Who here has ever bought a book with library or school binding?

If you have, do you consider a library bound book a better purchase than a regular hardcover or a paperback? If a paperback, hardcover, and library bound version of a book all cost the same amount of money, which one would you purchase?



Any information on your level of satisfaction with a book with school/library binding would be great.Who here has ever bought a book with library or school binding?
Actually it depends on the end use for your book and what the original "hardcover" binding is. Very often, the publishers binding is a cheap glue bound copy as publishers tend to put out what they can for the least amount of money, but to look good - to sell when on the shelf. (Though, some publishers bindings are actually excellent - but the majority are not).



A true library binding is stronger and will last longer - if done in a plain buckram cover, many find it "boring" as another posted. The boring cover is usually buckram and it will last through a lot of beatings (library bound, meaning to stand up to all the people in a library checking the book out, etc.). Library bound also usually means that it's been sewn, backed with a strong cloth binding and built to last. (Bound like a "tank"). We are a library bindery and the reason that we even exist is because publishers bindings tend to fall apart in the libraries, so it's better for them to rebind the book in a sturdy binding that will hold up to heavy use. Most library binders also will rebind books for individuals.



For personal use, if you're looking for aesthetics, the "hardbound" or publishers original binding will probably be best as it looks good - usually nice covers, dust jackets, etc. However, the book inside is typically bound in a cheap cloth or paper on the spine and paper for the covers, which the dust jacket hides. It's also rare that it's been sewn. If however you're buying a dictionary, textbook or other heavy use book, go with the library bound as you want it to hold up. If it's just a novel or "one read" book, choose what looks best.



There are some other library bound items that have duplicated the old cover by making a copy, laminating that copy and using it for the hard cover so those are not boring. This would probably be preferred as it's a balance between the cheap publishers binding and the boring hardcover. It will probably be sewn and the reproduced cover is probably stronger than the original binding as it's typically laminated with a heavier laminate. So you have strength and the nice picture still.



Each cover is going to be different. Just saying "library bound" is not always a thorough description. Unfortunately, each and every binding can vary depending on who did the original publishers binding and who did the library bound binding, but in general, my descriptions above will hold true.



Sincerely,



Tracy Lamphere, Manager

Grimm Book Bindery, Inc. "Since 1854"

6880 Gisholt Drive

Madison, WI 53713

www.grimmbindery.comWho here has ever bought a book with library or school binding?
Pud bought the classroom binding of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (which I have yet to actually read...). I always prefer paperback over hardcover. I don't care for the dust jackets and it's inconvenient to carry around.

I would choose the paperback for the above reason and because I don't like the simple covers.Who here has ever bought a book with library or school binding?
Ha. Funny q.



I hate library/school binding, I hate the flippy plastic. Hardcover rules.
Hardback is better; library binding is that boring cover you see on library books.

barometer