Social Justice, Social Engineering, Eugenics; Right or Wrong?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Americans get basic medical care. Call 911 and see what happens.

 

[amicus]

Trudy_Antone:

"...I firmly believe that the principles of capitalism should never be applied to healthcare. Something that should be freely available to all, can never be run as a profit industry. Immediately the system is prejudiced against lower wage earners and pensioners..."

~~~

Some poor demented souls believe that God is the cause of all illness and only God can cure disease. Others, like the above, place their faith in a huge government bureaucracy, to cure their every ill.

Some other twit stated that free enterprise medicine was immoral...go figure...I wonder what these people use for brains.

For Oggbashan, there is no excuse to believe in the fairy tale of national health care/socialized medicine, even reports of the eminent failure of the Brit's NHS, don't seem to deter his flamboyant support.

All these 'rights' the quasi-communists go on about, free medical care, free housing, living wage jobs, free food..., have to be produced and provided by someone....who?

All those happy toiling masses who are happy to be slaves within the system?

Even women, and I am being generous here, sometimes understand that the use of FORCE is wrong, bad, immoral and evil, yet, for their own personal benefit, they are willing to FORCE an entire population to financially support their lamb/lion Utopian dreams of the Garden of Eden.

How utterly silly!

If I make a million bucks a year and you make ten thousand, by what right do you take over half of my income to support yourself?

Be honest now; by what right?

The Brit's I can understand as they labor under a hangover of a Monarchy wherein those not of Royal blood or favor, had to beg for everything, food, land, the right to butcher the King's Elk. Similarly, the Australians and the Canadians, recipients of the evils of a Monarchy, who never had the opportunity to think in terms of 'free men', with free lives and the right to keep and expend the fruits of their own labor in their own behalf.

Only little girls believe that life is fair to all; it is a children's fantasy that adults maintain to shield a child from the harsh reality of being independent and being responsible for their own individual lives.

Socialists, call em what you may, remain children all their lives, hoping, dreaming, that others will care for them like a grown up mommy and daddy.

GROW UP! Learn to live outside the benevolence of a 'big brother' government that cares for your every need, and for once in your miserable lives, become an independent individual with the pride of your own accomplishments.

If you are poor or sick, those of us who produce will provide the generous charity we always have to keep you alive and well.

Those who 'beleive' they have a RIGHT to the wealth of others, are psychologically ill and misinformed.

Amicus

 

[Austin8]

Two guys went to a gas station that was holding a contest: a chance to win free sex when you filled your tank. They pumped their gas and went to pay the male attendant.

"I'm thinking of a number between one and ten," he said. "If you guess right, you win free sex."

"Okay," agreed one of the guys, "I guess seven."

"Sorry, I was thinking of eight," replied the attendant.

The next week they tried again. When they went to pay, the attendant told them to pick a number.

"Two!" said the second guy.

"Sorry, it's three, said the attendant. "Come back and try again."

As they walked out to their car, one guy said to the other, "I think this contest is rigged."

"No way," said his buddy. "My wife won twice last week."

 

[amicus]

Heh! m but be careful you could be accused of being sexist!

ami

 

[Trudy_Antone]

Oh Amicus, I said free healthcare, not housing or wages or food, or give me your money! (Though, re: food, I'd prefer to see fruit trees planted in public places rather than imported pines or palms).

Aus is filthy rich in terms of resources - steel, gold, coal, uranium, aluminium. This isn't personal wealth. This is a country's wealth. A place that can well afford to support it's citizens with the best in healthcare and education. Yes, education should be free too.

Is that socialism or just common sense?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Australia has pretty women, too, and strong men; so does everyone there get free pussy and free labor?

 

[Trudy_Antone]

Free sex JBJ? Now you're talking

 

[trysail]

No good or service was, is or ever will be "free" of cost. Somebody pays. "Free" is an illusion suffered by pie-eyed dreamers and exploited by manipulators.


Any good or service for which there is unlimited demand will be rationed. The only question is how.

 

[Huckleman2000]

No good or service was, is or ever will be "free" of cost. Somebody pays. "Free" is an illusion suffered by pie-eyed dreamers and exploited by manipulators.


Any good or service for which there is unlimited demand will be rationed. The only question is how.

You speak with a lot of surety about a lot of generalities.

 

[amicus]

Oh Amicus, I said free healthcare, not housing or wages or food, or give me your money! (Though, re: food, I'd prefer to see fruit trees planted in public places rather than imported pines or palms).

Aus is filthy rich in terms of resources - steel, gold, coal, uranium, aluminium. This isn't personal wealth. This is a country's wealth. A place that can well afford to support it's citizens with the best in healthcare and education. Yes, education should be free too.

Is that socialism or just common sense?[/QUOTE]

~~~

You may have heard of American's 'Homesteading' land in the past. If I recall, one could 'Homestead' in Alaska into the 1960's before the 'Great Society' began to treat land as you apparently do, 'a country's wealth'.

All of the land and resources below the land belong to the American people, indicvidually, and not the county, the state or the government.

Without searching to find the original source, I recall that our government was to act as 'caretaker' of all the land within our borders until the 'people' needed or wanted the lands and the resources.

I suppose that all the Colonies and conquests of England claimed that all the Elk belonged to the King and wrote that into their laws as time went by, replacing, 'King' with 'State'.

What all foreigner's and most Americans were never taught about, at least from our perspective and our founding documents, is that government functions of, by and for the people and that all land and all resources are held by the people not an all powerful government.

It is called freedom, just in case you were struggling to find an appropriate term.



Amicus

edited to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act

The act was later imitated with some modifications by Canada in the form of the Dominion Lands Act. Similar acts—usually termed the Selection Acts—were passed in the various Australian colonies in the 1860s, beginning in 1861 in New South Wales.

This article doesn't necessarily support my contentions other that to confirm the process of Homsteading and, with the quote above, noting that two British Colonies besides the US adopted the procedure.

edited to add again:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43824

Still not the original source material required...but informative....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

The history of 'property' is interesting...

 

[oggbashan]

Aussie Rules

It goes like this
Our game seems fairly straightforward and logical. But for outsiders observing our big day, things are a little more complicated.
A television audience of millions of people could be watching the Grand Final MCG action from all over the world. It is the little things we take for granted that will really stand out to these first-time viewers.
Look no further than the opening images of an AFL broadcast - the two teams running through a giant wall of crepe paper and sticky tape? What's going on here?
The athletes burst through and jog around. These guys aren't skinny soccer player types, nor do they have massive thick-set gridiron physiques. They look like decathletes - strong and powerful, but capable of enduring gruelling physical workouts.
Suddenly, a mass of umpires appears - not one with a couple of linesmen, but six with a couple of blokes in white laboratory coats and lawn bowling hats. One holds a ball up at precisely the same time a siren sounds. Why? Didn't they test if the siren worked before anyone turned up this morning?
The two captains meet in the centre for the traditional coin toss. Who's the person tossing the coin - a former champion or a champion's family member? Nup - some lucky punter who won a competition!
Ah, a bit of international normality - the two sides line up for the national anthem. No swapping of club pennants or team photos though.
Players and officials scatter as the crowd reaches fever pitch. One umpire holds the ball aloft for the siren to sound again - ah, now I see - they were just practising before!
The game starts and players thunder into each other, in what initially seems like a mass of stampeding buffalo.
But wait - they have forgotten to put their padding on. Surely someone will get seriously hurt unless we stop and allow them to don their protective equipment. What? No padding?
A pack of men jumps up on the back of some poor guy at the front - the crowd roars as a player somehow comes down with the ball.
Surely that guy at the front will have to come off for treatment. He copped a knee in the back of the head and his game may even be over. What? He gives it a rub and charges off again.
Some guy gets crunched by a flying tackle. The crowd erupts with a united scream of "b-a-a-l-l-l! ... Y-e-e-s-s-s!!"
While he stumbles to his feet and picks the dirt out of his eye sockets, the tackler takes a few steps backward and surveys the mass of players circling in front of him.
Some have their hands in the air, others are pointing at them, while some just seem to run and point at nothing in particular. Is this some form of mating ritual or contemporary line-dance?
Eventually, the guy with the ball does a bit of pointing of his own, before launching into a thunderous kick that sees the ball disappear up beyond the top of the television screen.
When it emerges on the opposite side of the picture, there are 15 guys standing in a small rectangle in front of a couple of tall posts and a couple of junior posts that obviously haven't grown up yet.
And then one of the blokes in a lab coat and bowling hat appears behind them. He arches his back, looks around for an extended pause and then makes some sort of wild-west, pistol-drawing motion with both index fingers.
The crowd erupts. A group of people with strangely painted faces shake what look like giant masses of cut-up crepe paper on the end of the long sticks! What? That is crepe paper and sticks? Why?
Hang on. The bloke in the hat is doing some sort of Riverdance move with a couple of white flags! Fantastic - what does that mean? A goal! Ah, now we're getting somewhere.
RUSSELL MORRIS played 93 games with Hawthorn and 63 games with St Kilda, retiring in 1994.

 

[ishtat]

It goes like this
Our game seems fairly straightforward and logical. But for outsiders observing our big day, things are a little more complicated.
A television audience of millions of people could be watching the Grand Final MCG action from all over the world. It is the little things we take for granted that will really stand out to these first-time viewers.
Look no further than the opening images of an AFL broadcast - the two teams running through a giant wall of crepe paper and sticky tape? What's going on here?
The athletes burst through and jog around. These guys aren't skinny soccer player types, nor do they have massive thick-set gridiron physiques. They look like decathletes - strong and powerful, but capable of enduring gruelling physical workouts.
Suddenly, a mass of umpires appears - not one with a couple of linesmen, but six with a couple of blokes in white laboratory coats and lawn bowling hats. One holds a ball up at precisely the same time a siren sounds. Why? Didn't they test if the siren worked before anyone turned up this morning?
The two captains meet in the centre for the traditional coin toss. Who's the person tossing the coin - a former champion or a champion's family member? Nup - some lucky punter who won a competition!
Ah, a bit of international normality - the two sides line up for the national anthem. No swapping of club pennants or team photos though.
Players and officials scatter as the crowd reaches fever pitch. One umpire holds the ball aloft for the siren to sound again - ah, now I see - they were just practising before!
The game starts and players thunder into each other, in what initially seems like a mass of stampeding buffalo.
But wait - they have forgotten to put their padding on. Surely someone will get seriously hurt unless we stop and allow them to don their protective equipment. What? No padding?
A pack of men jumps up on the back of some poor guy at the front - the crowd roars as a player somehow comes down with the ball.
Surely that guy at the front will have to come off for treatment. He copped a knee in the back of the head and his game may even be over. What? He gives it a rub and charges off again.
Some guy gets crunched by a flying tackle. The crowd erupts with a united scream of "b-a-a-l-l-l! ... Y-e-e-s-s-s!!"
While he stumbles to his feet and picks the dirt out of his eye sockets, the tackler takes a few steps backward and surveys the mass of players circling in front of him.
Some have their hands in the air, others are pointing at them, while some just seem to run and point at nothing in particular. Is this some form of mating ritual or contemporary line-dance?
Eventually, the guy with the ball does a bit of pointing of his own, before launching into a thunderous kick that sees the ball disappear up beyond the top of the television screen.
When it emerges on the opposite side of the picture, there are 15 guys standing in a small rectangle in front of a couple of tall posts and a couple of junior posts that obviously haven't grown up yet.
And then one of the blokes in a lab coat and bowling hat appears behind them. He arches his back, looks around for an extended pause and then makes some sort of wild-west, pistol-drawing motion with both index fingers.
The crowd erupts. A group of people with strangely painted faces shake what look like giant masses of cut-up crepe paper on the end of the long sticks! What? That is crepe paper and sticks? Why?
Hang on. The bloke in the hat is doing some sort of Riverdance move with a couple of white flags! Fantastic - what does that mean? A goal! Ah, now we're getting somewhere.
RUSSELL MORRIS played 93 games with Hawthorn and 63 games with St Kilda, retiring in 1994.

Shame on you Og, the goal umpires don' t wear lab coats and bowling hats anymore.

 

[oggbashan]

Shame on you Og, the goal umpires don' t wear lab coats and bowling hats anymore.

Then post a current version, please.

The last Aussie Rules game I saw was in 1961, the same year as the last time I played Aussie Rules.

Og

 

[trysail]

No good or service was, is or ever will be "free" of cost. Somebody pays. "Free" is an illusion suffered by pie-eyed dreamers and exploited by manipulators.


Any good or service for which there is unlimited demand will be rationed. The only question is how.

You speak with a lot of surety about a lot of generalities.

So do the Laws of Thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

 

[xssve]

It is called freedom, just in case you were struggling to find an appropriate term.

Unless you happened to be a Native American.

So you killed off the local natives and stole their land all by yourself? The noble warrior.

The inherent problem with this view of economics, based on the acquisition of primitive capital, is that it's all finite: in Europe, the aristocracy glommed onto the rarest resources, including forest where game could be found - there, hunting and fishing was not a democratic right, it was reserved exclusively for the aristocracy - one of Robin Hoods crimes was poaching in the Kings forest.

You see, as time goes on, all the sources of primitive capital end up being hereditarily held, simply as a factor of the population expansion that these resources enable, but if you're born "too late", there are no resources for you to exploit, and your whole Randist paradigm basically arises to justify denying anyone access to that which your ancestors glommed onto before it was all gone.

The idea that primitive capital is a public resource, is common in indigenous populations who tend not to expand their populations to the point of resource exhaustion, or exploit them in order to support large urban populations who specialize essentially, in obtaining resources from elsewhere (at a profit).

Once all the primitive capital is spoken for, one has nothing left to sell except labor - not because you're stupid or a parasite, but because all the primitive capital is already spoken for.

In Feudalism, the government grants monopolies - in the early days of America, nobody owned any land unless it were by express grant of the British Crown the only reason anybody else had anything, is that there was so much land, the aristocracy didn't have the manpower to prevent freeholds from being established, the homesteading act came much later.

Where all these land hungry people came form, however, was largely England at that point, where, the whole "tragedy of the commons" argument was made, i.e., that when used as a public resource, the public will overuse it to the point of exhaustion, and this parable was used to justify enclosure laws, which made it practically impossible for people to live without money - whereas previously, a garden and a cow, kept in a common pasture was enough to get by on, one only needed a small amount of money for what you couldn't raise yourself, which one could obtain by selling of the surplus production, butter, eggs, etc.

Al that ended with enclosure, whereby the aristocracy simply added those lands to their portfolio, and hired people to manage it for profit, which drove huge numbers of people into the city looking for work, of which there was never enough, debtors were thrown into prison, and offered the chance to work off their debts through indentured servitude in the New World.

The American agricultural economy followed much the same pattern as the European one up until the Civil War, and the introduction of industrial farming methods, at which point a the new "enclosure" began, first by wiping out sharecroppers by currency manipulation, so that large, mechanized farming operations could take over the land - mechanized farm equipment is difficult to turn, you see, it woks best if the fields are laid out with long, straight runs, and houses and truck gardens got in the way.

That last instance of this happened as recently as the Eighties - while Reagan bragged that the "dollar is strong because America is strong", the exchange rate was wiping out family farms at an alarming rate, farms subsequently purchased for pennies on the dollar by well financed agribusinesses, which are the new corporate aristocracy.

But of course, according to you, they can do no wrong, no, your problem is with liberals who prefer a government that is willing to protect them from the industries that, left to their own devices, will turn them into serfs - again.

That is the pattern of an economy that relies heavily on primitive capital - innovation is the only way out this impasse, value added economics, which is the "quality" factor, that mediates the "quantity" factor supplied by industry, mass production, and economies of scale, though but often inefficiently - but innovation is discouraged once economic hegemonies and monopolies are established, because it threatens monopolies and established profit centers, which is why in classical capitalism, monopoly is is the unqualified bad, it cannot be justified ever, for any reason - but that exactly what business like, monopolies, it's logically the ideal market position from a supply and demand standpoint.

Thus Monsanto is at war with organic farming, Microsoft at war with Linux, etc.

After that, the only "innovation" is coming up with justifications for persecuting anyone who was late to the party, and suppressing potential competition - that's your job, I really hope they're paying you for it, because in all these calculations, your entire life, your very existence, represents nothing more than the variable cost of labor, and it's eating into somebody else's profit margin.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

Your thesis is nonsense.

Capitalists replaced feudal land barons and elevated the status of labor from chicken-kicker and shit-shoveller to engineer and mechanic.

Today we're going backwards. Capitalists are replaced by merchants, and the mechanic flips burgers.

 

[oggbashan]

First Editions

Some books never have more than a first edition and may never be valuable because the author is incompetent or unreadable.

Some first editions are produced in such quantities that they are no more valuable than another edition e.g. second and subsequent Harry Potter books.

A few first editions by otherwise collectable authors can have little value e.g Lawrence Durell’s TUNC and Ernest Hemingway’s second book. Both books were unlike their other books and were, and are, unpopular.

Some first editions by authors you have heard of aren’t as valuable as you might think. Rudyard Kipling is one. He is sometimes in favour, sometimes out of favour. A Kipling first edition printed in the UK is probably worth no more than £8 to £10. Many first editions are worth less than the modern paperback reprint. Buying books as an investment requires very careful judgement.

Modern publishers, and some older publishers, have made the task of finding out whether a book is a first edition very complicated.

Modern Firsts
For example: Many books say “First published 1987” but underneath, or on the back of the title page is a list of numbers like these:

135798642 or 123456789 or even 31 33 35 37 39 38 36 34 32 30 or 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

As the book is reprinted a number will be dropped from the sequence so a book with the numbers

57986 is actually the FIFTH edition or FIFTH printing.

With 3456789 is the THIRD edition or THIRD printing.

The books with numbers in the 30s are from the THIRTIETH edition.

Older Firsts
Anything that says 10th thousand; 30th thousand – is NOT a first edition.

Even apparently identical books can be true first editions, or later states of the first edition. One of Charles Dickens’ Christmas Stories “The Haunted Man” has four states of the First edition. They can be told apart by the address of the publishers, which changed, and by a misprint on one page of the REAL first. The value of each is different.


The usual order of priority of book states is:

Any edition dedicated by the author to someone related to the book’s origin e.g. Ian Fleming’s Thunderball dedicated to the Golf Professional at Royal St George’s golf course thanking him for help with the golf scenes. That is valuable even in battered condition.

- 1st Edition in dustwrapper signed by author
- 1st Edition in dustwrapper
- 1st Edition without dustwrapper
- 1st Illustrated Edition
- Any edition signed by author
- Other publishers edition after 1st in dustwrapper
- Paperback
- Any edition without dustwrapper.
- Book Club Edition in dustwrapper
- Book Club edition without dustwrapper

BUT condition is important - a battered 1st may be unsaleable
while a clean Book Club Edition could be acceptable.

 

[driphoney]

Some books never have more than a first edition and may never be valuable because the author is incompetent or unreadable.

Some first editions are produced in such quantities that they are no more valuable than another edition e.g. second and subsequent Harry Potter books.

A few first editions by otherwise collectable authors can have little value e.g Lawrence Durell’s TUNC and Ernest Hemingway’s second book. Both books were unlike their other books and were, and are, unpopular.

Some first editions by authors you have heard of aren’t as valuable as you might think. Rudyard Kipling is one. He is sometimes in favour, sometimes out of favour. A Kipling first edition printed in the UK is probably worth no more than £8 to £10. Many first editions are worth less than the modern paperback reprint. Buying books as an investment requires very careful judgement.

Modern publishers, and some older publishers, have made the task of finding out whether a book is a first edition very complicated.

Modern Firsts
For example: Many books say “First published 1987” but underneath, or on the back of the title page is a list of numbers like these:

135798642 or 123456789 or even 31 33 35 37 39 38 36 34 32 30 or 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

As the book is reprinted a number will be dropped from the sequence so a book with the numbers

57986 is actually the FIFTH edition or FIFTH printing.

With 3456789 is the THIRD edition or THIRD printing.

The books with numbers in the 30s are from the THIRTIETH edition.

Older Firsts
Anything that says 10th thousand; 30th thousand – is NOT a first edition.

Even apparently identical books can be true first editions, or later states of the first edition. One of Charles Dickens’ Christmas Stories “The Haunted Man” has four states of the First edition. They can be told apart by the address of the publishers, which changed, and by a misprint on one page of the REAL first. The value of each is different.


The usual order of priority of book states is:

Any edition dedicated by the author to someone related to the book’s origin e.g. Ian Fleming’s Thunderball dedicated to the Golf Professional at Royal St George’s golf course thanking him for help with the golf scenes. That is valuable even in battered condition.

- 1st Edition in dustwrapper signed by author
- 1st Edition in dustwrapper
- 1st Edition without dustwrapper
- 1st Illustrated Edition
- Any edition signed by author
- Other publishers edition after 1st in dustwrapper
- Paperback
- Any edition without dustwrapper.
- Book Club Edition in dustwrapper
- Book Club edition without dustwrapper

BUT condition is important - a battered 1st may be unsaleable
while a clean Book Club Edition could be acceptable.

I have a few old book because they mean something to me or were handed down. They're in bad condition. Other than that, book collecting is a hobby I only know of from a distance. I never realized how important the dustwrapper is. How long has that been common practice? Putting dustwrappers on, I mean.

Interesting piece, by the way, Og. Thanks.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Some books never have more than a first edition and may never be valuable because the author is incompetent or unreadable.

Some first editions are produced in such quantities that they are no more valuable than another edition e.g. second and subsequent Harry Potter books.

A few first editions by otherwise collectable authors can have little value e.g Lawrence Durell’s TUNC and Ernest Hemingway’s second book. Both books were unlike their other books and were, and are, unpopular.

Some first editions by authors you have heard of aren’t as valuable as you might think. Rudyard Kipling is one. He is sometimes in favour, sometimes out of favour. A Kipling first edition printed in the UK is probably worth no more than £8 to £10. Many first editions are worth less than the modern paperback reprint. Buying books as an investment requires very careful judgement.

Modern publishers, and some older publishers, have made the task of finding out whether a book is a first edition very complicated.

Modern Firsts
For example: Many books say “First published 1987” but underneath, or on the back of the title page is a list of numbers like these:

135798642 or 123456789 or even 31 33 35 37 39 38 36 34 32 30 or 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

As the book is reprinted a number will be dropped from the sequence so a book with the numbers

57986 is actually the FIFTH edition or FIFTH printing.

With 3456789 is the THIRD edition or THIRD printing.

The books with numbers in the 30s are from the THIRTIETH edition.

Older Firsts
Anything that says 10th thousand; 30th thousand – is NOT a first edition.

Even apparently identical books can be true first editions, or later states of the first edition. One of Charles Dickens’ Christmas Stories “The Haunted Man” has four states of the First edition. They can be told apart by the address of the publishers, which changed, and by a misprint on one page of the REAL first. The value of each is different.


The usual order of priority of book states is:

Any edition dedicated by the author to someone related to the book’s origin e.g. Ian Fleming’s Thunderball dedicated to the Golf Professional at Royal St George’s golf course thanking him for help with the golf scenes. That is valuable even in battered condition.

- 1st Edition in dustwrapper signed by author
- 1st Edition in dustwrapper
- 1st Edition without dustwrapper
- 1st Illustrated Edition
- Any edition signed by author
- Other publishers edition after 1st in dustwrapper
- Paperback
- Any edition without dustwrapper.
- Book Club Edition in dustwrapper
- Book Club edition without dustwrapper

BUT condition is important - a battered 1st may be unsaleable
while a clean Book Club Edition could be acceptable.

There are a few other factors as well. I was astonished when I found out that a first edition of "Archy and Mehitabel" could be had for just forty dollars!

I soon found out that was because the first edition didn't include the iconic George Herriman (Krazy Kat) illustrations.

 

[oggbashan]

I have a few old book because they mean something to me or were handed down. They're in bad condition. Other than that, book collecting is a hobby I only know of from a distance. I never realized how important the dustwrapper is. How long has that been common practice? Putting dustwrappers on, I mean.

Interesting piece, by the way, Og. Thanks.

Dustwrappers started with some publishers in the 1880s. They were simple paper covers, sometimes with the title printed on but usually blank, to protect the new book in transit to the retailer. They were thrown away before being displayed on the shop's shelves.

They started to be more decorative in the 1890s. By the 1920s almost all new books had well-printed dustwrappers that remained on the book when it was sold.

Now? Dustwrappers sometimes have protective covers. Most secondhand dealers will protect an old dustwrapper with a transparent cover to preserve it. Books can be sold with replica dustwrappers. There is even a trade in replicas to make books without dustwrappers more saleable.

If the price of the book was printed on a corner of the inside fold of a dustwrapper, it was sometimes cut off if the book was given as a present. Such dustwrappers are described as "price-clipped" and it reduces the value of the book compared with an uncut dustwrapper.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

Dustwrappers started with some publishers in the 1880s. They were simple paper covers, sometimes with the title printed on but usually blank, to protect the new book in transit to the retailer. They were thrown away before being displayed on the shop's shelves.

They started to be more decorative in the 1890s. By the 1920s almost all new books had well-printed dustwrappers that remained on the book when it was sold.

Now? Dustwrappers sometimes have protective covers. Most secondhand dealers will protect an old dustwrapper with a transparent cover to preserve it. Books can be sold with replica dustwrappers. There is even a trade in replicas to make books without dustwrappers more saleable.

Og

I was wondering! I'm seeing books with amazingly well-preserved dustwrappers all of a sudden, where they had been hard to find before.

 

[oggbashan]

I was wondering! I'm seeing books with amazingly well-preserved dustwrappers all of a sudden, where they had been hard to find before.

There is nothing wrong with the practice, as long as it is made clear that the dustwrapper is a replica.

Og

 

[driphoney]

Dustwrappers started with some publishers in the 1880s. They were simple paper covers, sometimes with the title printed on but usually blank, to protect the new book in transit to the retailer. They were thrown away before being displayed on the shop's shelves.

They started to be more decorative in the 1890s. By the 1920s almost all new books had well-printed dustwrappers that remained on the book when it was sold.

Now? Dustwrappers sometimes have protective covers. Most secondhand dealers will protect an old dustwrapper with a transparent cover to preserve it. Books can be sold with replica dustwrappers. There is even a trade in replicas to make books without dustwrappers more saleable.

If the price of the book was printed on a corner of the inside fold of a dustwrapper, it was sometimes cut off if the book was given as a present. Such dustwrappers are described as "price-clipped" and it reduces the value of the book compared with an uncut dustwrapper.

Og

Cut and uncut takes my mind in a whole new direction!

 

[trysail]

Cut and uncut takes my mind in a whole new direction!

You are, of course, speaking of books. It's a pain in the arse when one is reading a book and encounters uncut pages.


As Og will tell you, whether the pages of a book are cut or uncut is another aspect of condition that will affect a book's value. A reputable dealer's description should mention the presence of uncut pages.

 

[oggbashan]

You are, of course, speaking of books. It's a pain in the arse when one is reading a book and encounters uncut pages.


As Og will tell you, whether the pages of a book are cut or uncut is another aspect of condition that will affect a book's value. A reputable dealer's description should mention the presence of uncut pages.

If a book was printed with uncut pages, then a copy that remains like that is more valuable than one that has been read.

The pricing of books can be weird. If you own a valuable First Edition, the LAST thing you should do with it is...




...read it. That would devalue it.

Buy a paperback version of the same book and read that.

Og