side of their business
(though they are of unquantifiable but
nevertheless real value in maintaining
the charity's high [street] profile).

I can't speak for public libraries
anywhere else,
but in my own locality they're
barbarians pure and simple.

Right. Now you have no problem taking
it out on decent, honest civil
servants who work in libraries, and
who have doubtless exerted themselves
on countless occasions to help members
of the public get hold of material via
catalogue searches, the inter-library
loans system, etc., etc., but when Tom
rants about Oxfam you talk about a

sickening degree of sneering
condescension [snip] towards Oxfam
and the volunteers who staff the
shops

I'm just trying to level the pitch
here.

When charity
shops start ripping out fly leaves
and disfiguring what's left with
manic rubber stampings, I may then
be rather less inclined to regard
them as sacred cows.

Well, librarians have their faults,
and charity shops have theirs.
Sticking fairly valueless books behind
glass with an inflated price tag is -
these days - a charity shop thing (as
are - these days - secondhand clothes
that are barely cheaper than new ones
during the sales). I've noticed it,
too, I just haven't seen such prime
examples as Tom gave.

If part of the price I'm paying for
an Oxfam book (or article of
clothing, etc.) is going to pay the
salary of a valuator, then I think
it is perfectly relevant to consider
whether the valuation is or is
not reasonable

I can't really agree on this point
at all. A book is worth what somebody
is willing to pay for it, not what
somebody else choses to value it at.
If somebody is willing to pay more
than the book is really "worth" in
the eyes of the market, or they
needed to actually pay, then so be it.
I believe this is essentialy the
same point as I made in the pervious
post. Basically except in matters of
life or death or real catastrophes,
I believe adults at least, should be
left free to make and learn from
their own mistakes.

Well, and shouldn't adults also be
free to comment on nutty pricing
policies? As you say elsewhere,

Why should bookdealers alone have
the right to vary their prices ?

Quite. But if charity shops want to
try their hand at it, is there any
particular reason why they alone
should be exempt from criticism when
people feel they've got it wrong?

As to the point regarding the
competence of the Oxfam valuers. I
would
imagine as is normal, overpricing
would be reflected in bulging shelves,
underpricing in empty shelves. Which
in turn would be soon noted in EPOS
returns analysis at head office.
Overall the books are priced to sell.

Well, yes, but if (as you say is
happening in your area) regular
secondhand bookshops are closing down,
charity shops may have autonomy on the
high street, compounded by the
potentially insidious belief that it's
all "for a good cause".

I don't know how many there are but
the Oxfam shop chain must be
quite large. And so presumably
they're going to require professionals
to oversee the overall operation.
[snip] You could
just imagine the shambles which
would result, if they didn't hire
competent staff for these roles.

Well, maybe. But back in the "good old
days" when I was buying my cast-off
Levis at charity shops for a few
shillings (=well under a dollar) most
of these charity shops really *were*
being run largely by volunteers.

I make that a sum ?10.5 million
after expenses which is raised
annually by the Oxfam shops.

I made it 14.5 million, but that was
because I transcribed one of the
figures wrongly in my previous
posting. You're right, and that means
*over 82%* is going on initial
overheads alone (discounting what goes
on the administrative overheads of the
charitable projects themselves).

And don't forget its these same
secondhand
clothes and books etc which pay for
all the running costs as well.
You're surely not seeking to base
your argument on this, are you?

I don't really *have* an argument
here - certainly not in the sense of
making a case against charity shops;
I'm all in favour of them. But I'm
loth to blandly *assume* they're all
about altruism and exempt them from
the same kind of scrutiny and
criticism I'd apply to anyone else. If
they are using competitive marketing
techniques to place themselves on a
par with commercial traders (and they
are!) they must expect to be evaluated
by the same standards.

If they were in receipt of
taxpayers' money fair enough. But
bundles
of old clothes and boxes of books,
and nondescript oranaments ?
Which they neverthless manage to
transform into a ?10.5 million
net surplus annually? That's some
achievemnet nevertheless,
is it not?

Damned good going! I'd be interested
to hear from traders running their own
businesses, but I imagine making
(roughly) 65,000 a year on a turnover
of 400,000 quid is reasonably good
going.

The issue, in my mind, is, are things
moving from a situation where
overheads were low and volunteers
priced things at throwaway prices to a
situation where overheads are getting
higher and higher and paid advisors
are pricing things at prices which
will keep them in employment (with the
fact that the surplus goes to charity
as a kind of copper-bottom to the
pot - people will pay because they
perceive it as being in a good cause)?

And - if the second is true (and I
think things *have* indisputably moved
that way) - is this at least justified
by an increased net annual surplus?
And the answer to that - as far as I
can work it out - is far from
reassuring. Here are the figures (in
millions of pounds):

1996-7
Income from shops: 17.1
Overheads of shops: not given
Total income: 98.1
Total overheads: 11.1
(http://oxfam.org.uk/atwork/anrev97/ar12.htm)

2001-2
Income from shops:
65.1
Overheads of shops: 54.6
Total income: 169.4
Total overheads: 74.5
(PDF "Annual Review" file, p. 26
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/atwork/annrev02/review.htm)

Now, in overall term
s, and making no allowance for
inflation, those figures show that
Oxfam netted 87 million in 1996-7 and
94.9 million in 2001-2. To achieve
those extra 7.9 million pounds Oxfam
increased its overheads from 11.1
million to 74.5 million. There has
also been a small rise (from 5.3
million to 8.3 million ) in
advertsising and campaigning costs,
not included in the above; that would
reduce the overall gain in net income
from 7.9 million to 4.9 million.

According to Oxfam's own figures,
overheads have rocketed, and (even
though the overheads for the shops are
not separately given in the 1996-7
figures) the lion's share of the
increase is clearly in the retail
sector (the costs there in 2001-2 are
nearly five times the *total* costs
six years previously).

Let's be generous, and assume that,
six years ago, shops accounted for a
similar proportion of total overheads
(about two thirds) as now. That would
mean we can deduct from the gross
income from shops of 17.1 million in
1996-7 two thirds of the total
overheads of 11.1 million (=7.4
million). That would result in a net
profit of 9.7 million.

Once inflation is taken into account,
9.7 million in 1996-7 compares pretty
favourably with 10.5 million in
2001-2. The big difference is that,
whereas well over half of the till
takings in 1996 went directly to
charity, today the bulk of takings
goes to administrative costs.

Now, those kinds of figures cannot be
explained away by saying that

all these shops need to be heated
and lit, to be cleaned

That was as true six years ago as now.
Clearly something *else* is going on.
I wouldn't presume to say exactly
*what* is going on - the same factors
as have driven secondhand bookshops,
bicycle shops and other small
businesses to the wall, perhaps? I
couldn't say. But once one looks at it
closely it is clear that:

1. a far higher proportion of Oxfam's
income is now spent on overheads
2. the increase in overheads has
resulted in very little (if any)
increase in net profit
3. the bulk of the increase in
overheads is in their charity shops

Now, I didn't know *any* of that 24
hours ago, so I'm grateful to people
like Tom and mindelec for voicing
opinions which got me looking more
closely at what's going on here. Sure,
Oxfam shops are still raising some 10
million a year to fund charitable
projects, but they are now
*additionally* raising some 45-50
million a year to finance overheads.

That fact in itself has my head
spinning. Can someone else take over
from here and tell me who - or what -
I ought to be *blaming*??! As far as
I'm concerned, this is not about
"dissing" volunteers, and still less
about pooh-poohing charities; it's
about poking my grubby nose into
unsuspected corners, dragging out what
I found there and waiting to be told
why I am wrong or - more
occasionally - why I am right!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Shucks! Well, I worked harder on that posting as on any other, and
harder than on most

Pardon the incoherence. At least it's come through readable this time.

It's a long posting, and the meat's (mostly) at the end, so I hope you get
there!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com