[PADG:1031] Re: Paperback Preferred Question (fwd)

[Sue Davis <sue.davis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me add my institution's practice to this bandwagon.  We chose 
the paperback-preferred model many years ago, primarily for cost 
savings.  At that time we were commercially binding all upon 
receipt.  Now we follow a similar policy Andrew describes below by 
sorting paperbacks upon receipt.  Some do get sent for immediate 
binding (I think we're running about 40-50%), but that includes 
gift items that are older and more worn.  It seems the best 
compromise between saving money at the purchase end and saving 
money in the binding budgets.  And, yes, there is additional 
preservation staff time involved, but it was the one place we could 
make preservation judgments.  We've also noticed that our users 
prefer attractive books, so when we try to save as many covers as 
possible, either copied as outside covers or bound inside to save 
the extra info.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Monday, June 05, 2006 4:22 PM -0400
From: Andrew Hart <ashart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: padg@xxxxxxx
Subject: [PADG:1029] Re: Paperback Preferred Question

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


---------- End Forwarded Message ----------



---------------------------------------
Sue Davis
Vanderbilt University Library
419 21st. Ave. South
Nashville, TN  37240
Email: sue.davis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 615-322-2464