Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: Paperbacks vs. hardbacks

Paperbacks vs. hardbacks

From: Susan Harris <sharris>
Date: Friday, January 8, 1993
A couple of years ago, I did a survey of the thirty-eight publishers who
(at that time) were listed in "Library Journal" as supporting the
movement for permanent paper, at least in first printings.  My question
was whether or not these folks also used permanent paper in paperback
copies.  I received 18 responses.  In brief, two said they did not,
eight said they always did and the other eight said they sometimes did.
Those who said that they "sometimes did" all indicated a desire to
switch entirely when costs and available supplies made that possible.
These were all American publishers.  What we have tried to do, armed
with this information, is to buy paperbacks (not exclusively, of course)
then selectively have them pre-bound by our library binder.  This means
that leaf attachment is no longer a concern.  It also adds on cost,
naturally, but is still much cheaper than buying the hard cover version.
It is possible that you could arrange to have your selected publisher
send books straight to your binder before they come to you.  You could
ask them about their policy with respect to the use of permanent paper
in paperbacks and/or test the books themselves with a pH pen.

Susan Harris
Dalhousie University

                  Conservation DistList Instance 6:36
                 Distributed: Monday, January 11, 1993
                        Message Id: cdl-6-36-004
Received on Friday, 8 January, 1993

[Search all CoOL documents]