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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ebay autograph policy | Gummby3 | Autographs | 0 | April 16th 04 01:29 AM |
Prince Charles Autograph | Larsus Natura aka \(One\) | Autographs | 14 | March 27th 04 06:05 PM |
FA: RARE Charles Dickens Old Curiosity Shop 1893 | Mark | General | 0 | January 21st 04 07:47 PM |
PR: Astronaut Autograph Club To Raise Funds For College Scholarships | Robert Pearlman | Autographs | 0 | November 14th 03 03:05 PM |
Reducing Autograph Collection | dani.steiner | Autographs | 0 | July 16th 03 02:29 PM |