Thanks Mr. Shevlin it was an English copy dated 1658, as you stated: the signatures invoked imagined stories of people with dates I can clearly remember, 1664 and 1689 but the names escape me.

My point was/is, I don't think plates or signatures are necessarily a detriment to a book's value - One of my copies of MODERN MAGIC has an inscription "To my brother, Robert. Merry Christmas "1889" - I love that

As an aside - weren't you looking for copies of KING OF THE CONJURERS? Alta Edition - I just found my copy Looks like it's dated 1859

I think I can rig up a camera and send you some pictures if you'd like

Dave

Dave: Yes, good point, which I undestood, ergo my comment about the ragged Dean. And yes, I'm looking for copies of all editions/issues of R-H's biography. The edition you have (ALTA) was issued at the earliest in the early 1880s. The 1859 date you refer to is probably the copyright date on the verso of the title page. It was printed from the plates used for earlier editionsand nobody bothered to add a real date on the title page. A picture or two would be fabulous! Many thanks in advance! I'll PM youmy e-mail address. Clay

Jim Moran, the PR man, used to pull gags on people at parties. One evening he was at a party, and one of the other guests was a collector of rare books. So he arranged to be introduced to the rare book collector as a Texas oilman who had taken up book collecting as an investment.

The collector asked him, "So, do you have any really old books?"

"Well, I had me one of them Gootenberg Bibles. But I threw it away."

"YOU THREW IT AWAY!!!! WHY ON EARTH DID YOU DO THAT?"

"Some moron named Martin Luther had written notes all over it."

When I purchase a second-hand book I like it to be in as new a condition as possible - and that means no bookplates or the prvious owner's name written in
ink. Why should I be reminded every time I open MY book that Joe Blow of Horsebreath, Wyoming used to own it?

There are two small but valuable booklets that address the topic of magic books, their worth, and the matter of bookplates: "How's Your Library" by James B. Findlay, and "Magic Bookman" compiled by Frances Marshall. Both were published by Magic, Inc. "How's Your Library" discusses bookplates at length, and includes an article on "Bookplates for Magicians" by John Mulholland, reprinted from the Sphinx magazine. The booklet also includes several pages of examples of magician's bookplates. The consensus seems to be that a tasteful bookplate, placed in a discreet part of the book, i.e. the endpaper where possible, does not detract from the book, and in some cases enhances the reader's appreciation for a book's "provenance."

By acquiring "previously enjoyed" books, I have found some that have bookplates noting ownership by names like Jack Chanin, Sid Lorraine, Dai Vernon (not a bookplate, but a distinctive signature/symbol), and J. Elder Blackledge. I have many more volumes with bookplates by obscure or amateur (in the best sense of the word) magicians that mean just as much to me when I can tell that they were read, studied, and yes - sometimes slightly worn.

At any rate, before buying any more magic books, do yourselves a favor and order the two booklets on books from Magic, Inc. Both contain solid information on the care and collecting of magic books. Who knows, you might even end up appreciating Joe Blow of Horsebreath who ultimately made it possible for you to own his book!

Victor, I loved reading those two pamphlets. Today, there is a more comprehensive book to read, authored by Leo Behnke: The Conservation of Magic. Not only is the care and preservation of books and bookplates covered, but also just about any other kind of magic memorabilia one could think of. I can't recommend it highly enough. I think copies can be ordered directly from Leo. A good guy and a very good book. Clay

I love seeing other people's names in my books. It is nice to know that somebody else once enjoyed the book, and hopefully somebody else will have the chance to treasure it when I am gone. So what if it devalues the book? Books are to be used and loved, not hoarded in the hope of making money.

But that's just my view, I'm sure a lot would disagree.

I don't mind bookplates, even if they are from Joe Blow of Horsebreath, Wyoming. Now if they were from John Doe of Bucksnort, Tennessee, I might be a bit perturbed. But those embossing seals are another matter.

I have to second and third Clay Shevlin's nomination of the Leo Behnke book. I purchased it at the last collector's weekend and it has already proved it value to me.

Clay

I've just read your article in Magicol regarding book plates etc. I believe the distinction becomes whether one is consciously "collecting" as opposed to having a "working library". Most of us have a Working Library and book plates et al are simply a matter of individual taste. Agree?

Julie:

Actually, that article was by David Meyer - my quarterly column is the one named "Librarium Magicum". Hope you liked it as I had great fun writing it and there is much more to come.

Now, David Meyer does not like the idea of 'defacing' a book. My opinions have been given above, so no need to rehash in this post. Regarding your comments and distinction, in my experience, I’ve seen no more (or fewer) bookplates in the books of collectors versus folks possessing working libraries. IMHO, for purposes of the question I raised, I see no distinction between those who have books by dint of ‘collecting’ versus those who have books for working libraries. But I do agree that bookplates involve matters of personal taste.

Let me throw something out that is sure to irk a few of you: I think that bookplates are largely used for vanity purposes and very seldom for functional reasons. The only practical reason I can think of for putting a bookplate in one’s book during one’s lifetime is for identification purposes if the book is loaned to a friend or is stolen. But if identification is the need, there are far less intrusive and far less expensive ways of identifying one’s book for that purpose. For example, one could put a pencil tick mark in the gutter of a certain page number (say, page 5) in each book. And let’s face it, bookplates can be removed, often leaving no trace of their existence if removed with skill and the right solvents. Really, I can’t think of any other practical reason for putting a personal mark of ownership in a book other than identification if the book is lost, stolen or misplaced. So, bookplates are really vanity plates and little more. That said, I see nothing wrong with tastefully and unobtrusively identifying one’s book so long as the book in question is not a scarce or rare book.

Clay

Regarding notes in the margins of books, I recently bought a number of books which have notes/comments throughout by magician Terry LaGerould. I was thrilled with these books and have found the comments on each effect interesting, educational and often very funny. Based on the notes, it seems that not only is Terry clever but also a funny guy. Now if the comments in the margin were by a Uncle Bob I wouldn't be too happy.

Even if you never intend to sell the book, you're going to die someday and it's going to be somebody else's job to dispose of your stuff. If you have gone through and actually damaged the pages of even a pretty common book by embossing it, you're short-changing your next of kin. Depending on the rarity of the book, pencil annotations and removable bookplates are probably o.k. - particularly if it's clear that the bookplate is removable. That said, I wouldn't even add a bookplate unless I was going to lend it to someone and if I felt the need to add the bookplate then I probably shouldn't be lending the book to that person anyway.

Like a dog returns to its vomit, I return to what I wrote yesterday and feel compelled to confess that I have been known to throw away the dustjackets on hardcover books - lessening their resale value.

I take dust jackets off my books when I read them, but promptley return them once shelved. I do not use bookplates, but I do emboss the blank page (page before the forward) in the lower right corner. I never buy a book for "later profit". The profit to me is in the knowledge. However, I have come across a few valuable books from the 1800's that I would not dare emboss. I buy some books for later resale and if I decide that the are or will be for resale later, I do not emboss. Embossing is for my library, which is never entend to resell.

As a book collector, I had a terrible time having to put library card pockets in books when I worked in a library - it just went against how I feel about books... "Ex-Library copy..." Of course, libraries are very important, so that's how I could justify it, as well as it was my job as a librarian. But I tend to not like to alter my books.

On the other hand, I just got a copy of Grant's Annual Of Magic that has the Price-McWilliams Library Of Magic Egyptian Hall Museum bookplate in it and think that's rather neat and of historical significance as a magic book. So it depends, I suppose.

All two of them?