Glassine wrappers

[John Yamamoto-Wilson]

Would this be considered a dust jacket? Would it have been issued
with the book or maybe added by a bookseller?

It's always worth comparing what you've got with other catalogue
descriptions. In this case - taking a bit of a leap in the dark, since you
don't mention the title - the following extract from a description by an ABE
seller (http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch) may be relevant:

______________________________
Jesus of the Emerald
[snip] Bound in decorated paper vellum boards, with the glassine
wrapper still present. [snip]
______________________________

Cause for rejoicing - your copy also has the glassine wrapper! But another
seller has the following description:

______________________________
Some offsetting to the covers from the glassine dustjacket, still a
clean near fine copy in a near fine example of the original glassine
dustjacket (just very slight edge wear with no chipping). Publisher's box is
also present with book plate present on front cover
______________________________

So it looks like you get a plus for having the glassine wrapper, but you
lose points for not having the publisher's box!

A note on the pricing of this item on ABE. The most expensive copy ($1200)
appears to have neither the glassine jacket nor the publisher's box. The
copy with the glassine jacket is only $695. The copy with both the glassine
jacket and the publisher's box is even cheaper ($575). There is also a
second copy with just the glassine jacket at $549.40. There are all sorts of
things that *could* be going on here, but one scenario that occurs fairly
frequently is:

(1) There are no listings for a given item.
(2) One seller takes the plunge and enters a listing.
(3) Another seller notes the listing and undercuts it.
(4) Half a dozen sellers follow suit, each vying to undercut the others.
(5) Before you know it the first price listed looks exorbitant.

Sellers can upload their listings again, so clicking on "Newest" isn't
always a good option for finding out which listing was put up first, but
it's a good illustration that ABE listings (like any other catalogue) are
prices *asked*, which may have nothing (or very little to do) with the price
that people are prepared to *pay*.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

[Scot Kamins]

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
So it looks like you get a plus for having the glassine wrapper, but you
lose points for not having the publisher's box!

John,
Is it possible that this book was originally issued with a slipcase and
the publisher later issued it with a glassine instead of the slipcase
(or vice-versa)? I know this was the case with certain Modern Library
illustrated editions. The original book+covering could have picked up
the additional covering over time by some dealer/collector who thought
that the book should have had both.

Scot

Scot Kamins
--
Collecting the Modern Library 1917-1970
Modern Library Collecting Website at:
http://www.dogeared.com

[MindElec]

I have a copy of a book by Gene Stratton-Porter that I bought because
of the gorgeous art nouveau decoration on the binding. However, it
also had a glassine wrapper, like a dust jacket. The glassine wrapper
detracts from the colors of the binding but I can't like the idea of
taking it off.

If the wrapper is detachable, there's no harm done to the book in taking
it off and keeping it safe somewhere, to be restored if you ever want to
sell the book. You (or a friendly bookseller) could cover the binding with
something transparent like Brodart for protection in the meantime.
(Strictly IIRC a "wrapper" is not detachable while a "jacket" is,
though the terms are often used interchangeably. But -- having just
written that, I see Glaister's Glossary of the Book is not quite clearcut
on the matter. Anyone know the gospel on this?)

a "wrapper" is detachables, perhaps what you are thinking of is "in
wraps". i hear the term "wrapper" used for dj more from british
dealers than anywhere else.


robert

"I've been long, a long way from here
Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos,
And drank til I was thirsty again
We went searching through thrift store jungles
Found Geronimo's rifle, Marilyn's shampoo
And Benny Goodman's corset and pen"

[b***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

(Strictly IIRC a "wrapper" is not detachable while a "jacket" is,
though the terms are often used interchangeably. But -- having just
written that, I see Glaister's Glossary of the Book is not quite

clearcut >on the matter. Anyone know the gospel on this?)
a "wrapper" is detachables, perhaps what you are thinking of is "in
wraps". i hear the term "wrapper" used for dj more from british
dealers than anywhere else.

Sure it's used that way -- the point I was making is that the usage may be
incorrect. For example, Glaister defines "wrapper" as "a paper cover
*attached* to a book or pamphlet *as an integral part of it*" (my
emphasis). Etherington & Roberts
(http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/don/dt/dt3820.html -- an excellent
bookbinding terminology resource BTW) defines "wrappers" in the modern
sense as "the paper cover of a book, such as the modern paperback".

I'm not trying to be a pedantic protector of language here -- I think we
all know what "dustwrapper" indicates! -- I merely thought it was an
interesting differentiation, and I wonder when the usage changed.

Barnaby

[michael adams]

"michael adams" wrote...

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson

Post by b***@cix.compulink.co.uk

(Strictly IIRC a "wrapper" is not detachable while a "jacket" is,
though the terms are often used interchangeably. But -- having just
written that, I see Glaister's Glossary of the Book is not quite

clearcut >on the matter. Anyone know the gospel on this?)
a "wrapper" is detachables, perhaps what you are thinking of is "in
wraps". i hear the term "wrapper" used for dj more from british
dealers than anywhere else.

Sure it's used that way -- the point I was making is that the usage

may be

Post by b***@cix.compulink.co.uk
incorrect. For example, Glaister defines "wrapper" as "a paper cover
*attached* to a book or pamphlet *as an integral part of it*" (my
emphasis). Etherington & Roberts
(http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/don/dt/dt3820.html -- an excellent
bookbinding terminology resource BTW) defines "wrappers" in the modern
sense as "the paper cover of a book, such as the modern paperback"....

The ABC for Book Collectors
John Carter 1978
Wrappers
Paper covers, plain, marbled or printed. A wrappered
book in antiquarian parlance, is what would normally be
called a paper-back, and it has nothing to do with
dust wrappers or dust jackets.
:end quote
So there are wrappers which have always been a class by themselves.
And dust wrappers which have always been the equivalent to dust jackets.
According to Carter at least.
And neither of which presumablty, have anything to do with
the glassine wrappers which are the ostensible subject of
this thread.

Eh?

I read the title of this thread as Re:Glassine wrappers

What do you read it as then?




michael adams

...

[Jon Meyers]

"michael adams" wrote...

"Jon Meyers" wrote...

"michael adams" wrote...

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
The ABC for Book Collectors
John Carter 1978
Wrappers
Paper covers, plain, marbled or printed. A wrappered
book in antiquarian parlance, is what would normally be
called a paper-back, and it has nothing to do with
dust wrappers or dust jackets.
:end quote
So there are wrappers which have always been a class by themselves.
And dust wrappers which have always been the equivalent to dust jackets.
According to Carter at least.
And neither of which presumablty, have anything to do with
the glassine wrappers which are the ostensible subject of
this thread.

Eh?

I read the title of this thread as Re:Glassine wrappers
What do you read it as then?

Same as you, but I don't understand why you say that Carter's
classifications don't apply.

You noted Carter's distinction between "wrappers" ("which have always been a
class by themselves") and "dustwrappers" ("which have always been the
equivalent to dust jackets"), and then wrote that "neither...presumably,
have anything to do with the glassine wrappers which are the ostensible
subject of this thread." But in the body of the original post, Kestel's
"glassine wrapper" is described as "like a dust jacket"--i.e. a dustwrapper.


--
Jon Meyers
[To reply,
lose your way.]