Re: Librarians and dust - [re: Gutenberg's weighty volumes]

["William M. Klimon" <wklimon@COX.NET>]

Here is the Harvard Magazine's link to the article "Biblioklept," not it should be noted "The Gutenberg Caper," which was the subject of the original request:

http://128.103.142.209/issues/ma97/biblio.html


William M. Klimon
william.m.klimon.c87@alumni.upenn.edu



> From: judy bausch <jab@YERKES.UCHICAGO.EDU>
> Date: 2006/01/30 Mon PM 12:35:08 EST
> To: EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME
> Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] Librarians and dust - [re: Gutenberg's weighty volumes]
>
> google is our friend: www.museum-security.org/booktheft.html
>
>
> >I think HARVARD MAGAZINE has a copyright on the
> >article.  Otherwise, I'd send my copy all
> >around.  Maybe the magazine has an online
> >archive?  It is a great story, with one of the
> >great brain-cramps in criminal history.  Luckily
> >for the thief, he fell on the Bible, and not
> >vice-versa.
> >
> >EW
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Exlibris [mailto:EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME]On Behalf Of Jacowitz,
> >Kenneth
> >Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:06 AM
> >To: EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME
> >Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] Librarians and dust - [re: Gutenberg's weighty
> >volumes]
> >
> >
> >What a great story!
> >
> >Does anyone have access to "The Gutenberg Caper," HARVARD MAGAZINE,
> >March-April 1986, pp. 42-48.?
> >
> >Unless you want to share this with what I'm sure would be a greatful
> >list, please email me at keneth.jacowitz@abc.com.  Fax would be fine, or
> >pdf, your choice.  Thanks.
> >
> >Ken jacowitz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Exlibris [mailto:EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME] On Behalf Of White, Eric
> >Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:59 AM
> >To: EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME
> >Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] Librarians and dust - [re: Gutenberg's weighty
> >volumes]
> >
> >
> >Colleagues,
> >
> >When the Harvard copy of the Gutenberg Bible was stolen momentarily in
> >1969, and the thief exiting the 4th floor window of Widener fell from
> >his escape rope (having forgotten to calculate the added weight of the
> >volumes), it was reported that the volumes in the their massive modern
> >bindings reportedly weighed "30 or 35 pounds apiece."  The whole story
> >is in W.H. Bond, "The Gutenberg Caper," HARVARD MAGAZINE, March-April
> >1986, pp. 42-48.
> >
> >Eric White
> >Bridwell Library
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Exlibris [mailto:EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME]On Behalf Of Martin Davies
> >Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:52 AM
> >To: EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME
> >Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] Librarians and dust - the future
> >
> >
> >Lugging a paper B42 (the cheap trade edition) to the photocopier was no
> >hard
> >task. But I couldn't carry both volumes of the BL vellum copy
> >(Grenville)
> >even in my prime, say, oh, ten years ago. But then the BL didn't hire
> >incunabulists for their brawn. Alas, I never weighed the Grenville copy
> >-- a
> >descriptive element strangely wanting in all incunable catalogues.
> >
> >mcd
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Klappholz" <d.klappholz@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> >To: <EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME>
> >Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:11 PM
> >Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] Librarians and dust - the future
> >
> >
> >>  At 11:57 AM 1/28/2006, s cheiner wrote:
> >>>As for the 40 pound lifting requirement, I find that a
> >>>   legal size box filled with coated-stock paper weighs
> >>>in at around 40 pounds. I haven't pulled my Gutenberg
> >>>Bible volumes from the vault yet to see how much each
> >>>of them weighs - does any one already know the answer
> >>>to this to save me the trouble?
> >>
> >>  WHEW!!! I finally I have a serious, albeit imprecise, contribution to
> >>  make
> >>  to this list.
> >>
> >>  Having moved one volume of a 42-line Bible from a table, back into its
> >>  home vault, but not having weighed it along the way, I'd guesstimate
> >that
> >>  it weighed 15-20 lbs., so the complete Bible would likely weigh 30-40
> >lbs.
> >>  ... but I should admit that I don't recall if the other volume
> >appeared to
> >>  be thinner, the same thickness as, or thicker than the volume I
> >carried.
> >>
> >>  Regards
> >>  Dave
>