[padg] RE: deferred binding of paperbacks

["Kevin Driedger" <driedgerk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I straddle two library worlds: the library where I work - a state library with significant non-circulating genealogy, local history, and government document collections; and the libraries for which I do workshops - mostly public and school. 

At my work, when budget allows, we bind nearly everything that comes in with spiral, comb, or no binding - and we get a lot of that. Deferred binding on these is often difficult because when these start falling apart, they are a real mess. We don't get a lot of paperbacks, and we pre or re bind very few of these.

My experience with the public and school libraries is quite different. My observations are much like Shannon Zachary's in that paperback quality is improving and hardcover quality is deteriorating. Despite Ms. Carroll's understandable distaste for Kapco covers I have learned to accept them in this library setting. I have seen these kind of clear, self-adhesive protective covers help, and I have also seen them harm a book. The problems I've seen with these has primarily been with the covers that add a significant stiffness to the covers. These stiff covers can, but not always, cause the paper cover to be detached from the text block. Despite the apparent benefits of hardcover books, I think one of the strengths of paper-backs is their flexibility. And, based on what I've observed, a well-applied, strong, but flexible clear cover on high-use paperback books will make them much more durable. Obviously, this would be completely inappropriate for and special collection type material, but for replaceable, high-use books it provides an inexpensive durability (and high-use public/school library books are all about inexpensive durability). A library bound book is incredibly durable, but much too expensive and slow for most public library paperback needs.

Kevin Driedger

*************************************************
Kevin Driedger
Cataloger/Collections Conservator
Library of Michigan
702 W. Kalamazoo
P.O. Box 30007
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-9440
driedgerk@xxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> <Valinda.Carroll@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/16/09 9:46 AM >>>
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