Re: LIBRARY DUPLICATE SALES

[Wayne.G.Hammond@williams.edu (Wayne G. Hammond)]

David Klappholz wrote:

>While I am only in my 50's, I have already been thinking about donating
>my own collection, a focussed scholarly collection and worth a pretty
>penny on the market, to a rare book department.  I am not wealthy;  I have
>done without other luxuries to put my collection together;  my collection,
>focussed as it is, would be useful to scholars;  distibuted after a sale
>it would lose all value to scholars;  I now appear to have a choice
>between leaving my collection to my family, to be sold at auction or
>otherwwise, or to leave my collection to an institution which may have
>no compunctions about dispersing it for its own financial good.
>
>What would you do under these circumstances?

Overnight, this has already had a lot of replies.  Let me add my own 
thoughts, as both a librarian and someone in Mr. Klappholz' circumstances.

At this library, we are always honest and open with potential donors.  We do 
not seek donations with the intent to sell, but because they will be of use 
to the library and its patrons.  This is not to say, however, that we always 
want to add all of the items in the donation to our collections; almost 
invariably, there are duplicates or items out of scope that are included.  
Often a donor wants to clear out a house or apartment, is going into 
retirement housing with limited space, a favorite uncle has died and the 
donor must dispose of his estate, etc., etc. -- and we are faced with the 
prospect of taking things we don't want in order to get things we do.  In 
such cases, we tell the donor straight out what we want and what we don't, 
and give him the option of retaining or otherwise disposing of what we don't 
want, or allowing us to sell or trade it for something we could better use 
(all according to IRS rules if the gift is to be taken by the donor as a 
charitable deduction).  Our donors have always appreciated our honesty and 
have always agreed to our selling duplicates etc. to further benefit the 
library.

We do not always think that keeping a collection intact is the best course.  
Sometimes we have received a collection which adds to a similar collection 
already here, and the two have been merged (e.g. the Faulkner collection 
formed by former Chapin librarian H. Richard Archer, who collected Faulkner 
even before that author became renowned, and the Faulkner collection formed 
by his publisher at Random House, Donald S. Klopfer, who had early numbers 
of the limited editions).  In other instances, we have kept collections 
intact and have added to them -- sometimes but not always by means of 
related endowments.  Again, we are honest with the potential donor who wants 
his collection kept together, and if we disagree we say so.  Even when a 
gift collection is merged with existing holdings, it can still be a 
"monument" to the collector by means of a specially designed bookplate, or 
an exhibition drawn from the collection and a related handlist or catalogue. 
 But I do not think that most collectors want their collections preserved as 
monuments; rather, they want them to be appreciated and useful, so that the 
work of forming them does not go to waste.

We who are the present staff of the library can only speak for ourselves, of 
course.  We cannot promise that a library administration decades from now 
will decide to narrow the focus of the library and dispose of a collection 
presently wanted and valued.  We cannot promise that our college 
administration will not decide some day that a rare book library is a luxury 
and that the school would benefit more from selling all of our holdings for 
the benefit of the general fund.  We cannot promise that these events will 
never happen, but we hope and labor against them.  All we can do in our 
dealings with donors is be honest and sincere, and keep the promises we do make.

Now, I am myself a collector.  My wife and I have two distinct collections, 
both of which are important for their subjects.  We have bequeathed these to 
the Chapin Library and have stipulated that the collections are to be 
retained as collections, and that nothing is to be sold unless a better copy 
of the same item is acquired.  In the event, the library of course may not 
choose to accept our books with these stipulations (or even without, given 
the number of linear feet that would be required to house the books); if 
not, they will become part of our estate and will be given to another 
institution (we have suggested an alternative) or else sold.  We would 
prefer that our collections go to the Chapin Library, as neither subject is 
well represented in the Northeast; we would prefer that our collections 
remain intact; but if they must be sold, at least other collectors will 
benefit.  We, after all, have formed our collections in part because other 
collections were dispersed.

Judy Turner wrote:

>While donors can certainly stipulate that a collection be kept together
>as a collection, my response in these fiscally challenged times would be
>to request an endowment, along with the items, to support such an 
>undertaking.  

We always hope for an endowment and encourage such an arrangement, but it 
isn't always a possibility, and here, at least, it has nothing to do with 
keeping a collection together.  It may, however, determine whether or not we 
accept a collection at all, depending on the size and nature of the books or 
manuscripts.  Generally donations have come to us without endowments attached.

>Keeping a collection intact is interesting from the point of view of
>looking at the interests, tastes and connoiseurship of an individual
>collector, and perhaps, as a reflection of the period of time in which the
>person collected. But, can we really afford to build such monuments to
>collectors given the finite resources of time, space and money available?

Yes, we can.  See above for my views on "monuments".

Wayne Hammond
Chapin Library, Williams College
Wayne.G.Hammond@williams.edu