[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: PVA
- From: Kathy Hamre <khamre@EAGLE.WBM.CA>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:01:10 -0600
- Message-Id: <199703270356.TAA13112@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Rupert Evans wrote in part:
>I am willing to accept that PVA is difficult to remove from paper. So is
>ink. By the logic you have stated, one ought not to use ink in books,
>especially where toner or lead pencil will do.
>Please help me understand. Because book conservators need to rebind some old
>books, you believe that no bookbinder should use PVA (or EVA); there should
>be no adhesive-bound books? Or are you arguing that PVA should rarely, if
>ever, be used in rebinding old books? If the latter, I defer to your
>expertise. If the former, I disagree.
The point, Rupert, as I see it is not to avoid making adhesive books. They
have their uses and can be beautiful and artistic and all of the things that
have been discussed on the list lately, however, if 100 years from now,
someone who cherishes a book constructed with PVA finds that it is
deteriorating (spine breaking, pages falling out, etc) it will be much more
difficult to repair/restore than a book constructed with wheat starch paste,
because the wheat paste will not have acted on the paper to deteriorate it
the way PVA willhave.
It is my belief thet PVA should never be used in the repair of cold,
precious/rare books. My mother's old cookbook, yes, OK - but the antique
family bible/family tree/etc. - no way. Not anywhere where it would come
into contact with the original materials.
Kathy in Saskatchewan