Sender: Rare book and manuscripts <EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU>
There is a theory called self-insurance. If I understand it correctly, it
means treating the premiums as "pre-payments" for possible loss. I know of
several prominent collectors who follow this route. And certainly all large
libraries do.
I take the occasion to apologize to the list for having allowed myself to
express my irritation at pointless potshots from across the ocean. I shall
follow the suggestion of the pot-shotter and delete his messages before
reading. It's no more a problem than deleting the [alas] spurious
announcements that I have won several million euros. I get at least three a
day.
Gabriel Austin
-----Original Message-----
From: Rare book and manuscripts [mailto:EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Joan Friedman
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:07 AM
To: EXLIBRIS-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS-L] NY Auction Bidding Legislation
But replacement is the point of insurance. Why have insurance except to
make you whole after a loss? I can see there might be some argument for
not insuring books at all, on the theory that most could probably not be
readily replaced, but if you're going to insure, replacement is the only
value that makes any sense.
Gabriel Austin wrote:
> Replacement value would likely have doubled the insurance premiums. Gordon
> did 5% or 6% annually, to keep up with inflation.
>
>
>
> The question of the extent to which books should be insured is a difficult
> one. I know of a collector, many of whose books must be kept in a bank
vault
> at the insistence of the insurance company because of their value. He then
> he asks why he bothered to collect them.
>
>
>
> Gabriel Austin
>
>
>