Grading the condition of vintage paperbacks and pulps
DC
Bill
> "One man's trash is another man's treasure"
>
> http://atu.ca/TrashTreasure
The posting about grading the condition of vintage paperbacks
reminds me of the inherent dishonesty of grading a book
"good" without explaining WHY it is not "very good" or
"like new". A paperback could be in near-fine
condition, EXCEPT for a scratch across the cover,
and could arguably be correctly rated as "good" --
yet that scratch across the cover would ruin the book
for many paperback collectors, who often greatly
appreciate the cover art.
Mr. or Ms. Book Lister: You want to sell me a book
you have graded "good"? Well, by Jiminey Cricket you
had better tell me in your listing WHY it is not "very
good" or "like new"....
[Memo from the upstairs]
Kenneth Zinger
to dust.
"Bill" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9d4981bd-6314-409e...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Francis A. Miniter
> paperbacks and pulps are not worth collecting as they will eventually turn
> to dust.
>
>
So will Michaelangelo's David. Better yet, da Vinci's
frescoes. And every automobile ever made will turn to rust.
Or if you want a modern example in the book world, the
first edition of Joyce's Ulysses was printed in paper. So
why is Bauman's Rare Books asking $60,000 for an unsigned
copy (one of the 750)? Collectibility is more complex than
a simple determination of the medium in which the objet
d'art was rendered.
Francis A. Miniter
Chuck C.
> paperbacks and pulps are not worth collecting as they will eventually turn
> to dust.
>
Yeah, well, so will you. So what?
Cheers,
CC
Joe Pfeiffer
> paperbacks and pulps are not worth collecting as they will eventually turn
> to dust.
"In the long run, we're all dead."
-J. M. Keynes