[PADG:1029] Re: Paperback Preferred Question

[Andrew Hart <ashart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For much the same reasons Shannon summed up, we have had a paperback 
preferred profile on our approval plans for about five(?) years now. We 
made this change around the same time we started deferring binding until 
evidence of demand for a lot of our circulating paperbacks. Neither 
change caused any serious problems that I know of and the amount of 
money saved is significant. However, while the internal costs are in the 
ballpark for what we expected, I think they are more than most people 
working in the library would guess. In this library, for example, 
there's a cost for the labor that goes into decision-making for what 
gets deferred and what gets bound. If we buy more of our books in 
softcover then we have to make more deferred binding decisions.  Even if 
this is done very efficiently, the time starts to add up.  In a library 
that stiffens all paperbacks, there's a cost for that treatment that 
might be obvious to people working in collections conservation but 
poorly understood for most everyone else.

Shannon's point about dust jackets is something I've also thought about 
some and I know it has come up in various PARS discussions.  I would 
guess that most research libraries discard dust jackets because we have 
generally thought the cost outweighs the benefits of keeping them -- but 
patrons do like them and they sometimes have information that is not 
repeated within the book. For both our in-house bindings (something akin 
to stiffening) and commercial bindings, we almost always bind in a 
paperback's cover.  There are pros and cons for binding a cover inside a 
book or using the services Shannon described to keep the cover on the 
outside but either way the paperback winds up retaining more of its 
original presentation than a hardcover with a dust jacket.

Andy

Andrew Hart
Preservation Librarian
CB#3910, Davis Library
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Tel. 919-962-8047
Fax 919-962-4450
ashart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



Shannon Zachary wrote:

> I have now recommended paperback preferred to a number of selectors.
>
> First, recent surveys have shown me that the great majority of books 
> published in the US/Canada, Western Europe, Israel, and Japan are now 
> on alkaline-processed paper. I have contacted several scholarly 
> publishers individually; all respond that the *only* difference 
> between the paper and the hardcover versions is the binding. The 
> difference in price, however, often far exceeds what I know is the 
> cost of the binding for the publisher--and exceeds our cost to have 
> the library binder rebind the paperback.
>
> Next, my observation has been that publishers' hardcover bindings have 
> been getting shoddier and shoddier over the past twenty years, what 
> with paper covering materials, burst-bind leaf attachment, and those 
> wretched stiff spine pieces. Meanwhile, paperback bindings have tended 
> to become sturdier and sturdier. It now makes sense to me to buy 
> paperback and bind if and when the paperback circulates. (Oversize, 
> thin, landscape, and spiral-bound paperbacks I prefer to bind 
> upfront--these structures tend to get destroyed just sitting on the 
> shelf.)
>
> I now have options to ask our library binder to bind paperbacks with 
> the original cover over boards or with the original cover hinged in. 
> Usually the same information that appears on the hardcover dust jacket 
> is printed on the paperback cover. I'm not allowed (in most instances) 
> to save the dust jackets, but I do have options for saving the 
> paperback covers. The libraries and patrons love it.
>
> Shannon Zachary, Head, Preservation and Conservation
> University Library
> The University of Michigan
> 837 Greene St. / 3202 Buhr Bldg.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1048
> Phone: 734/763-6980 Fax: 734/763-7886
> email: szachary@xxxxxxxxx