[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Permanence of duplicating paper
- To: Multiple recipients of list BOOK_ARTS-L <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Permanence of duplicating paper
- From: "Iain D. Brown" <100131.3564@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:33:19 EDT
- Message-id: <199610242334.QAA26398@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Many thanks for the message.
The majority of the playscripts were produced by means other than Xerox thermal
duplication---I can identify only one or two that have been Xeroxed: they are
now brown and terribly faded, as you mention. Pity: I'm sure there were some
good swear words in the plays that the Lord Chamberlain would have had to
I fingered [gasp!] quite a few of the Gestetner duplicated playscripts, and
didn't notice that the ink still smudges. But I did notice that a good number of
playscripts had, on the verso, faint, black impressions of the following page.
The black type on the pages was actually quite good---clear, sharp and (mostly)
The paper used for the playscripts was as you state: stock cartridge paper.
Interestingly, the whole collection for 1968 (some 467 playscripts) is in good
condition. May it continue to last ...
Your solution of interleaving acid-free tissue would be useful ... were it not
for the fact that over 25,000 sheets would be needed to preserve the 1968
playscripts alone; for the entire twentieth century, I calculated some 3--4
million sheets of tissue would be needed! Perhaps this indicates that the
archive should be digitised for preservation purposes. <G>