If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Healey" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill Palmer) wrote: Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is) are immediately removed with white-out. In some cases, I later cover the white-out area with appropriate pitures or graphics removed from damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the same vintage. I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some other type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine sand-papar. I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books and it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing dammage. -- Mark Heaely marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century volumes for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just so. Do what you like. And the idea that posts about different senses of collecting and enjoying books bring down the standard of the group, an idea coming from people who snicker over ejaculation jokes like ten year olds, is much more laughable than anything you have discussed. - Todd T. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message news "Mark Healey" wrote in message t... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill Palmer) wrote: Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is) are immediately removed with white-out. In some cases, I later cover the white-out area with appropriate pitures or graphics removed from damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the same vintage. I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some other type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine sand-papar. I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books and it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing dammage. -- Mark Heaely marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century volumes for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just so. Do what you like. A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future. As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material from the past to collect at all. Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other things is what the word "Culture" actually implies. And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term "trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a different perspective than we do. michael adams You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it across the board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise crummy copies of common or even less common books will lose all their utility, such as it is, through things like pasting in pictures. It's certainly true that future folks might see things differently, but we can't account for that by saving everything in exactly the shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking about books that already are recognized as items of great value, then different standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them, I can't get too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost jewel. But as an overarching philosophy, yours is a good one. - Todd T. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"michael adams" wrote in message ...
"Todd T" wrote in message news "Mark Healey" wrote in message t... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill Palmer) wrote: A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future. As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material from the past to collect at all. Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other things is what the word "Culture" actually implies. And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term "trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a different perspective than we do. Interesting. Please remember, though, that what infuriated some people was my action of removing a library card pocket and gluing an appropriate (meaning one of generally the same vintage and topic as the library discard) illustration over the rough spot on the endpaper. In the first place, the library mutilated the book by making its customary alterations. So, despite the foolish howls of derision I received for my sensible comments (not from you, but from a couple of keyboarding mandrills who would seem to have ensconced themselves in rec.collecting. books for the sole purpose of clumsily feigning intelligence while annoying others) a casual reader would almost get the impression that I am someone who goes around pasting pictures in any or all books to improve the graphics, or some such poppycock. No, we simply are talking about taking a mutilated book and (not "un- mutilating" it, of course; you can't unmutilate mutilated objects) making the mutilation less offensive, at least in terms of my own books in my own home. Now, let us turn to your "future generations" notion. That, too, was interesting. I see matters like this, though: Unless books themselves become rarities, it is unlikely that future generations will not be able to find all the books they want to showing the ways libraries frequently mutilated books in the twentieth century. After all, there are millions of such books in climate- controlled libraries right now. That being the case, it is likely that anthropologists of some future day might very much like to see the way someone worked on his or her books to make the library mutilation less noticeable. Therefore, the notion that somehow people should feel guilty about further altering a mutiliated book when millions of examples of the results of such a mulitation process remain in book-protective environments is pretty silly, when you really think about it. Mr. Palmer Room 314. michael adams snip - Todd T. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message news "Mark Healey" wrote in message t... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill Palmer) wrote: A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future. As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material from the past to collect at all. Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other things is what the word "Culture" actually implies. What a shame public libraries dont see things that way? Appears to me that they are one of the largest destroyers or vandalisers of books collectable or not. Stan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message ... "michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message news "Mark Healey" wrote in message t... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill Palmer) wrote: Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is) are immediately removed with white-out. In some cases, I later cover the white-out area with appropriate pitures or graphics removed from damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the same vintage. I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some other type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine sand-papar. I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books and it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing dammage. -- Mark Heaely marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century volumes for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just so. Do what you like. A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future. As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material from the past to collect at all. Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other things is what the word "Culture" actually implies. And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term "trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a different perspective than we do. michael adams You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it across the board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise crummy copies of common or even less common books will lose all their utility, such as it is, through things like pasting in pictures. It's certainly true that future folks might see things differently, but we can't account for that by saving everything in exactly the shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking about books that already are recognized as items of great value, then different standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them, I can't get too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost jewel. But as an overarching philosophy, yours is a good one. - Todd T. Obviously nobody's advocating saving every scrap of paper, but the fact remains that, as with the past, the things which will become rarest* in the future are the things people most easily throw away today. So that there's probably more chance of all million copies of a pulp paperback ending up in the dumpster* than there is of one copy of a limited collectors edition. Both because of the "value" placed on them at the time, and because the latter will be made of more enduring materials. *Rarest in terms of their availability to future cultural historians. This has nothing to do with monetary value at all. Simply that if only collectors editions and high end literature are preserved and collected, future generations may come to have a very distorted view of a culture, as has probably already happened with the past. Although by definition we cannot be certain, because much of the evidence may have already been lost. Maybe the digital age will make a difference, but this still robs us of the reality of the printed object, book pamphlet etc as a tangible cultural artefact we can hold in our (gloved) hand. michael adams * any excuse to use my favourite word of the moment. ... All true. Yet there is a distinction between utterly destroying something vs. modifying it in a way that is aesthetically distasteful to some collectors. The original objections to the OP were about painting over inscriptions, pasting in pictures, etc. The only value being lost to society in those cases is the incremental value between the crummy but unadulterated copy and the adulterated copy, which in cultural terms I'd have to feel is pretty minor. I agree entirely about giving thought before discarding something. - Todd T. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:16:16 -0700, "Bad Weather"
wrote: Which you therefore go to the trouble of quoting in full. Entire diatribe posted again below for posterity: SNIPPED Ah, I see that the Adams creature is still lurking about as fatuous and obnoxious as ever. Does he still make owl noises? He really ought to take up residence with Palmjob in Room 314, they're two of a kind: verbose wastes of human energy. Thanks for posting the whole reply, I put Adams in the Barkerfile long ago, but I suspect that he can't resist responding to one of my posts even though (as usual) he has nothing relevant to say. Cheers, John |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Todd T" wrote in message ... "michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message ... "michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message news "Mark Healey" wrote in message t... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill Palmer) wrote: Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is) are immediately removed with white-out. In some cases, I later cover the white-out area with appropriate pitures or graphics removed from damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the same vintage. I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some other type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine sand-papar. I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books and it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing dammage. -- Mark Heaely marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century volumes for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just so. Do what you like. A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future. As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material from the past to collect at all. Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other things is what the word "Culture" actually implies. And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term "trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a different perspective than we do. michael adams You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it across the board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise crummy copies of common or even less common books will lose all their utility, such as it is, through things like pasting in pictures. It's certainly true that future folks might see things differently, but we can't account for that by saving everything in exactly the shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking about books that already are recognized as items of great value, then different standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them, I can't get too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost jewel. But as an overarching philosophy, yours is a good one. - Todd T. Obviously nobody's advocating saving every scrap of paper, but the fact remains that, as with the past, the things which will become rarest* in the future are the things people most easily throw away today. So that there's probably more chance of all million copies of a pulp paperback ending up in the dumpster* than there is of one copy of a limited collectors edition. Both because of the "value" placed on them at the time, and because the latter will be made of more enduring materials. *Rarest in terms of their availability to future cultural historians. This has nothing to do with monetary value at all. Simply that if only collectors editions and high end literature are preserved and collected, future generations may come to have a very distorted view of a culture, as has probably already happened with the past. Although by definition we cannot be certain, because much of the evidence may have already been lost. Maybe the digital age will make a difference, but this still robs us of the reality of the printed object, book pamphlet etc as a tangible cultural artefact we can hold in our (gloved) hand. michael adams * any excuse to use my favourite word of the moment. ... All true. Yet there is a distinction between utterly destroying something vs. modifying it in a way that is aesthetically distasteful to some collectors. The original objections to the OP were about painting over inscriptions, pasting in pictures, etc. The only value being lost to society in those cases is the incremental value between the crummy but unadulterated copy and the adulterated copy, which in cultural terms I'd have to feel is pretty minor. I agree entirely about giving thought before discarding something. - Todd T. That inscription may have historical importance, either now or in the future. Did the OP research the names he obliterated? How could he know who the next Pulitzer Prize winner, President or Nobel Prize winner is going to be? Rich |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Scrooge" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message ... "michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message ... "michael adams" wrote in message ... "Todd T" wrote in message news "Mark Healey" wrote in message t... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:00 UTC, (Bill Palmer) wrote: Inscriptions (by anyone except the author, that is) are immediately removed with white-out. In some cases, I later cover the white-out area with appropriate pitures or graphics removed from damaged but profusely-illustrated books of the same vintage. I'd lay off the white-out. they didn't use a felt tip or some other type of low viscosity ink you might have better luck with fine sand-papar. I wouldn't worry about what the dealers say. They're your books and it seems you are just trying to compensate for pre-existing dammage. -- Mark Heaely marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com I agree with Mark. In every collecting field, there are some who are bothered by any practice that they would not themselves do, but they're your books, and they're not one-of-a-kind 16th century volumes for which you owe society some responsibility to keep them just so. Do what you like. A primary responsibility of anyone who wishes to call themselves a collector is to preserve as best they can material for the future. As most collectors realise that it's only due to similar efforts of like minded collectors in the past, that there's any material from the past to collect at all. Nobody owns this stuff. We're just lucky to have custody of it during our lifetimes ready to hand down to future generations for them to enjoy in their turn as well. That among other things is what the word "Culture" actually implies. And what's more, even the lowliest ephememera and what we might term "trash" can a have a place in this scheme of things. And are equally valid as historical artefacts. As its quite possible that future generations may see our present day culture from a qiote a different perspective than we do. michael adams You make an interesting point, but I'm not quite sold on it across the board. It expect it's fairly unlikely that otherwise crummy copies of common or even less common books will lose all their utility, such as it is, through things like pasting in pictures. It's certainly true that future folks might see things differently, but we can't account for that by saving everything in exactly the shape we find it. Now, again, if we're talking about books that already are recognized as items of great value, then different standards of conduct apply. But if somebody wanted to pay $1 for a 1991 World Almanac so he could tear out pages and smoke them, I can't get too upset. It's just not likely to become a lost jewel. But as an overarching philosophy, yours is a good one. - Todd T. Obviously nobody's advocating saving every scrap of paper, but the fact remains that, as with the past, the things which will become rarest* in the future are the things people most easily throw away today. So that there's probably more chance of all million copies of a pulp paperback ending up in the dumpster* than there is of one copy of a limited collectors edition. Both because of the "value" placed on them at the time, and because the latter will be made of more enduring materials. *Rarest in terms of their availability to future cultural historians. This has nothing to do with monetary value at all. Simply that if only collectors editions and high end literature are preserved and collected, future generations may come to have a very distorted view of a culture, as has probably already happened with the past. Although by definition we cannot be certain, because much of the evidence may have already been lost. Maybe the digital age will make a difference, but this still robs us of the reality of the printed object, book pamphlet etc as a tangible cultural artefact we can hold in our (gloved) hand. michael adams * any excuse to use my favourite word of the moment. ... All true. Yet there is a distinction between utterly destroying something vs. modifying it in a way that is aesthetically distasteful to some collectors. The original objections to the OP were about painting over inscriptions, pasting in pictures, etc. The only value being lost to society in those cases is the incremental value between the crummy but unadulterated copy and the adulterated copy, which in cultural terms I'd have to feel is pretty minor. I agree entirely about giving thought before discarding something. - Todd T. That inscription may have historical importance, either now or in the future. Did the OP research the names he obliterated? How could he know who the next Pulitzer Prize winner, President or Nobel Prize winner is going to be? Rich A good point. - TT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making of America Books - on-line books | Mark Sornson | Books | 2 | May 24th 04 04:24 PM |
rec.collecting.books FAQ | Hardy-Boys.net | Books | 0 | May 9th 04 08:39 PM |
[FAQ] rec.collecting.books FAQ | Mike Berro | Books | 0 | December 26th 03 08:18 PM |
Book signing information | Ted Kupczyk | Autographs | 6 | November 2nd 03 02:04 PM |
UPCOMING BOOK SIGNINGS | Todd F. | Autographs | 5 | August 4th 03 06:54 AM |