Thank you to all who responded to my question about marking
manuscripts. Evidently there is no consensus on this issue. Many of you share
my concern about defacing a valuable document. But if you plan to keep it
forever, is reducing the market value really important?
Many of the responses were posted to the list, but a few
were sent to me directly. As requested, here is a compilation of messages with
names (and institutions) removed. We will be discussing this issue at our staff
meeting this morning. I will probably post to the list what our final decision
is, if there is any interest.
Barbara Austen
1. In a rare books class in library school, an instructor
mentioned a micro stamp as a way of marking materials. I believe they're
small enough that they're not readily visible, but can be seen with
magnification. Hence, if an item of yours goes missing and shows up
elsewhere, you can have it checked in a particular place for your micro
mark. I would favor this method for marking rare items, though it doesn't
serve as a theft deterrent the way a more obvious mark might.
2. Mary Lynn Ritzenthaler has some
information on marking materials in her book, Preserving Archives and
Manuscripts (SAA, 1993). See p. 115. In particular, she notes that
a non-destructive method should be used, and notes that “The Library of
Congress has made available a permanent, non-acidic ink specifically for the
purpose of marking manuscripts.” She advises repositories to
contact the National Preservation Program Office, and ask for the ink (which as
of 1993 was being provided free of charge) and a copy of a leaflet,
“Marking Paper Manuscripts” (Preservation Leaflet No. 4.
Under revision at the time, so a new version may be out….)
3. I can see the argument
for marking manuscripts as a security measure. It acts as a type of insurance
in the case of theft, etc. However, I don't particularly feel good about
marking manuscripts. Isn't it taught in library school preservation classes to
use methods that are reversible? If necessary, we use pencil to mark our
manuscripts. Isn't the manuscript itself a unique item? In that case, there
would be no need to have a unique mark or stamp, especially if you have
thorough cataloging practices.
Our
archives is part of an academic library, and we do not use any permanent marks
in our Rare Books, so I would be hesitant to mark our manuscripts. A few years
ago we briefly considered marking the rare books, but feared that an ink that
is considered acceptable now, might not be in thought safe in the future.
Making a permanent mark in a book or manuscript also seems wrong. Even if we
wanted to mark our manuscripts, the idea of needing to mark thousands of pages
is daunting. [I do make pencil notes on papers from about the 1950s to present
to indicate an approximate date, or record information that was on Post-it
notes.]
If
you have some item that would be highly desirable by collectors, you might
consider marking it in an unobtrusive place.
4. Here's another source. National Park
Service Conserve O Gram July 1993 Number 19/2
http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/publications/conserveogram/19-02.pdf
"... Security Considerations Theft
of rare books is an increasing problem. The following measures can help the
rare book manager protect the collection. Make sure all rare books are
properly identified and marked for ownership in pencil on the back of the title
page near the binding at the bottom. ..."
5. If an institution has rare and unique manuscripts, I
would think a photocopy and digital image might serve the purpose of
“proof” of ownership instead of marking the item. I have
concerns over the ink, type of mark, not to mention how you decide what to
mark. And with 700,000+ materials, you then have the question of WHAT to
stamp. Years ago, many institutions marked manuscripts on the
margin or at a point that did not affect the manuscript writing, image, etc.
– and what did thieves do, they trimmed those edges!
I’ve wondered many times the
scenario of trying to prove something was yours and was stolen. It
seems to me that good cataloging data, accession data, photocopies or digital
images would serve the same purpose. But clearly I don’t have
the staff to stamp every manuscript or archive item that we have.
.
6. I would recommend taking a look at
Gregor Trinkaus-Randall’s publication—Protecting Your Collections: A Manual for Archival Security (SAA,
1995). I recently wrote a “Theft prevention and recovery
policy” and from my research it seems clear that marking manuscripts is
really a thing of the past. I think that most archivists view it as
defacement and destructive. Here at HSWP, many of our most valuable
documents, perhaps the vary ones that are the most highly collectable and marketable,
are the exact pieces that are occasionally exhibited in our museum
exhibitions. Our museum staff and administration would absolutely have a
cow if we intentionally altered those documents.
7. At the Rare Book and
Manuscript Library at the
My
gut reaction to stamping books and manuscripts is that the value of the item is
being decreased. On the other hand, if, on the odd chance, the library
deaccessions any of the material, a certain value might be found in the
indication of provenance. Just a thought.
8. Here is another place
where museums and archives differ. It is ingrained in museum personnel not to
do anything to an object that is not reversible. It goes against everything I
was taught to permanently mark a manuscript. It's like mutilating it.
9. As one who was heavily
involved in creating the current RBMS Security Guidelines and its marking
recommendations, I would like to point out that the recommendations there are
based on sound theory and practice and on some unfortunate experiences.
Also
speaking as one who has been, to his dismay, involved over the past several
years in efforts by various libraries to recover their stolen manuscripts, I
can assure everyone that an institutional property stamp is the be-all and
end-all of recovery efforts if your materials are stolen. If the visible mark
fails in its role as a deterrent and your manuscript is stolen anyway, that
mark is going to be removed, even if the thief has to cut it out. That is why
the invisible mark is so important; with any luck the thief will not see it and
it will remain on the document to provide proof. Such things as cataloguing
records, scans, microfilms, etc., are all dubious proofs subject to
interpretation. I know of cases wherein the stolen document and the image have
been put side by side, and you'd be surprised how different they can appear.
Also,
regrettably, such excuses as it is too much trouble to mark materials or that
doing so is too daunting a task or that it hurts the material will also be
turned against a library seeking to recover stolen materials, especially if any
amount of time has passed between the theft and its recovery. Such defenses as
estoppal and laches will be raised to deny the library the recovery of its
material, especially if the material is unmarked. Lack of marks will merely be
interpreted to mean that the library did not take reasonable measures within
its grasp to protect its property and will be advanced as yet another reason
the aggrieved purchaser does not have to return the materials.
Mark
your stuff! Don't join the unhappy group of librarians and archivists who get
to see a judge hand possession of their property to somebody else. Besides, SAA
endorses those Guidelines as best professional practice. No reason not to
follow them.
10. We mark selected
manuscript items with Newberry Library ownership stamps, using Library of
Congress ink. We can't stamp everything, either, but we don't want a famous
person's autograph or other valuable documents getting away. The solution of
having a surrogate to use as proof of ownership suggests that one has time to
make photocopies or digital copies of everything in the collection, which is
more time-consuming, shelf-consuming, and server-consuming than marking the
originals.
To
avoid thieves trimming the stamp out of the document, we stamp in a prominent
place, e.g., on the verso of a letter behind the signature.
Since
the Smiley incident, we've stepped up our marking, and now even every page in
every valuable atlas has the Newberry's mark on it. We've learned it's hard to
prove ownership otherwise. Personally, I still feel a little guilty about
defacing these items, but we're expecting to keep them forever, and even with
security guards checking every bag and briefcase at the exit, it's still too
easy for some items to walk away.
11. Shades of James Bond,
there is also the microdot (data dot, Microtaggant) as found on the IFTF site
in a discussion of RFID:
a few entries down as: Feb.
14, 2005 Other Tagging Methods"
Sounds expensive to just
spray - but maybe the rice-size piece could be inserted in a spine one by one
or attached and concealed some other way.
12. When I read your post,
it occurred to me that perhaps a mark that is not visible without a UV light
might have the desired affect, but not affect the aesthetics of the items so
marked. I have NO idea what is in UV sensitive inks, or if there might not be
an inert, non-reactive option. I am thinking maybe something that is organic
and naturally UV reactive, like the glow in the dark mushrooms.
============================================================
Barbara Austen Manuscript Archivist / Cataloger The (860) 236-5621, ext. 251 Fax: (860) 236-2664 |
|
Join us for one of our coming events!
Visit www.chs.org/events.htm for a
complete listing.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>