Re: Library Binding specifications

["John F. Dean" <jfd5@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There has been some discussion on this issue in the literature over the
last several years.  See in particular "The Preservation of Serials,"
ADVANCES IN SERIALS MANAGEMENT Vol. 3, Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, 1989.  The
issue of flat versus round cannot be seriously discussed without looking at
other aspects of structure.  Books are generally rounded to help distribute
the swell caused by section folds and thread.  However, if a book is bound
using double-fan adhesive, what swelling is there to distribute?  Doesn't
rounding actually help to disrupt the bonding of the adhesive? With
adhesive binding, a flush structure (i.e. no squares, flat back) makes
sense, as the text block cannot sag to the shelf and the back generally
doesn't become concave as a result of standing on edge.  If there is no
square, why create shoulders by backing?  After all, the backing shoulders
are really designed to support the text block between the boards as it
hangs suspended on the squares. With a completely flush binding, the cover
material, generally buckram, should adhere directly to the back to provide
support for the adhesive leaf attachment.  The quarter flush binding has
been in use in many libraries for many years, and was even codified as
LUMSPECs by LBI (see "The Binding and Preparation of Periodicals:
Aternative Structures." SERIALS REVIEW 6, No. 3. 1980).  A number of
studies have demonstrated the success of this structure by observing actual
use rather than through artificial stress tests that may or may not
replicate use. The decreasing use of oversewing and increasing use of
adhesive binding makes quarter binding for periodicals the most sensible
way to go.  But no squares, no case structures. 


At 04:34 PM 6/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I would really like to be pointed to literature that discusses the
>rounded/backed vs flat-backed wide hinge binding styles.  I'd especially
>like to see any results of materials testing.
>
>I'd also like personal comments from people on this list.
>
>We're considering new binders, and one does primarily rounding/backing,
>while another does exclusively flat-back wide hinge unless you request r-b.
>I've heard the arguments from the binders themselves, so now I'd like
>information from those with less investment in the products.
>
>Thanks very much,
>
>Annie Armour
>aarmour@xxxxxxxxxxx
>University of the South
>Sewanee, Tennessee
>
>