Print This Page

The Binding and Preparation of Periodicals:
Alternative Structures and Procedures

Serials Review, John Dean, John Hopkins University

Illustrations by Nora Ligorana
Apprentice, Bindery Program
John Hopkins University

The effects of inflation on libraries are well-known. Increases in overall budget allocations are rarely sufficient to meet increased costs, thus reductions in areas not directly and immediately related to front-line service requirements are frequently made. The binding budget is a prime target for cuts, even in the face of higher binding costs. Therefore the need to rationalize binding decisions in terms of patterns of use is imperative. In most cases, it is not possible to reduce the number of items needing binding without creating an organizational crisis of loose periodical parts vulnerable to theft and loss. Thus, if the number of units cannot be reduced, then the unit cost must be. Most commercial binders have responded to this problem by devising various types of "economy" bindings, which while not conforming to the Library binding Institute standard for library binding[1], offer the attraction of lower unit cost. Unfortunately, most economy bindings incorporate the appearance and all the inherent faults of certified binding and utilize cheaper, and weaker binding materials. The economy binding is sold as a cheaper form of "standard" binding for "lesser used materials," even though separate specifications for this category were established in 1957[2]. These "Minimum Specifications for Lesser Used Materials for Libraries," or LUMSPECS, describe a form of binding radically different in appearance from the seemingly traditional full bound cloth library binding, a feature which has probably been influential in inhibiting any wide acceptance of the style. It is curious that the "traditional" full cloth case binding is a relatively modern invention, owing more to the needs of mass production streamlining[3] than to the structural demands of the book, or indeed to the aesthetic needs of the librarian. The LUMSPEC binding has a plain binder's board front and back, with only square and un-rounded cloth strip for a spine. The edges of the boards are flush with the book edges, giving the overall impression of cheapness of appearance and weakness of structure.

Yet little of the more substantial full cloth case binding has to do with durability of structure. Modern libraries have become accustomed to associating the conventional appearance of a full cloth case binding with acceptable standards of durability, without sufficiently analyzing their basic needs or questioning some of their assumptions. Thus, for example, many law librarians insist that their cloth case bindings have highly expensive, but functionally useless, gold lines across the spines to fulfill their expectations of what law books should look like. The lines, in fact, imitate the false cords (ridges) on the hollow spines of law calf or sheep bindings of the late nineteenth century, which are in themselves structurally useless caricatures of the structural features of earlier bindings. In order to go beyond visual assumptions and examine some alternative binding methods, it is necessary to briefly review some of the historical factors affecting the development of the modern library binding.

Until late into the nineteenth century, books were not bound specifically for multi-use libraries. Books consisted of printed sheets folded into gathering or sections, which were sewn through the fold and bound by trade bookbinders in bindings specifically designed for the individual purchaser. In 1850 the first public libraries were established in England, followed a few years later by establishments in America. The clamor for adult education made them enormously popular, and the wear on books and sudden growth in the periodical literature created a demand for large scale bookbinding methods. Eventually, standards were established in 1905 by the [Royal] Society of Arts[4], serving as guidelines for library binding structure in British libraries for many years. Briefly, these standards required that: all signatures be sewn through the fold with unbleached linen thread on to no fewer that three unbleached linen tapes; the spine be lightly rounded and backed; the boards of the seasoned millboard, split down the inside back edge to accommodate the ends of the sewing tapes (see Figure 1); the spine have a stout paper tube fastened to it; the entire book covered with cloth or buckram. The structure of this style is extremely sound, as the small board overlap projecting beyond the book edges (the square) is maintained by the binding's rigidity when standing on the shelf. The basic, and most significant, difference between this cloth binding and the modern cloth case, is that with the former, the grinding is built onto the book and is thus integrated with it; while with the latter, case and book are processed quite separately to produce more productive work flow,a nd to enable machine title stamping. The difference in appearance, at least initially, is slight, but the difference in effect is striking, particularly for heavy books. An English library grinding company, Ben Riley of Huddersfield, provides a useful distinction:

Long experience has convinced us that for all cloth or buckram covered library books the "split" board is preferable. Otherwise there is always the possibility that with an open back (case binding) the cover may come away from the book unless the tapes and end sheets are inserted into split boards[5].

Unfortunately, modern labor costs have effectively removed the genuine library cloth binding from practical consideration, while the inherent weakness of the modern cloth case, i.e., potential separation from the book block, remains.

The traditional ideal of sewing through the signature fold must not only be sacrificed because of its higher labor intensity, but because few modern periodical publishers issue parts in folded signatures. Over the last several years periodical publishing trends have been towards narrower margins and parts made up of collations of single leaves, side-stapled or glued together. In realistic terms, the binder must select from only three basic methods for fastening leaves together: 1) over-sewing; 2) cleat sewing; 3) adhesive binding.

Oversewing

Oversewing has been the favored method for primary structure in America over the last sixty years. This has been undoubtedly largely due to the development of the oversewing machine by Elmo Reavis and others between 1920 and 1925[6], and its almost wholesale adoption by the library binding industry which is always eager to reduce labor cost. The method of oversewing was not new, a method combining a perforating machine and hand sewing having been patented in England by Cedric Chivers in 1904[7], but he Reavis machine speeded dup the process so successfully that it began to be used almost indiscriminately by the industry. In simple terms, the process involves grinding off a portion of the inner margin, piercing of the back edges of the pages with needles, and interlocking the threads at the spine. While the method is extremely strong and ideal of materials likely to receive very heavy use, it is generally inappropriate for materials of a permanent nature. As the paper become less flexible over time, the perforating effects of the needle holes cause the leaves to break and fall out. The chief complaint about the method is its reduction of the inner margin, which in combination with its general inflexibility, renders filming and rebinding difficult, if not impossible.

Cleat sewing

Cleat sewing was developed as an attempt to address some of the faults of the oversewing process, its initial design being supported by the Council on Library Resources. The Smythe Manufacturing Company took over manufacturing rights in 1968, and by 1972 began producing machines. Briefly, the process involves the cutting of angles slits into the back edge of the book, into which thread is laced in a figure eight pattern[8]. Although it was designed to consume less inner margin and open more freely than oversewing, the process does not seen a significant enough improvement to encourage its wholesale adoption.

Adhesive binding

Adhesive binding of single leaves is a practice which has been employed for many years by publishers and library binders alike. The results have been inconsistent due to the many different types of adhesives used as well as the variety of paper weights and rates of absorbency. In addition to these variables, there are two basic methods of adhesive application, one which applies adhesive to the back edge of the paper, and another which applies adhesive to the fanned-out area of the back margin. Of the two, the latter method is to be preferred, because it hinges each leaf together with the next leaf rather than merely attaching it to a film of adhesive. While binders have used a manual form of fan binding for many years, a German "double fan" adhesive binding machine has made the process economical. The machine, which became known as the Lumbeck machine in Europe, is manufactured by the Ehlermann Company and is gaining popularity amoung binders in America[9]. Utilizing a polyvinyl resin adhesive the machine automatically double fans the back edge margin to produce a bond between each leaf.

It seems apparent that, when considering a choice from any number of options, the deciding factors must be constructed from data concerning tong-term relevance to the user, and to patterns of use. This is especially true when decisions are to be made on forms of binding. The most relevant data for periodical bindings must be derived from the study of patterns of use after binding. In the fall of 1975, the collections maintenance office of the Milton S. Eisenhower Library, Johns Hopkins University, conducted four such studies. The object of the studies was to determine levels of use after binding, and whether or not the form of binding in use at that time was appropriate to those levels. The studies consisted of four separate surveys, each of 100 randomly selected titles for the year 1970, using three basic criteria: 1) the number of times circulated; 2)evidence of use; 3) evidence of binding wear. Twenty titles of known extended high use, mainly abstracts and indexes, were not included in the study. Of the 400 titles surveyed, more that 87 per cents (352 titles), had not been used since binding. With the exception of four titles with an average minimum use of twenty, the rest averaged four uses after binding. Bindings on all the books surveyed were to the L.B.I. class A standard, which, as discussed earlier, is designed to withstand heavy use but which does not stand up well on the shelf due to separation of the book and case from sagging, whether used or not. the cost of this binding was also thought to be higher than the Library could afford.

As a result of the study a new form of binding was designed to provide the following characteristics: 1) the grinding must stand on the shelf without sagging, and be capable of being shelved on the fore-edge without causing structural damage; 2) it must be flexible in opening to permit comfortable reading and reprography; 3) it must be capable of being rebound if necessary; 4) it must be cost effective, if possible at least 50 per cent cheaper than class A. Accordingly, a square, flush-edged shape was decided upon as being most efficient for long-term stability. Oversewing and cleat sewing were rejected as to inflexible to satisfy the requirement for full ease of opening, and too margin-consuming to enable rebinding. The Ehlermann adhesive binding method was chosen, as test results indicated structure durability comparable to sewing, and greatly superior to other adhesive methods[10]. Combined with the flush, non-sagging structure, the Ehlermann adhesive binding is not subjected to strain when standing on the shelf, and in opening, the spine is supported by the direct adhesion of lining and cover materials. The materials, binder's board and library buckram, are of the same quality as specified by L.B.I. for the class A standard. Precise specifications were drawn up, and in early 1976, the bulk of periodical tittles began to be bound accordingly by a local commercial binder. More than 35,000 "quarter buckram" periodical bindings have been produced to the specification since 1976, without a single instance of structure failure, but with a 60 per cent saving in costs. The binding has improved wholly satisfactory in achieving the purpose for which it was designed, and the structure has remained sound and in stable shape even on volumes receiving extensive use.

As may be noted from the specifications, the Library has deliberately assumed responsibility for collation and other kinds of pre-binding checking. A study of preparation and documentation systems carried out during the binding design phase showed that in-library collation occurred even when the binder was including the service in his standards. It was felt that the proper place for collation was in the Library where missing fronts, indexes, title pages, contents, etc. could be supplied before the volume left the building. The study identified the need for: streamlining filing systems; reducing preparation costs[11]; better coordination between periodical departments and the preparation unit to reduce pick-up time lag; continuous reader access to in-binding records; and reduction in binder's "extra" charges for excessive lettering, etc. A department, the Commercial Binding Office, was established and steps taken to provide administrative strength in planning and scheduling procedures. A new binding instruction system was designed in cooperation with the binder, which not only greatly reduced clerical tasks, but also provided more accurate documentation, status and location information to the circulation department. The creation of this system enabled also a consistent reduction in title lengths, which produced significant cost savings and brought binders' titles in line with normal form of citation rather than corporate author main entry.

In order to eliminate the need for the commercial binding of single volume serials such as yearbooks, annual reports, etc., an effective, low-cost in-house binding process was developed. This process, perfected in the University Bindery, was simplified to the point where it could be transferred to the Library cataloguing department, where it is used for all new paperback materials, both serial and monographic. Complete "turn-around" time averages twenty-four hours, and treatment has become a simple extension of normal pre-shelf processing. Since the implementation of this in-house binding procedure (termed "stiffening"), libraries in three other universities have established similar stiffening operations with assistance from the Milton S. Eisenhower Library staff.

By devoting time and effort to a basic analysis of objectives, as well as developing effective means of producing essential data, librarians can provide themselves with a sound basis for binding specification and contract negotiation with commercial binders[12]. A general rationalization of binding specifications to equate them with patterns of use must not be perceived as "cheapening" binding standards. In many cases, significant cost savings can go hand in hand with more appropriate, and effective, styles of binding.

Notes and References

1. For a detailed description of these standards, see Maurice F. Tauber, ed., Library Binding Manual. Boston: Library Binding Institute, 1972, pp. 67-79. A useful discussion of them is included in Matt J. Roberts, "The Library Binder," Library Trends 24 (April 1976): 749-62.[back]

2. "Minimum Specifications for Binding Lesser Used Materials," American Library Association Bulletin. 52 (June 1958): 51-53.[back]

3. Bernard C. Middleton. A History of English Craft Bookbinding Technique. New York: Hafner, 1963, pp. 74-75.[back]

4. Society of Arts. London. Report of the Committee on Leather for Bookbinding. London: Prhated for
Society by Bell and Sons, 1905.[back]

5. B. Riley and Company Ltd. A Modern Library Bindery, Huddersfield: Riley, 1949, pp. 8-9.[back]

6. Tauber... p. 10.[back]

7. Middleton... pp. 25--26.[back]

8. American Library Association. Library Technology Reports. May 1972, A1-A5.[back]

9. Jack Bendor. Personal communication of product literature. May 16, 1974.[back]

10. Ibid. Conducted by United States Testing Company 1972.[back]

11. Xerox University Microfilms. Customer Profile Analysis Report for Stanford University: Documentation. Ann Arbor: 1973. This study of preparation costs concluded that the average unit cost in large libraries for preparation only was $2.75 [p. 31].[back]

12. Roberts, cited earlier, provides invaluable hints on the processes of contract drafting, negotiation, and sample evaluation.[back]