Time To Retire The Dust Jacket?

Mr_Cosmic

Three new hardcovers arrived in the mail this past week. Two had the standard dust jacket over boring black book while the third(Uncanny Avengers) had the images printed right on the book itself. After reading all three it makes me wish publishers would just do away with the dust jackets. You have to remove them or else they are slipping down while you're trying to read. Then there are bending and ripping issues too. Plus, it just looks better. The Uncanny Avengers HC is one sharp looking book.

I don't know...what do you guys think?

Chuck_Melville

I also like the imprinted covers... but I still prefer the dust jackets. I'm more of a traditional bibliophile that way; I just think they look classier.

fredzilla

You could always simply take the dust covers off as you read them... Actually, I think they look nice in the bookshelf and help protect the cover when not being read. I can see why you want them gone, but since I'm not reading my books all the time, it's not that big of a deal to take it off while I'm reading.

I think the Fables deluxe trades do what Uncanny Avengers does, but they also include a dust jacket that has the same art as the binding cover. They could make 'em like that, no?

John_Steed

even my Galaxy wears a dust jacket

<:-P

Webhead

I like them.

I always remove them before I read a book and still get upset with myself if they get torn or damaged. I also like the imprinted covers but I still would want a dust jacket even if it was not as good as the imprinted cover.

Torchsong

I like my dust jackets, but it's not a deal breaker if a book doesn't have them. Case in point, at FCBD at the store I was doing an in-store appearance, they had one of those hernia-inducing classic Vampirella omnibus collections on the half-price table. Now the real fun part of that was there was no price on it...anywhere...that I or the store owner could find, so he asked if I'd take it for $20. Well duh! :) The dust jacket was visibly torn halfway down the spine...I think that stopped me for about 0.00000025 of a second from scooping it up. :)

But as long as the dust jacket is in good shape, I keep it on there...

Mr_Cosmic

Torchsong said:

hernia-inducing ... omnibus

Don't get me started. These are the worst offenders.

I found it impossible to read my Simonson Thor omnibus with the "dj" on..then once it's off you have this huge piece of paper that doesn't really go anywhere and is begging to be ripped.

My Teen Titans Omnibus v. 2 came with the "dj" cut wrong. It sits on the book cockeyed and looks terrible on the shelf.

Down! Down with dust jackets I say! ;)

ksouthcomb

i cant stand dust jackets, yet i will never get rid of them, love the new marvel cover dress without them.

luckymustard

I only remember removing the dj, just during the entire span of 2-4 weeks of reading, for two or three books and they were years, over a decade, maybe two decades, ago. They were the original Zahn Star Wars books. I think the issue I had was with them slipping. They were the first books I owned that had djs and I don't think I knew how to hold them well.

Corwin

Mr_Cosmic said:

The Uncanny Avengers HC is one sharp looking book.

I don't know...what do you guys think?

Can we see a pic? I prefer the hardcovers with the printed covers. I just wish the big two would stick with one spine layout for all their collected editions...

Mr_Cosmic

Corwin said:

Mr_Cosmic said:

The Uncanny Avengers HC is one sharp looking book.

I don't know...what do you guys think?

Can we see a pic?

It looks just like the cover to Uncanny Avengers #1.

TheMarvelMan

I'm with you, Mr. Cosmic: I've always disliked dust jackets. I keep them when the cover is blank, and discard them when the same artwork is on the cover itself. My conundrum is when the art on the dust jacket is different from the art on the cover (e.g., the Marvel encyclopedias that were published 8-10 years ago)... and I like the art on the dust jacket better! Dang it!

Chuck_Melville

Something to keep in mind that if it should ever come to the necessity of selling the book at a later date, it usually has a higher resale value with the original dust jacket. If you really feel the need to remove it while you own it, you might want to put the dj away in a safe and clean place. Just in case.

phansford

Chuck_Melville said:

Something to keep in mind that if it should ever come to the necessity of selling the book at a later date, it usually has a higher resale value with the original dust jacket. If you really feel the need to remove it while you own it, you might want to put the dj away in a safe and clean place. Just in case.

+1

If you are collecting..... then the DJ is absolutely a must to retain.

RickM

The dustjackets are incredibly annoying. It seems like a relic from the 1950s, and of course because publishing never met a tradition it didn't feel compelled to keep, it sticks around for absolutely no rational reason.

Chuck_Melville

RickM said:

The dustjackets are incredibly annoying. It seems like a relic from the 1950s, and of course because publishing never met a tradition it didn't feel compelled to keep, it sticks around for absolutely no rational reason.

Actually, they do have a purpose and there is a reason to keep it around: as implied by its name, the dust jacket protects the book from dust and other light damage (as well as making for an attractive package to entice buyers). I've worked in used bookstores and have seen the kind of difference a dust jacket can mean to a book, taking the brunt of everyday wear. (On older books, we even took care to add protection to even the original dust jacket by placing an additional clear plastic dust jacket over it.) They don't make the book invulnerable to injury, but they do blunt some of the casual damage a well read book is subject to.

luckymustard

Chuck_Melville said:

(On older books, we even took care to add protection to even the original dust jacket by placing an additional clear plastic dust jacket over it.) They don't make the book invulnerable to injury, but they do blunt some of the casual damage a well read book is subject to.

And this is what they do in libraries... at least all the libraries I've ever been to.

Greg

I used to get my dust jackets laminated. My wife went out of her making sure the jackets to her Potter books didn't get ruined, failed miserably despite her best efforts. Yeah, they can be nice to have, but they can be troublesome.

RickM

Chuck_Melville said:

RickM said:

The dustjackets are incredibly annoying. It seems like a relic from the 1950s, and of course because publishing never met a tradition it didn't feel compelled to keep, it sticks around for absolutely no rational reason.

Actually, they do have a purpose and there is a reason to keep it around: as implied by its name, the dust jacket protects the book from dust and other light damage (as well as making for an attractive package to entice buyers). I've worked in used bookstores and have seen the kind of difference a dust jacket can mean to a book, taking the brunt of everyday wear. (On older books, we even took care to add protection to even the original dust jacket by placing an additional clear plastic dust jacket over it.) They don't make the book invulnerable to injury, but they do blunt some of the casual damage a well read book is subject to.

A Stephen King book typically features a gorgeous dust jacket, which obviously is superior to a plain black cover. But I'm not sure why the image on the dust jacket can't simply be printed on the book cover itself. For example, the typical high school biology text book has a full-color image printed right on the cover; why can't they do the same with Tom Clancy or Neil Gaiman's latest hardcover?

Chuck_Melville

RickM said:

Chuck_Melville said:

RickM said:

The dustjackets are incredibly annoying. It seems like a relic from the 1950s, and of course because publishing never met a tradition it didn't feel compelled to keep, it sticks around for absolutely no rational reason.

Actually, they do have a purpose and there is a reason to keep it around: as implied by its name, the dust jacket protects the book from dust and other light damage (as well as making for an attractive package to entice buyers). I've worked in used bookstores and have seen the kind of difference a dust jacket can mean to a book, taking the brunt of everyday wear. (On older books, we even took care to add protection to even the original dust jacket by placing an additional clear plastic dust jacket over it.) They don't make the book invulnerable to injury, but they do blunt some of the casual damage a well read book is subject to.

A Stephen King book typically features a gorgeous dust jacket, which obviously is superior to a plain black cover. But I'm not sure why the image on the dust jacket can't simply be printed on the book cover itself. For example, the typical high school biology text book has a full-color image printed right on the cover; why can't they do the same with Tom Clancy or Neil Gaiman's latest hardcover?

I'm going to guess that it would cost more to do so. I think, too, the printing isn't quite so permanent as we'd like it to be, and could wear away from too much handling and excess light exposure. (The same is true for the DJ, of course, but it's meant to 'take the hit' for the book.)

Speaking for myself, I think the dust jacket is preferable for the main reason that it protects the book's cover from handling. Think of the sweat and the dirt passing from hand to cover -- or from being set on a less-than-sanitized surface. I've seen a lot of uncovered books with scuff marks that could have been prevented with just a little care.
Now, the only example I've seen of the image-printed HC thus far has been the first volume of the New X-Men, and it does look really good. But I can't help feel that I'd really like to get one of those transparent dust jackets to keep it clean and protected.

nweathington

Chuck_Melville said:

RickM said:

Chuck_Melville said:

RickM said:

The dustjackets are incredibly annoying. It seems like a relic from the 1950s, and of course because publishing never met a tradition it didn't feel compelled to keep, it sticks around for absolutely no rational reason.

Actually, they do have a purpose and there is a reason to keep it around: as implied by its name, the dust jacket protects the book from dust and other light damage (as well as making for an attractive package to entice buyers). I've worked in used bookstores and have seen the kind of difference a dust jacket can mean to a book, taking the brunt of everyday wear. (On older books, we even took care to add protection to even the original dust jacket by placing an additional clear plastic dust jacket over it.) They don't make the book invulnerable to injury, but they do blunt some of the casual damage a well read book is subject to.

A Stephen King book typically features a gorgeous dust jacket, which obviously is superior to a plain black cover. But I'm not sure why the image on the dust jacket can't simply be printed on the book cover itself. For example, the typical high school biology text book has a full-color image printed right on the cover; why can't they do the same with Tom Clancy or Neil Gaiman's latest hardcover?

I'm going to guess that it would cost more to do so. I think, too, the printing isn't quite so permanent as we'd like it to be, and could wear away from too much handling and excess light exposure. (The same is true for the DJ, of course, but it's meant to 'take the hit' for the book.)

No, it's significantly cheaper to print a coated image on a hardcover than to print a cloth-covered cover (usually with some imprinting) with a dust jacket.

Personally, as a book designer, I don’t see the dust jacket as an either/or discussion. I think it really depends on the project and what you want the packaging to say to the casual browser about the book you’re trying to convince them to pick up. Dust jacket or no dust jacket? Glossy finish or matte finish? Bold image, simple graphic, or dramatic text treatment? From a design perspective, not necessarily a practical perspective, they are all questions whose answers will affect the potential reader’s first impressions of the book, so ideally it’s best to take them on a case by case basis.

Oh, and in some cases a plain black cover is superior to a gorgeous dust jacket.

phansford

nweathington said:

Oh, and in some cases a plain black cover is superior to a gorgeous dust jacket.

Doesn't Nigel Tufnel's autobiography "Smell the Glove: My Years with Spinal Tap" have a black dust jacket?