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

Subject: Deferred binding of paperbacks

Deferred binding of paperbacks

From: Sara R. Williams <williams_s>
Date: Monday, November 8, 1993
I almost hate to say this, but right now I have what can only be called
a very generous binding budget.  The present binding policy at CU
Libraries commits us to binding everything: periodicals, new paperbacks,
and deteriorated stacks materials, in approximately that order.  So, why
am I writing to the DistList?

Due to attrition and a campus-wide freeze on hiring, I am down to two
staff members in the binding unit.  They're doing their best, but two
people cannot do the work of four.  As I look through our
rapidly-expanding backlog, I am finding more and more new paperbacks
that I can't really justify for binding -- things that are printed on
decent paper, sewn through the fold, and covered with a sturdy cover
stock.  Also, traditionally, new paperbacks (which have never
circulated) have been given priority for binding over deteriorated books
from the general collections which have come apart due to heavy
circulation; frankly, this order of preference disturbs me.  (Our repair
facilities, by the way, are very, very minimal.)

I would like to start deferring the binding of well-made paperbacks
until they show signs of wear from use.  This is going to be contrary to
long-time practice in this institution, so I am looking for some
supporting evidence that this is a reasonable thing to do.  I strongly
doubt that most libraries bind every paperback received; what kind of
criteria are used to decide what needs binding and what doesn't?  Any
advice, anecdotes, etc. will be greatly appreciated.

Sara Williams
CU-Boulder Libraries

                  Conservation DistList Instance 7:39
                 Distributed: Sunday, November 14, 1993
                        Message Id: cdl-7-39-010
Received on Monday, 8 November, 1993

[Search all CoOL documents]