Gone to Pieces

Brittle book pieces for tours and presentations.

Decisions, decisions!  Who makes the decisions on what to do with our brittle books?  Here at Iowa State University Library, the process has evolved over time.  We have streamlined the process making it easier for all involved with the decisions.

Brittle books.

In the past, damaged books would be brought to the reformatting area, and staff would make the decision on whether to repair, reformat, or box the book.  Only if it was in very bad shape would we request input from the Bibliographers.  Over time, we determined that we wanted more input from them so we could be sure we were keeping and working on books that were still important to the collection.  The Library Assistant in Reformatting would search the title in our online catalog, OCLC, and Books in Print, and make paper copies of all of the records found for the book in-hand and for more recent editions.  The Bibliographer was then notified to come to the reformatting area to review the book.  However, this searching process was determined not to be a good use of time or paper, as it used up a lot of both.

As staffing and reorganization brought about change, we decided it was time to look at the process and determine what changes needed to take place for working with the Bibliographers regarding brittle and damaged books.  The Circulation Department was asked to take the damaged books to the Conservation Laboratory, where the Conservator would first take a look at the books and determine if they could be fixed in the lab.  If so, they were added to the lab’s inventory and processed through their workflow.

If Conservation determined that the book needed to be reviewed by a Bibliographer, they would fill out a slip for Preservation Services and forward it with the book to our area.  This form (shown at left) helps us to track the processes that the book is going through.  The form is tucked into the publication by the staff in the Conservation Lab after they have filled out the basic information (Date Received, Call Number and/or Title), along with their recommendation to send for Bibliographic Review, Box, or Reformat.  Bibliographic Review is the most often chosen selection. The appropriate bibliographer’s name and the subject code are added to the form by staff in Preservation Services.  The next step is to search the title in our online catalog and print off the bibliographic information.

We now have another form which is filled out and printed to go along with the volume to the Bibliographers.  This is known as the “Referral to Bibliographer” form.  This form is tucked into the book along with the Preservation Services Processing Form and the Bibliographic record from our online catalog.

The books are then transferred to designated shelves for the Bibliographers to review.  An email is sent to each of the Bibliographers receiving books to notify them that there are books awaiting their review.  They are given a set amount of time to complete this task, usually a 2-week turnaround.  If at the end of that time a decision has not been made, the Collections Coordinator makes the decision and passes the book back to Preservation Services staff.

To assist the Bibliographers in making their decision, a computer is available for their use in the review area.  They are able to look up titles in World Cat, Books in Print, and other online resources.  Their response is noted on the Referral to Bibliographer form along with their initials and date.

Brittle books awaiting bibliographic review.

When the book is returned to Preservation Services, the decision by the Bibliographer is noted on the Preservation Services Processing Form if it is to be boxed or reformatted.   At this point, any additional information about how to handle the book is made by Preservation Services staff in consultation with the Head of Preservation and/or the Conservator.  If the book is to be withdrawn, the necessary information is forwarded along with the book to the Cataloging Department to complete the process.

Brittle books.

This current handling process has streamlined the workflow, helped us to process books in a more timely manner, and involved the various, knowledgeable staff members who should be making these decisions about our collection.

 

1091 Project: Portrait of the Student Technician

This month’s 1091 Project highlights the role of student workers in the Conservation Lab.  Quite honestly, many university conservation departments wouldn’t be nearly as productive without these unsung workhorses of conservation. Often the most tedious tasks fall to the students: they make enclosures, tip-in loose pages, surface clean, and vacuum moldy items.  Yet they perform these tasks efficiently and cheerfully, and miraculously, they keep showing up for work.

When I interned at the Conservation Lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, many of the students working in the lab were also studying in the GSLIS program.  We don’t have a library school here at ISU, so our students come from other departments. Of our current four student employees, one is a graduate student pursuing her MA in History (although she started working for us as an undergraduate Anthropology major), one is an Anthropology major, one is a Design major, and one is a Elementary Education major.

Hannah makes spine title labels for tux boxes.

Our students tackle a variety of projects according to their handskills and experience.  Hannah just started with us this semester, and she has learned to surface clean, insert tip-ins, sew on pamphlet binders, and construct tux boxes and other four-flap wrappers.  We have a shelf full of items needing other types of boxes which will be next on her plate.

Devin has been with us for about a year, but already had excellent handskills from her experience in the College of Design.  She performs many mid-level treatments such as custom portfolio construction, double-fan adhesive bindings, and shield bindings.  Devin divides her work schedule between Conservation and the Preservation Services unit of the Preservation Department.

Ashley clamps down adhesive bindings in a book press.

Ashley and Hope have both worked in the lab for two and a half years.  Their handskills have developed beautifully during this time, and both are now capable of executing more advanced book repairs such as rebacks, new cases, re-cases, and “full repairs,” which they tackle when the more general student treatment workflow slows down at various points throughout the year.

Hope repairs a volume of color samples. And yes, she knows that our volunteer Martha is giving her mutant bunny ears. She’s good-natured like that.

When we hire new students, we look for hobbies or work experience that show evidence of good eye-hand coordination, but we don’t expect them to have any prior bookbinding or conservation experience. The typical student workflow includes materials preparation (such as cutting spine inserts and hinging endpapers), surface cleaning, box-making, tip-ins, page mending, pamphlet binding, double-fan adhesive binding, shield binding, vacuuming mold, and small-scale deacidification using a compressor and Book Keeper’s spray unit.  The students have also been called upon to assist during disaster recovery.  In fact, when Hope and Ashley first started working in the lab, they spent a month washing Mylar architectural plans which had been damaged during the 2010 Ames flood.

We know our students’ first and foremost goal is to receive a good education here at ISU.  We appreciate being just one of their many priorities, and have been impressed by their reliability, their cheerful hard work, and their diligence in developing their handskills.  We couldn’t run the lab without them!

Don’t forget to stop by Preservation Underground to hear about the student technician experience in the Conservation Lab of Duke University Libraries.

 

1091 Project: The Good, The Bad, The Past Repairs

This week’s 1091 Project considers previous repairs and when to remove them or let them be.  The examples I was able to find here in the ISU Library Conservation Lab were not all repairs per se; some were preservation rehousing decisions.

At some point in the long-distant past, this collection of manuscripts was hinged onto stubs, and bound into a single volume.  In some cases, as shown above in the image on the right, the manuscript sheet was hinged onto a stub and then additional paper was hinged onto the tail edge of smaller sheets to make them all the same dimensions before binding.

Many of the manuscripts’ primary supports are becoming embrittled, so I was reluctant to remove the stubs from the paper supports either mechanically or by introducing moisture.  Instead, the volume was disbound and the stubs were trimmed by hand along the edge of the primary supports.  Some of the manuscripts will be encapsulated, and all will be rehoused in folders in archival document boxes.

Click on image to enlarge.

The above images show a student newspaper from 1902 which had been lined with linen or muslin and bound as a book.  The information is completely legible, but not aesthetically pleasing, and not ideal for potential digitization.  However, the image below shows the deciding factor in the debate whether to disbind this volume and reverse the lining.

As you can see, there are many small tears and losses in the text which were somewhat clumsily positioned in place during the lining process.  While this treatment may be, quite frankly, ugly, the information has been retained intact.  The process of removing the lining could easily result in the loss of many of these tiny fragments, thus defeating the purpose of our preservation efforts.  In spite of this treatment’s shortcomings, the University Archivist and I decided to leave the treated item as-is.

And then there’s the book tape.  I hesitated to include these volumes with book tape on their fraying spines as “previous repairs,” since no self-respecting book conservator would ever use — or condone the use of — pressure-sensitive book tape on collection materials.  However, such items are a common problem in many libraries.  When faced with General Collection volumes that have been taped along the spine, if the tape does not extend too far onto the boards, we simply cut away and discard the original spine with its book tape covering and then perform a reback on the offended volume.  If the tape coverage is too extensive, then we send the item to the commercial bindery for a new binding.

When faced with the sad circumstance of a Special Collections volume so mistreated, we either box the item to isolate the book tape (and its attendant “adhesive creep”) from adjacent items on the shelf, or we commit ourselves to removing the tape and the adhesive residue it invariably leaves behind, a time-consuming process usually involving both mechanical and chemical means.

Finally, there are many preservation housings, such as the old-school pamphlet binders pictured above, which were once widely used, but which we now know have their own inherent vice: they tend to be made from acidic paperboard and non-colorfast cloth.  We routinely discard these and replace them with more conservationally sound materials.  (Three cheers for conservation science!)

Don’t forget to visit Preservation Underground to see how the Duke University Libraries Conservation Lab handles past repairs!

 

1091 Project: From Art to Eyeballs

As any book and paper conservator working in archives knows, a more diverse range of items crowds the shelves than the expected books, documents, and photographs.  While the focus of our training may have been the treatment of books and paper, we often find ourselves responsible for the physical care of other artifacts as well.  Globes, trophies, and medals are, perhaps, not so unusual.  However, the ISU Library Special Collections and Archives also contains the wax drum of the first ABC computer, chemistry equipment, a death mask, a street sign, and a handmade marionette puppet, to name just a few of the more unusual artifacts.  The Conservation Unit of the Preservation Department cares for all of these items and more.  In some cases, a simple condition assessment and rehousing may suffice.  Sometimes, the artifact may be cleaned or treated in-house.  In other cases, we may work with contract conservators to make sure fragile or damaged items receive appropriate conservation treatment.

     

Most recently, we have been assessing artifacts from the Christian Petersen collection.  Among the Christan Petersen “Papers” can be found several plaster models of Petersen’s larger, bronze sculptures from the 1930s and 1940s, as well as a collection of his hand tools.  Right now, these items are stored in the Special Collections vault and restricted from public access.  We are currently working to photodocument the condition of the items, rehouse them in display-worthy enclosures that will allow the public to access them safely, and arrange for any conservation treatment they may need.

Plaster model for Library Girl, 1944

Buffalo

Medal

Tools belonging to Christian Petersen.

Tools belonging to Christian Petersen.

Along with these artifacts, the Christian Petersen collection includes several linear feet of sketches, photographs, letters, and other documents.  We’re excited about working with the Special Collections staff toward the goal of giving researchers the valuable gift of access to all of these materials together, in context.  To see more images of the Christian Petersen collection, visit our Christian Petersen Digital Collection.

Don’t forget to visit Preservation Underground to see what interesting artifacts Beth Doyle has faced in the Conservation Lab of Duke University Libraries!

 

Five Shades of Gray

Some library materials come to you and you’re just not sure what your treatment will be.  There might be a lot of staring, thinking, drawing, prototypes, and conversing with co-workers to get ideas as what to do.

THE GRAY NOTEBOOK by Alexander Vvedensky is one of those library items that I won’t forget because of its uniqueness.  It’s a nice little pamphlet with gray, zigzag stitching offset by a half-inch inside to the right from the spine with two unattached, folded papers that, when they are unfolded, are larger than the pamphlet.

Mylar pockets sewn in along the fold.

I first humidified and flattened the two papers to take the crease out.   I wanted to preserve these pages flat and house them separately from the pamphlet, so I encased them in two Mylar pockets welded onto a single, folded sheet of Mylar.  The pockets were both left open along the gutter edge so the pages could be removed later if needed.

Pamphlet stitched into the binder in five spots, following the same zig-zag stitch of the original sewing.

The thread used to stitch the pamphlet into the binder was first dyed gray.

The pamphlet was sewn into the binder off-set from the Mylar pocket folio.

Next I used acrylic paints to dye white book thread to gray, as I wanted something that would match the gray thread originally used on the pamphlet.  After the thread was dry, I decided to sew the Mylar pockets into the pamphlet binder first along the main back crease.  Then I sewed five zigzag stitches in through original holes in the pamphlet to attach it to the binder in an offset fashion in front of the Mylar encapsulations.  I had to make a new crease in the binder to accommodate the pamphlet and then trimmed the pamphlet binder and rounded the corners.    The finished product came out nicely, very useable, and I’m proud to say I did it.  And yes, Virginia, there are five shades of gray in the completed product.