Recently I’ve been tinkering with the idea of putting a bookplate in my books and thought it might be fun to ask what you booklovers think about this. Is it “good practice” to insert one’s bookplate in a book? The same question applies to stickers, embossing, and handwritten notations like “This book belongs to …”. Just so we don’t get sidetracked, let’s assume that a book owner has the legal right to do anything he/she wants with the book, so the question is really focusing on “should he”?

The ‘pros” are that it identifies the provenance of a book, and sometimes with a famous magician or collector, this can increase the value of a book or make for some interesting history. The cons are that bookplates can be unsightly (the same goes for inked ownership notations, stickers, etc.) and purists might say that these things “deface” a book. Another problem is that some books don’t have blank preliminary leaves, so putting in a bookplate would mean covering up something that was printed.

My opinion? Regardless of whether or not a previous owner was famous or not, I like seeing who owned a book and getting a feel for its ownership history. But I don’t like ugly bookplates (true, it is a matter of personal taste), or bookplates that are way too large for the book, covering an entire page or pastedown. I also wish that bookplate users only lightly pasted their bookplates in the book, so that future owners could remove the bookplate if they wished. I don’t care for stickers, embossing, and inked ownership statements because they can’t really be removed without damage to the book. All in all, I don’t see anything really wrong with a bookplate, provided it is installed properly in a book.

I don’t have bookplates for my books, except for the dozen or so generic bookplates I pasted in some books when I was 13 or 14 years old (using a really ugly bookplate showing a mermaid sitting on a rock). Fortunately, none of those books are really valuable or rare. If I did create a bookplate, it would probably come in two sizes, one fairly small for small to medium sized books and another a little larger for large books. It would probably be printed on rice paper and glued in with a very small amount of glue at the top portion of the plate with water soluble glue (to facilitate easy removal by future owners).

A related question might be whether or not it is proper to annotate a book. With all but rare books, I don’t have a problem with this but think the owner should annotate with a pencil. When I was in my early teens and quite impressionable, I wanted to be like Houdini and wrote comments (in retrospect, they are funny to read) in ink in a few of my books. I stopped doing that long ago and there are only a few books with such annotations and they are common books.

Your thoughts?

I don't think bookplates hurt the books, as long as they fall into the guidelines you give. I have books that have come from some rather well-known libraries and/or magicians. For example, I have several books that belonged to Van Cleve.

I don't like the idea of embossing random pages in a book. That ruins them.

I am not against book plates. I have had that internal debate about placing them in my books. So far, I have not. I do have several books from famous collections. I enjoy the history of who owned the book. The idea of two different size book plates is good. I believe David Price did this in his collection.

I like the idea of how you are attaching the book plate. I don't know how future owners would know if the glue you used is water soluble.

As far as writing in books. I have a hard time even writing and highlighting in my college text books. I do enjoy reading some of the notes from more famous magicians when they have annotated in a book. For the most part I don't like when people write in books.

And along with Bill, I am against embossing.

Good luck with your delima. Keep us informed with what you decide. If you go ahead, I'd like to see the art work when you are done.

Bob

As a rule bookplates detract slightly from a book's value, unless they're a famous person's.

Years ago I passed on an offer to sell a copy of a spiritualism book heavily annotated by Houdini - $250 was a lot of money for a teenager in the 1970's. Then again, at that time I also sold a rare 1899 Houdini Orpheum Theater program for $75! Hey, that was almost 4 months of paper route money!

As a wannabe book collector who has read some in the field, I have to say no to bookplates.

Unless you are named Houdini, Blackstone, Walter Gibson, etc.

Books owned by relevant famous people are association copies and the price goes up. (They have found the copy of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus with marginal notes by astronomer Tycho Brahe!)

But everything I've said assumes that the books you annotate or put a bookplate in are collectible. And few modern books are.

Magic books may be an exception, though, as the press runs are small and everything goes out of print so darn rapidly. For example, I just discovered that John Carney's Carneycopia is going for $110 to $125 in a used book search engine.

Magic books might make good investments.

First of all, I think the purpose of bookplates were to show ownership of a book so a borrower will remember to whom it should be returned. I learned the hard way two decades ago never to loan one of my magic books. But I now subscribe to Bill Palmer’s credo, “neither a lender nor a borrower be.” Although it may not be an original saying, it is true and good advice.

Like Bill Palmer, I too own a few books that were once owned by other magicians (i.e. William Kuethe, Tony Andruzzi, Marcom, etc.) and I like to think how they must have once looked on their book shelves and imagine how they must have pored over the book. I like to see the history of the life of a book whether or not the previous owner was famous. I’m not famous by any means but I’d like to think that when my books are turned over to someone, perhaps they might like to know that I was once an owner. That way someone will remember me even though they may not have known me.

I also collect book plates. Although I don’t have a large collection by any means, I do appreciate all who have sent me their plates (and I’d appreciate receiving yours, too. I’ll gladly swap one of mine for one of yours.)

As to embossing, I used to emboss my books. I also embossed gold notary-type stickers which I stuck in my books. I usually emboss the lecture notes but put the stickers in the books. I now paste my own bookplate. I had personalized book plate stickers made at my local Kinko’s which go in all my new books now.

I too have problems deciding the right place to adhere the sticker when the inside cover has artwork or photos. In cases like that, I turn to the first blank page and stick my bookplate there. If you are familiar with the new book on Alexander by David Charvet, then you can see my predicament. Though sometimes, if I am not covering something that I think is important (like where there is white space or clouds, etc.) , then I will stick it on the inside front cover over a printed photo.

Certainly having the books signed or dedicated adds new dimension to the book. Books that are anonymously signed (like posters or comic books) are worth more to collectors than those who have been dedicated to an individual (with some exceptions). For example, that’s why Ricky Jay and Steranko no longer autograph items with a generic signature. They inscribe it to the individual. But once again, I think it gives character and a sense of history to a book if it is personalized and/or inscribed by the author, editor and/or publisher.

I hope this helps.

Yours,
Scott Wells

To me, the main purpose of a book is to teach or enlighten me, the purchaser. While the book may be become more valuable over the years, that's not my main purpose in buying or keeping it.

Because of that philosophy, I don't believe adding a bookplate or embossing the book "defaces" my books in any way. I used to use bookplates, but then found that an embosser was much simpler, easier and less expensive (although I don't use the gold seals). I also figured that a bookplate could be scraped off or pasted over, something you couldn't do to an embossed seal, which would have to be cut out.

I also agree with Scott that sometimes it's interesting to see who the previous owner of a book is, even if it isn't anyone important (like me!). SETH

Seth hit the nail on the head for me; my books are for my own benefit. I don't consider anything I do to them to be diminishing their value -- it enhances their value to me. I'm approaching 30 years in magic, and I consider the notes in the margins (in just a few books, not all of them) to be my own personal magic history.

It's a blast to see what my teenage self thought was important and meaningful at the time. Sometimes I'm embarrassed; other times I'm pleased to see that I was either quite precocious, or that I'm still stuck in the same mental rut today.

In the past I've used bookplates, but today I use an embosser, without the gold seal. I have a few books in my collection that were once owned by other magicians, and I enjoy the sense of tradition that their inscriptions impart. Like Scott Wells said, I hope that my own owner's marks endure in my books for some other magician to see, down the road.

You fellows who use embossers should give Kenna Thompson a call some time. He has a couple of cartons of books that the owner thought, as you do, would never be particularly valuable. And now they won't, because the owner embossed them. He was a relative unknown, so his copies of some rather rare books, commonplace as they might have seemed at the time, are now worth approximately 1/20th what they would be if they had a nice, removable bookplate in them. Not that he cares. But his widow does.

I did use bookplates at one time. I don't now. It's too late to start. I have over 3000 books, and I don't want to sit there with a sponge and a box of bookplates and glue the darned things into the books.

Bookplates don't ruin books. Magicians with bookplates ruin books.

Well Bill, I agree that technically you are correct in saying that the embossment would reduce the value (unless you happen to be Albert Einstein or David Copperfield). And I certainly would not dream of embossing a Gutenberg Bible or a first edition of John Steinbeck's!

But I think it's OK to emboss a Tarbell Course, of which thousands were printed, and even David Roth's "Expert Coin Magic," which is now out of print. If this later reduces the value to other collectors, so be it. But I'll enjoy them now, while I'm still here. SETH

I really don't think it's okay to emboss any book. Expert Coin Magic would be a perfect example. It's out of print. A year and a half after it was published, Richard Kaufman actually dropped the price of the book, because he had too large an inventory of them. Now, they are hard to find.

I guess it boils down to what you think is important: the information in the book or the book itself. For me, it's the information, so I'm not really concerned with the ultimate value of the book. Moreover, embossing the book doesn't damage the book in any way or make any part of it unreadable.

Interestingly, I just noticed that the original question in this thread was whether "bookplates deface books." I consider "defacing" to be things like cutting out pages, writing in books, highlighting and underlining, etc. An embosser doesn't deface a book, at least in my opinion. Whether a bookplate or an embosser devalues a book is really a different question.

However, Bill does have a point. If it's important, for whatever reason, to keep the book exactly as it was originally published, then by all means don't emboss it. OK, enough of this, let's get back to practicing that Retention Pass! SETH

I’m a book lover, so I like to keep the books I own in the same condition as when I obtained them. It’s not so difficult to read a book with care and preserve its condition. That said, for folks who emboss, annotate, etc., it’s your book, and if you like doing it, more power to you. Recently I purchased a modestly scarce 100 year old book. The former owner had inked his full name and address in the book FOUR TIMES. That’s a bit much and in my opinion defaces the book. Had I known the “former owner’s name and address” meant “former owner’s names and addresses multiple times in ink,” I wouldn’t have purchased the book.

Although my post heading mentioned bookplates in connection with “defacement,” I did mean to include any sorts of markings, be they penned names, embossed pages, etc. Bill is correct when he says that such markings can (and usually) dramatically reduce the value of a book. Then again, for the famous few, they can dramatically increase the value of a book.

All things being equal, I’ll take an unmarked book over a marked book virtually every time. For those of you who want to maximize the resale value of your books, it’s something to keep in mind. Marking up a book is kinda like spray painting your name on a piece of apparatus – if you were buying a piece of apparatus, would you choose an unmarked specimen or one that had been marked?

Some books increase in value if inscribed by the author. There is a Houdini book in which, at least for the time being, this is not the case. Evidently, Houdini autographed almost every copy of one of his books that he got his hands on. It may have been The Right Way to do Wrong.

I own a couple hundred books. My name is written in them, along with the date of purchase. I dog-ear the pages I like. I leave them in the car because I like to read while driving. I fall asleep on them and can't find them in the morning. About the only thing I haven't done to any of my books is tear the pages out of them. What fun would that be? And if I accidentally wear the thing out...well...I try to find another copy. I used to do the same things with LPs.

Before you start frowning, here's my point. My books absolutely are NOT for resale. My books are for my reading, using, and enjoying. I intend to keep every one of them in my library, or in the bathroom, or in the office...right where they belong. That's why I'm liable to do just about anything with them.

My grandfather collected English stamps. His collection contains a complete set of the first stamps that England ever printed. And he would only buy stamps that were cancelled. He knew that they wouldn't be worth as much as the uncancelled ones, but he only wanted to collect cancelled stamps because he felt the "human touch" in them. He would ask, "What good are they if they haven't been used?"

The same thing goes with about any collection, stamps, coins, books, props, etc. The ones in mint condition are going to be worth more over time because they are more rare. Eventually someone like me is going to leave them in the car, or in my pocket and they are going to get dinged, dented, scratched, bruised, dirty...kinda like entropy. I, as my grandfather did, actually prefer the "human touch."

Clay, you are a book lover and therefore a book collector. And you know that any condition other than 'mint' will make the book more common...and less rare, and, therefore, less valuable to other collectors. Exceptions to this include if/when the signature, bookplate, or embossment itself makes the book more rare. Something like Houdini's or Vernon's signature.

Get two...one for the collection, and one for humans to touch.

Patrick

Hey Patrick: You make a good point. Things exist generally to be used. One of the points I was trying to make is that a book can be used (many times over), but if handled properly, it will remain in excellent condition. Clay

I think every book should have a separate page of ownership lines, wherein each owner would sign. The ownership provenance would be fascinating, and soon create its own collectibility.

Since that'll never happen, I'm with Patrick, above. I emboss. I bookplate. I margin. I notate. They are mine. It is what they impart to me that is important. I do not lessen their content by doing so, I only lessen their monetary value. I'm fine with that. If that lesser valued book can fall into the hands of someone who couldn't afford a mint copy,fine. That's how I got many of mine. I like existing in that stream of energy. Suits me.

Several years ago I was bidding on a copy of "HISTORY OF MAGICK" (I hope that's the title), published several hundred years ago (1689?) and there were about 10 previous owners names on the frontispiece with the date each owner bought it or signed it

I quit bidding at $2000.00 (much to my wife's relief)but a big part of the fascination for me was all those signatures, none of which I recognized as a "famous" person

Now days I don't really brand my books with my embosser nor do I sign them because of my embarrassing penmanship, but I will eventually buy some bookplates and some rainy day I will put my ownership to all of the 1100 or so books I have.

Like Mr Palmer, I am loathe to lend my books to anyone - but that really goes against my nature, so pretty much anyone who asks to borrow one of my books will get it. Because most Magic books shouldn't be read overnight I never expect to get them back for several months, so a plate or some other form of ownership is fairly important in order to remind the borrower whose book they are reading.

On popular fiction books - I encourage the people who borrow my books to sign the front and the date they read the book.

Though I "collect" books and have some very handsome editions, I try and remember that they were written to be read and in this day and age, I try and encourage anyone who is interested to read a book.

Dave

Tom Jorgenson wrote: "If that lesser valued book can fall into the hands of someone who couldn't afford a mint copy, fine." Nice pun, Tom!

Dave: Recently, a 7th or 8th edition (or something like that) of Henry Dean's famous "Hocus Pocus" book was offered for sale, dated in the 1780s (the first edition came out in 1722). It was well worn, covers grubby, pages soiled and thumbed - certainly not a "collector's copy." But it had a contemporary inscription in a child's hand, something like "William's magic book." I was fascinated by the inscription, and began imagining this kid reading this book again and again, stowing it in his pocket everywhere he went, buying (or making) a trick or two and practicing. This kid probably loved the book to death – and maybe so did his children. As oxymoronic as it sounds, I found the fact that some things haven’t changed in 220-some years rather refreshing! That Porta copy sounds really neat, Dave. Assuming it was an English-language edition, it was either 1658 or 1669.