[padg] RE: deferred binding of paperbacks

[<Valinda.Carroll@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

When I arrived here in late 2004, one of my first decisions was to stop
using Kapco or other similar products. It was fairly clear that the
high-circulation paperbacks would end up at the bindery, if needed. 

Our nursing and pharmacy programs force us to buy a lot of thick, floppy
paperbacks. Their faculty members wish to see these weeded often, based
upon superseded editions, obsolete technology, or obsolete medical
advice. I saw it as a monumental waste of materials and labor to
"reinforce" items with such short retention times.

We currently receive "shelf-ready" rebound paperbacks from Blackwell.
All volumes from Barnes and Nobles, Erasmus, other vendors, and gifts
are shelved as-is. We do make special exceptions to bind circulating art
and architecture paperbacks that are oddly shaped or oversized,
regardless of the vendor or gift status. 

Years ago, some well-meaning person applied Kapco to a flexible leather
Roycroft "An American Bible" in Peabody (special collections). That poor
book was one of the main reasons that I banned Kapco. We are using Mylar
jackets (applied without adhesive touching the book) or various types of
boxes for special collections, so there is never any reason to use
Kapco. I am the first preservation officer with any preservation
training or experience at my institution. I still have to deal with some
resistance to change (to rely on boxes, wrappers, etc. can be
counterintuitive.) 

We also have several circulating French literature books in flexible
leather covered in Kapco or Vistafilm. They are generally low use items,
so they probably could have been left alone. Only a few volumes might
warrant repair or recasing.

Typically, the entire cover pulls off of a paperback. This failure also
occurs in the presence of the reinforced covers. Ultimately, that is the
reason that Kapco is a waste of labor. It addresses neither the
cover-to-textblock attachment nor the leaf attachment within the
textblock. 

If you saw what we have here, then you would never ever want to waste
the labor applying Kapco. Rebinding based upon usage allows you to be
more selective. Circulation and ILL staff will intercept high-use
paperbacks that need to be rebound. I work rather closely with our
Assistant Director for Collection Development to determine what is
"worth" binding. I have only one FTE staff technician and about 0.5 FTE
student labor, so a larger department might not have the same labor
concerns.

Valinda Carroll
Preservation Manager
Harvey Library
Hampton University


-----Original Message-----
From: ademarinis@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:ademarinis@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 5:22 PM
To: padg@xxxxxxx
Subject: [padg] deferred binding of paperbacks


Can anyone report on recent results from the practice of sending new
paperbacks
directly to the stacks as-is -- wihout stiffening, kapco, or commercial
binding? Do they hold-up well? Do they create shelving problems?  I've
seen
some discussion on this in the archive a few years back.


-----------------------
Anthony De Marinis
Preservation Librarian
Washington University Libraries
Campus Box 1061
St. Louis, MO 63130

tele: 314-935-4287
fax: 314-935-6353
email: ademarinis@xxxxxxxxx

The information contained in this message is intended only for the recipient, and may otherwise be privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. This footnote also confirms that this email has been scanned for all viruses by the Hampton University Center for Information Technology Enterprise Systems service.