Describing A Book

Last week a customer at a local used bookstore was bemoaning the condition of a book she had just received from a mail order catalogue. Although it was a volume she had sought for sometime, she was reluctant to keep it since the actual condition fell far short of the description in the catalogue. Sadly, this happens all too often, since "rating" a book is a fairly subjective process, and not regulated by anything more than convention and good intentions. Unless of course the dealer happens to be a member of ABAA.

I (Shoshana Edwards) think it is generally a good idea to follow the guidelines given either by the ABAA or those published weekly in "AB Bookman Weekly."

Our members responded to this query with the following comments:


Dennis Taugher, Taugher Books,

The guidelines that I follow are contained in a series of articles in Firsts Magazine in the issues May, June, July and August 1991. They discuss the grades of Very Fine, Fine, Very Good and Good.

In particular discourage the use of "Mint" which is better left to describe coins and stamps. Sellers should describe every significant flaw, such as stains, tears, chips, former owner names, price clips, foxing, remainder marks and they should give the location of them, such as front panel of dj, inside flap, etc. Sellers also need to know how to describe the parts of a book. A good source for this knowledge is John Carter's A B C of Book Collecting, the 7th Edition. I sell a number of books on book collecting and could refer interested people to some of the better titles, most of which are unfortunately out-of-print.

Michael Cole, of The Clique wrote,

I've had a few recent quotes via Biblio from a couple of enthusiastic booksellers. Very friendly they were, and their books were reasonably priced, i.e. neither bargains, nor over-priced. However, their "descriptions" of what they had to offer left me stunned, in particular by their liberal use of the word "Fine". All three books were from the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s.

One of them said: "Would call this book Fine except it is ex-libris from a retirement home library. Has card pocket on FEP, "cancelled" stamp on TP and index sticker removed from spine (small color variation where it was) but no other customary ex-library markings appear--hence, I consider it to be ex-libris."

And on another book, "Fine condition. Some chips and wear at cover edges, corners slightly bumped. Spine and spine lettering crisp and straight. Some wear at spine ends. Pastedowns cracked at spine hinge, but spine and assembly quite tight. (Fine condition determination based on age and type of book--this is a beauty!)"

And again, "Not Fine Condition, but very high VG condition. Cover soiling removal could improve condition greatly (I don't try to clean them--prefer to sell as-is and let owner clean). Back cover torn half way up spine hinge, but is a closed tear and mendable. Spine is straight and with very minor creasing. Owner name inside cover covered by glued on index card--very neatly, didn't notice it during first few handlings."

Now it's absolutely not my place to tell booksellers how they should catalogue their books. However, it is obviously in everybody's best interest, whichever side of the dealing fence they're on, if everybody adheres to some sort of recognised standard. AB Weekly in the US and Bookdealer in the UK both set out accepted "norms" of description. My own descriptions are approximately of the same level although with one or two minor variations.

"Fine" is an absolute term of description, and CANNOT be qualified by saying "based on age and type of book". There isn't a book in the world, however old, where copies don't exist in genuinely mint or fine condition. Books from this century--whatever their subject matter--exist in truly perfect condition in large numbers and booksellers are handling them day-in, day-out. Generally accepted standards throughout the serious booktrade are:

Mint As New
Precisely as published without blemish or mark of any sort.
Fine
As above, but with the merest hint that the book has not come straight from the publishers.
Very good
Very slight traces of visual external wear. Perhaps very minor wear to spine ends or faint rubbing of the cloth at edges and corners, fading of covers and the like.
Good
A typical "used" book, showing more signs of wear and use, but where the book is structurally good, not requiring attention or rebinding. Slight inoffensive internal foxing or similar "ageing".
Poor
Any book with any damage to the binding affecting the "firmness" of the book or making the book require repair, recasing, or rebinding. Internal staining beyond slight foxing, or damage to contents.

To a great extent, "good" and "poor" are subject to variation owing to the individual whims, experience and optimism of the cataloguer concerned. To a far lesser extent this might also apply to "very good". However "fine" and "mint" are absolute terms approximately equivalent to "near perfection" and "perfection". These two should should never be misused, or used lightly.

Books should preferably be catalogued as what they actually are, followed by a description of what makes them be that condition. Not what they would have been were it not for the following faults. For example. "Good, with small split to top hinge, edges worn, corners bumped." NOT "Very Good/Fine, except for small split to top hinge, edges worn, corners bumped". On that basis, I could describe my own small piece of real estate as "one of the finest period houses in Yorkshire, set in 350 acres of rolling parkland, lacking only fourteen bedrooms, and 349 acres. Garage roof requires some repair."

In my experience, mis-cataloguing comes about because the cataloguer is so inexperienced that he/she hasn't owned or handled (or even seen) books in truly nice condition. Thus one gets such inanities as "very good considering its age" when a 1920 book is being catalogued. When I was buying privately years ago I used to carry round with me as a matter of course an unimportant early 18th century book in absolutely pristine condition in original boards priced (genuinely) at about $8. This was merely to show customers that their tatty dog-eared books from (say) 1910 were in less than acceptable condition and that not all old books came in two separate pieces. Strangely, one customer was so impressed (or suspicious) he bought the volume from me and I had to find another one.

And from one of our collectors we heard,

"I'm a collector, not a dealer, though my retirement 10-15 years down the road may evoke a change there. I don't follow much in the way of established principle concerning the rating of books, but use a general guide I kind of keep in my own mind to judge against what I see in catalogs:

Top grade is what I would term "New" and/or "Very Fine"-- this would be an almost immaculate book and DJ. Next would be a book that may have been read (thus somewhat more loose, but still no imperfections) Probably "Fine" is the term to use. Third would be "Near Fine" and would denote a book that is in good collectable shape, but might have a few minor flaws such as a small scratch, or bump, etc. here and there.

For more modern books, I wouldn't go much below this line for a book for my collection. For rarer species and older works, more leeway is tolerated.

The best thing I can say is that I deal with over 50 different antiquarian book dealers in the field of mystery and detective fiction, and have generally found them all to be very accurate and fair in their descriptions in their catalogs. But, most important of all, they all allow a book to be returned in the same condition within 10 days if it doesn't meet my requirements. I have returned only one book in the past year and a half! As long as that guarantee is there and the descriptions in their catalogs are what I get when the book arrives, I couldn't possibly be unhappy with a dealer. More than anything else, there must be a mutual trust between dealer and collector, and a recognition that you won't always agree on condition, but that when you don't, it doesn't have to mean that either of you are necessarily wrong. It only means that you disagree on that one particular item and should be able to continue to do honest business with each other with no one getting hurt (that's where the liberal 10-day return for any reason comes into play). How can you argue with the fairness of that?

Curt Stratman stratman@ncsa.uiuc.edu

[ Prev | Next | Index ] Last Modified February 28, 1996