Slipcases. Thoughts from a collector.

There is, on another forum, an often testy discussion on slipcases, more precisely, how to protect them from damage, which idea is to me illogical.

Some, however, are excessively concerned that damage to a slipcase will REDUCE THE VALUE of the book within and therefore wish to protect the protective enclosure (slipcase in this case) and prevent it from even being scratched. Someone even suggested making a "slipcase for a slipcase," or more precisely, a book shoe to contain the book with its associated slipcase. Seems a bit of overkill, no?

To my mind, the BOOK is the item to be protected and the enclosure, regardless of type, is expected to take damage and abuse in its stead, and if/when it "dies," repair or replace said enclosure.

I hadn't realized just how over-protective book people can be.

Let's not get into the obsession over dustjackets that has developed over the decades, as they, too, were originally invented to simply protect the book until purchased, but became a lot more with time and inventiveness. I would rather hope that slipcases do not journey down that particular road. Yes, I know...such things do exist, but they tend to appear on press books that make a show of elaborate enclosures as a lure to the collector.

God help us!

I'm with you.

I don't want my slipcases to have obviously dented corners, or giant crayon scribbles, or to be falling apart at the seams. But sun fading, scuff marks from sliding back and forth against other slipcases when I pull it off my shelf? That's the point of the slipcase.

I confess to putting mylar covers on my dust jackets, though.

Depends on the slipcase probably. If it is integrated uniquely into the books, like an art piece on it's own, like fx FS do with some books (not fine - fine press, i know, bad example probably).

If the case is simple and just that, it is so much nicer to do some handywork and make something personal for a beloved book. I would very much enjoy to have bought a secondhand with such as a part. Affection is also a value, oftentimes more so than plan cash.

>1 Glacierman: I find that being gentle with my slipcases (or solanders / clamshells for that matter), and just generally keeping all books out of the sun with appropriate humidity and minimal dust is ample protection.

If you need to place a cover over your slipcases to prevent them from getting damaged, I'd worry about the overall environment the books are being stored in.

>1 Glacierman: Is anyone worried about worn or damaged slipcases worried it’ll reduce the value of the book within? Slipcased books come as a package, so damage to the slipcase affects the overall value of the package - I think that’s what some are worried about.

It’s the same for dust jackets - it’s part of an overall package, and a book with a damaged or missing dustjacket is simply not viewed as an intact or complete book.

Bumpers on cars are by definition there to protect the more fragile parts of cars - does it also seem weird that car owners take their time in drive throughs and while parking so they don’t scratch or dent their bumpers?

>5 What_What: "Is anyone worried about worn or damaged slipcases worried it’ll reduce the value of the book within? Slipcased books come as a package, so damage to the slipcase affects the overall value of the package - I think that’s what some are worried about."

Well, yes, of course. Some, however, take that to the extreme. And some collectors don't care if the slipcase is a mess as long as the book inside it is fine.

Me? Of course, I like to get as nice a copy as I can afford which includes the slipcase, but once I have it, I don't obsess over minor wear and tear from normal use. Now, dropping it on a corner would tick me off no end, but if the book escapes unscathed, then I would be mollified. But since I don't buy my books with an eye to re-sale at some time down the road, in the long run it doesn't matter to me. I even have books that originally came with a slipcase but which no longer have them. Minor bummer. The book's the thing.

>4 NathanOv:

Agreed: slipcases aren't especially fragile items, and, without my having taken any very special care of them, those I've had for 20+ years look hardly distinguishable from new. The exceptions are some whose lining has been slightly marked by the boards of the book, not a defect that concerns me. While a book is out for reading the slipcase stays on the shelf, marking the place and helping keep surrounding volumes vertical, so accidental damage is extremely unlikely here.

For sure I'd pay more for a book in a pristine slipcase than in a ratty one, since the latter presents a choice between buying or making a new slipcase, patching the existing one up more or less attentively, living with the rattiness or doing without a slipcase at all. Either the library environment suffers or there's money and/or time to spend to put it right.

>1 Glacierman: Reduce the value... hmm. Wonder why that matters? LOL

Pretty obvious the book community is flooded with speculators instead of actual collectors.

>1 Glacierman:
I shelve and try to protect sturdy slipcases that are attractively decorative or pictorial. Others, like most of the flimsy cardboard ones from FS, go in the trash bin. A tight-fitting slipcase will damage a book over time.

>8 Undergroundman: Are you saying you don’t care the least about the condition of your books? Value isn’t just monetary - there’s also the personal value that any collector’s item holds by definition. No need to go around making assumptions.

I for one trade or sell a fair amount of books (typically at purchase cost or below), because I like to sample a lot and keep what I enjoy. I can consider any normal devaluation to be the cost of getting to see the books for myself, but obviously don’t want them damaged and further devalued.

People can care about value, monetary or otherwise, without being “speculators.”

>10 NathanOv: I do care about condition, but I don't go to extremes to baby a slipcase. The only book I do baby is the coffin, because of how easy it is to be destroyed by dropping it, and being almost impossible to repair at that point.

If you are a collector who cares mostly about the condition of the book rather than the enclosure, one advantage of slipcases/enclosures is that you can often purchase pristine books with damaged slipcases for very substantial discounts.

For example, I purchased the Arion Press Don Quixote - book pristine and never read - with a soiled slipcase at a substantial discount. I was able to clean the slipcase and restore it to near normal condition.

I'm not overly concerned about the slipcase, I can always have one made if it's a priority. Though I do tend to keep mine in nice condition, that's mostly because I tend to keep everything in nice condition. I do like the ornate slipcases to be in good condition when possible, since they are more integral to the book.

I think some of this pristine slipcase thinking is similar to what you see in collectors of "action figures". They preserve the card and plastic bubble around the figure as intently as the figure itself, even though (like slipcases) those started out as merely a way to protect the usable item within. But as I actually read the books I buy, I've escaped this particular mind trap.

What I find more interesting than the discussion on slipcases themselves is how much scrutiny some folks want to give to how other people collect things. There is a lot of disdain in the original post for collectors that want to keep the entire package (book, dust jacket, slipcase) in as perfect condition as possible. How does that impact anyone else?

I like all my books, including their dust jackets and slipcases, to stay in as-purchased condition. I'll ask publishers for replacements if I buy a new book and any part of it arrives damaged. I generally won't buy something on the secondary market if there's obvious damage to the dust jacket and/or slipcase. But that's my prerogative. The only possible way it could affect anyone else is if they're trying to sell me a book and they've been chaos dunking their slipcase around their home, because that's going to preclude me from buying that book.

>9 jroger1:
I have seen so many abrasions on various book bindings from slipcases that I tend to avoid taking a book in and out of its slipcase without a need. :) Fully agree with you about tight-fitting enclosures.
Plus, slipcases tend to take a lot of extra room on a shelf if there are several of them there.

The obvious advantages are that slipcases do protect the books while shipping and reduce dust accumulations on top of the page block when storing. They are also, as terebinth pointed out, good for keeping surrounding volumes well aligned while their "protected" books are being read.
This said, if books are read, their conditions always fully depend on how careful their owners are with books. I have seen pristine clamshell boxes with valuable books inside that were in almost disguising conditions, because their owners mistreated the books or read carelessly while the clamshell boxes safely waited for their books on their shelves.

Therefore, here is my conclusion: if books are never read and never taken out of slipcases, slipcases are good, as little open ended coffins, in protecting books bodies in them from dust and abrasions.
As soon as books go to owners that will read them, all will depend on how owners treat the books, and slipcases in such cases are useless for protection and are prone to cause abrasions to bindings if books are taken in and out often.

>14 donaldmcobb: "There is a lot of disdain in the original post for collectors that want to keep the entire package (book, dust jacket, slipcase) in as perfect condition as possible. How does that impact anyone else?"

It doesn't. You are free to indulge in your preference for pristine copies in all respects regardless of how I feel about it. I'm not quite that picky, so I don't necessarily understand how you feel about it and I may think it's a bit wonky, but, so what?

I know several folks who think I'm nuts for collecting books at all. Doesn't bother me one bit. That's their opinion. Mine is different and I go by what I think.

>16 Glacierman: Sometimes I think I'm nuts for collecting books.

>17 SDB2012: I've had similar thoughts from time to time...especially when I consider the number of books in storage because I've run out of room....

>17 SDB2012: I think it is a bit strange myself. I know for a fact most of my family doesn't want the books, and they probably won't be passed down. Are some of are books even "books"? They seem like artifacts of pop culture.

I'm still trying to work out to whom to leave anything, and how - certainly not family members. The three or four thousand books and a multitude of other objects are here because I'm alive for a while and can't think of anything better to live with.

>20 terebinth:
I’ve decided not to worry about it or about the tax that might be due on any particular lucky sale. My heirs’ estate lawyer will have to sort it out.

>18 Glacierman: Having to put books in storage is where I've ostensibly drawn the line for myself. We'll see if that holds in the long run...

>22 donaldmcobb: From a purely logical viewpoint, it doesn't make much sense to keep books in storage. You can't readily access them, so why do you have them? I know this, yet...I have books in storage. *sigh*

Needing to store books is the redline for me as well. If I can't put them on the shelves, then I force myself to institute a cull. During my recent move I probably shifted 20 boxes of books into donations. It's the only way I've found to rein in my acquisitive streak otherwise, even though it means I've donated some real pips. My fine press collection, and anything else I can't readily replace, would be the last to go, so I've held on to those still.

>23 Glacierman: >24 Shadekeep: Guys... Guys.. Obvious solution... More shelves!

>1 Glacierman: book collectors a few hundred years ago might be perplexed by our preoccupation with bindings as integral to books. Why worry about damaging the binding when one can just get it rebound? Surely the binding is just there to protect the text? (I could imagine such a collector saying.)

One can even see this preference persist into the early fine press movement, with the predilection for plain bindings ("holland boards") like this example from The Cuala Press:



(Image lifted from an arbitrary abebooks listing, just as an example; I have no particular regard for this work or for this press.)

In the past few publishing generations, this style seems to have congealed into the default, perhaps overly restrained, upscale styling of a private press output to distinguish offerings from trade press output. Just look at the plethora of fine press books with something very close to quarter-cloth bindings, pattern-printed paper over boards, with printed title labels. Originally, however, I think this practice was intended to be closer to generic packaging, such as butcher paper or plain boxes with labels.

Honestly, I suspect the "as issued" mania that grips so many collectors, myself included sometimes, is probably largely a creation of modern consumer culture. (Which is, to clarify, distinct from commerce itself; I'm not making an anti-market point.)

It is interesting to see how the definition of the product as artistic or expressive object has expanded, from printed matter, to bound printed matter, to bound printed matter with various kinds of protective (possibly decorated) enclosures (including dust jackets and slipcases), where sometimes the protective enclosure also is protected (such as mylar over dust jackets), leading to several nested "layers" of book armoring.

I have seen some collectors care about the original shipping box that a slipcased and dust jacketed book came in (Suntup shipping boxes, for example, which, though they are made from standard brown corrugated boards, are moderately distinctive and have custom foam inserts).

>25 grifgon: You're talking to a guy who, as a teen, hoarded his Waldenbooks paper bags. I've had to take a firm hand on my collecting since then, lest I end up pharaonically entombed in my tomes. (Though I am thinking of buying one more shelf, which is a tacit admission of defeat.)

>26 abysswalker: book collectors a few hundred years ago might be perplexed by our preoccupation with bindings as integral to books. Why worry about damaging the binding when one can just get it rebound?

Two main factors come to mind. One is that binding books individually is far more of a niche activity these days - prices are correspondingly high, and only a small minority of books are of monetary value higher than what would be the cost of even a basic commercial rebind. The other is, yes, the development of the whole book as designed object - pre-20th century individual bindings might have decorative features, but it was relatively rare for such features to reflect the content of the book rather than the taste and wishes of its owner.

I confess a liking for such bindings as the Cuala Press example - I've mainly come across them from the Medici Society. Their books had quite plain dust jackets too, and I've been happy to acquire them with or without jackets, but either way I prefer them to be clean and undamaged, just from a preference for not walking past soiled and ragged shelves. "Just getting them rebound" would have multiplied several fold the cost of assembling my library.

>26 abysswalker:, >28 terebinth: And let us not forget that waaaaaay back there, books were issued in unbound sheets as it was expected that the buyer would have them bound to his tastes. This concept lingered longest in France, where the folded signatures were issued in a cheap paper wrapper so the purchaser could have them bound as desired.

Tastes and practices change---not always for the best, however---that is what is occurring. There was a time not all that long ago, when dustjackets were plain and intended to be discarded after purchasing the book.

But there has to be a logical limit before it all descends into absurdity.

>29 Glacierman: Hell I occasionally see modern fine presses offering extra sets of unbound sheets as-is for folks to have bound to their tastes.

>27 Shadekeep: pharaonically entombed! A fine phrase to describe what is happening to many of us.
>25 grifgon: I tried that with my significant other, but for some odd reason she didn't agree with my reasoning.

I've given away hundreds of books this year and need to find a way to do more. There's a cool charity here that sells donated books and uses the profits to teach English to those in need, mainly immigrants I think. Of course, the fine press books all need to stay with me until I move on to the great library in the sky.

But- on topic for the thread. With used books, I don't care so much about the slipcase condition. With new publications, I intend to keep the slipcase pristine.

>29 Glacierman: But there has to be a logical limit before it all descends into absurdity.

I'm guessing we're just about there, and further developments are unlikely. I've not seen a Suntup book or the boxes they're shipped in, but interest in the latter will surely remain a marginal fetish among book buyers.

I would have bought my Medici Society edition of Stephen MacKenna's Plotinus translation with only a little less joy if it had lacked dustjackets: but it pleases me that the jackets, though intended to be thrown away (or cut up - there are order forms on the front flap and the rear cover) have been preserved, and even that they themselves have been given protective covers. The jackets have protected the books and will continue to do so - evidently they haven't had much to protect the books from in their first century - and the covers protect the jackets, all without significant demand on space: and though "plain" the letterpress-printed jackets with decorative initials afford me a certain pleasure in themselves.



But, shipping boxes - no, as far as I'm concerned; though at one end of the attic I've a stack of the boxes various outsized Folio Society limited editions arrived in, which were useful when we moved house for the last time and may be useful again when the books next need to be sent or transported. I suppose the odd engagingly crafted smaller box might conceivably be suffered to join them there.

>30 donaldmcobb: Oh, sure, but it is no longer the general practice in the trade and hasn't been for quite a while. The reason that they do offer unbound sheets is because craft binders like to take a lovely fine press book and re-bind it, going whole hog on it. This way, they don't have to take it apart first. Saves time.

>33 Glacierman: I offer books in sheets for most of my editions. Many of them are purchased by bookbinders to go "whole hog" with but I do have a couple customers who have them bound to their taste. I'd love to see those personal libraries.

I have some books that, despite being almost a century old, look like they came from the publisher yesterday. I feel an immense sense of gratitude to the anonymous purchaser(s) who protected (or simply ignored) the books over this period so that I can have the anochronistic pleasure of enjoying their unblemished form today. I like to think that if I take good care of my books and their slipcases then an anonymous and as yet unborn collector will have a similar appreciation 100 years hence. I wouldn't go as far as making a slipcase for the slipcase though. Just being gentle with them seems to suffice.

Regarding slipcases, I'm generally inclined to discard them unless they include features that bind them aesthetically to the book. I guess my basic thought is that I purchase fine books to display and to read. As long as I keep them away from excessive moisture or sunlight, they're not going to suffer damage that impedes either of these functions. Since I read them, I don't expect to keep them in perfect as-purchased condition. And since I display them, I dislike cases such as solanders or clamshells that hide the spine of the book.

>36 Eumnestes: “Since I read them, I don't expect to keep them in perfect as-purchased condition.”

Good for you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who purchased books for myself, not my posterity or someone I don’t even know. You would find notes and highlighting in many of my standard editions, although I try to keep limited editions as clean as possible. I figure I paid for the books with my own money, and I’m entitled to enjoy them to the fullest extent.

>37 jroger1: Not just you! The entire appeal of fine press and other higher-end books to me is that the materials and (hopefully) attention to typesetting make them more of a pleasure to read.

>35 ubiquitousuk:

A lovely attitude.

>35 ubiquitousuk:, >39 SF-72:

Full agreement from me. For sure, the purchaser of any book is fully entitled to use it in any way he pleases, but I'd generally be vexed to find my own previous annotations in a book I was reading, just as I'm usually displeased to find anyone else's (there have been a few charming or otherwise rewarding exceptions to that). So, no book here gets annotated, and I've not seen a highlighter since the last day I spent working in an office. That policy, and preserving books in pretty much the condition in which I acquire them, are primarily to please myself, but the hope that others may benefit after my time is done is certainly a further reward.

>37 jroger1: Notes and highlighting! That's a bridge too far for me, but I admire your courage. The most I will do with my fine books is to place a very faint pencil dot in the margins of passages I want to remember or come back to.

I actually have used a solander box for a slipcased book. The book is the LEC edition of The Call of the Wild with both the book and slipcase bound in a wool plaid that is very susceptible to moths. After a long search, I finally found an undamaged copy which I promptly entombed.