Featured Terminology question

Hi all,
I was wondering, when posting items for sale, if the correct term for flaws is 'damage' or 'defect'. On the one hand, I found extensive use of the word 'defect' both in the ABC for Book Collectors and sotheby's, and they can hardly be wrong. On the other hand, to me it sounds as if 'defect' is something that can only occur during production (printing or binding, for example) and 'damage' is anything that happens afterwards.
Any input would be much appreciated.

 

I would use the word damage, but specify it, damage to the..... and preferably show it in a picture. If it is slight damage, call it that.
Another word is 'wear', but only if it is just natural wear, for instance to a layer of gilding. If the wear is bad, I use 'traces of goldwash', etc.
Some sellers say "condition as shown in pictures". That is not always fair, because sometimes damage is hard to find if you don't know where to look.

 

One more thing, buyers appreciate it when you give a good description of whatever is wrong with it, along with the good things of course.
Among the things we sell, are always a couple of antique keris (Indonesian ritual daggers), which have clearly had a long life, and are sometimes pretty neglected when we get them. After some tlc we list them, always mentioning the wear, damage, rust, repair, etc. We always get top reviews with comments like "exactly as described, reliable seller".

 

Forgot the most important thing, where are my manners:
Hello Ruth, and welcome to the forum!

 

Books have a special vocabulary for different types of damage (I call them defects).
'Bumped' means cover corners pushed out of shape, for example. Here are some others to look up. Hinges starting, board detached, missing ffep, missing fep, foxed, wormed, cocked (spine slants when the book is on its side) rebacked and so on, Most of these are not a problem with modern books, but for antiquarian books it is really a help to all if you use the proper terms. There is nothing to inspire confidence better than to appear to know what you are talking about.

There are also the commonly used grades for books and their dust jackets that need to be learned, especially when the value of a book can be multiplied if it has a fine dust jacket.

So best not to just say damage or defect but find the correct term for the specific damage and use that.
I am fairly sure I have seen a dictionary of booksellers' terms on the net somewhere. A little study and the words fall trippingly off the tongue as if you were an old hand.

 

Thanks, and of course, I take care to note *which* damage - I was just wondering whether it's damage or defect.

 

That has always been my way of thinking.

 

Agree. You can buy new things cheaply i.e. from a factory store because they have a small defect. They're not damaged, just a production flaw.

 

Hi,
You have opened my eyes to a question. Many years ago I had a wonderful first edition worth a lot of money but it had no dust jacket. I saw on ebay a few years ago the exact same book in horrible condition but it had a wonderful dust jacket. I bought it for the dust jacket to place on my first edition. Now if I sell the first edition do I say it has a replaced dust jacket or not. How do I leave a note that the dust jacket is a replacement. Someone could just remove the note.
greg

 

Just because you have that jacket...doesn't mean you have a true first jacket.
You must be absolutely certain that its 'points' match the true first jacket.
If a 'true' first jacket I don't think that revealing this info is at all relevant.
Any jacket could've gone on any book at the publishers so who cares.

 

Welcome!
As far as I'm concerned, 'defect' is in manufacturing.
'Damage' is anytime after manufacture.

 

As stated, if the points of the DJ are correct, it's not worth mentioning.

Note that modern first editions are a fickle market, something that is hot one decade may be near forgotten the next.

 

Hi,
It was a true first edition dust jacket. Okay, now I will stop obsessing about it. It is a true first edition with dust jacket. My family will probably toss it into the dumpster anyway.
greg

 

Toss the family first. Or leave it to me.

 

NO!!!
Me!

 

One option could be to just put it this way and specify if needed:

Condition report: (Wear, cracks, dirt, stains, crazing, refinished, chipped, manufacturing defect, faded, uneven wear, renovated, added parts, missing parts, patina, tarnish, tearing, foxing, rust, scratches, etc.)

 

HI and WELCOME to the boards, Ruth!!!!!

 

not if you put in your will that we get all your stuff......
i guarantee none of it will get tossed............

 

To me, the word "damage" does include the meaning that a change happened that affected the value or the operation or the use of an object. To me it implies that in the case of an object, the object would have already existed and that the damage occurred later. As a word in general, "defect" seems to be more neutral in that it just says something is not perfect but doesn't say when it happened. Could have been during production, could have been later.

Since this is the Books forum I assume you are talking only about books here, and want to know how the words are supposed to be used correctly when related to books. I know that ABC for Book Collectors is highly regarded as a glossary or dictionary of terms related to books. However, I just looked at my copy and see that it doesn't really address the question you have posed. So my advice would be to find an authoritative source that does define the terms as they relate to books.

(You might or might not be able to tell that I'm a librarian...)

 

Thanks, that would explain why some use the term 'defect' for any flaw.
Regarding the ABC, I ran a search through the pdf edition I have and found out that it uses 'defect' in the sense you referred to. It's true it's only implied and not addressed as a topic. Do you know any good online glossary?