• If you start a thread here you have permission to edit the thread and your posts indefinitely. So if the status of your sale or auction changes, please come back and update the thread.

COPY of letter (1 Viewer)

Well, it is the original carbon of the letter.
Different than just a copy.

But I can send you an envelope for
the picture of your book if you like ;)
 
and that is from Allen Deloach's step-daughter, who I have dealt with for a very long time. She is a very reputable seller.

Bill
 
a carbon is still a copy, right? it's not hand signed or corrected? or is it. I know it's the first copy, but...

or am I wrong. my first assumption is that I'm always wrong, it saves time.
 
I understand it is a CARBON copy but why would the receiver of a letter have the copy?

Wouldn't have Buk sent the original and kept or thrown out the copy?

Also, would the signature usually show on a carbon?

I didn't mean any disrespect to the seller - just seemed odd and worth bringing up on the forum.
 
He didn't make carbons of letters, so she is mistaken. What she probably means is it is a Xerox or something. I asked for some clarification.

Besides, it's clear to see that this is "one of the finest Bukowski letters ever offered at auction."
 
It (now) says "Xerox" -- did the seller edit the listing?

Which makes me ask: does a vintage Xerox copy have collectible value whereas a recent copy doesn't? And where do you draw the line? I have some old (1980s) copies of Bukowski letters and manuscripts. I always figured they will never have any collector value, but maybe that's wrong.
 
It (now) says "Xerox" -- did the seller edit the listing?
Yep.

Which makes me ask: does a vintage Xerox copy have collectible value whereas a recent copy doesn't? And where do you draw the line? I have some old (1980s) copies of Bukowski letters and manuscripts. I always figured they will never have any collector value, but maybe that's wrong.
I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't pay anything for a Xerox copy, whenever the copy was made.

I even shied away from the signed post-70's Bukowski manuscripts that were Xerox copies. Even though the copy has an original signature, they don't have the same significance - to me - that an original or a carbon copy does. Maybe the distinction between carbon and Xerox is stupid, after all, they are both mechanical reproductions of the original. But the carbon being in his typewriter makes a difference to me.

But a copy of a letter or a manuscript without an original signature is worthless because it is infinitely copy-able. I know some have sold on eBay for $50 or whatever price, but unless there was some personal significance to the letter, and there was no way to get the original, I don't understand paying any more than postage costs for a Xerox.
 
Yep.

I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't pay anything for a Xerox copy, whenever the copy was made.

I even shied away from the signed post-70's Bukowski manuscripts that were Xerox copies. Even though the copy has an original signature, they don't have the same significance - to me - that an original or a carbon copy does. Maybe the distinction between carbon and Xerox is stupid, after all, they are both mechanical reproductions of the original. But the carbon being in his typewriter makes a difference to me.

But a copy of a letter or a manuscript without an original signature is worthless because it is infinitely copy-able. I know some have sold on eBay for $50 or whatever price, but unless there was some personal significance to the letter, and there was no way to get the original, I don't understand paying any more than postage costs for a Xerox.

Well said.

Why not just print 1 million XEROX copies and sell 'em for a buck or two? It is as rare as bugs on a windshield; and as valuable. Unless you manufacture windex.

In my humble opinari, the value is incoherent. :p
 
http://cgi.ebay.com/CHARLES-BUKOWSK...rms=66:2|65:10|39:1|240:1318#ebayphotohosting

Starting bidding at $50 for a COPY of a letter - however amusing - is a bit rich!!!

Maybe someone would like to pay for a photo of one of my books!

Well, it is the original carbon of the letter.
Different than just a copy.

He didn't make carbons of letters, so she is mistaken. What she probably means is it is a Xerox or something. I asked for some clarification.

It (now) says "Xerox" -- did the seller edit the listing?



There is Bukowski.net in action.
Great original poast, PBBUK!

--
Okay,
Father Luke
 
A carbon, to me, is a secondhand typescript, a direct physical relic of the author's hand pounding the keys -- vastly more valuable and meaningful than a Xerox ever could be. I think archivists and scholars think of carbons as manuscripts/typescripts, but I could be wrong. The source of a Xerox, the provenance, could render it valuable. Still, it's just a photocopy, and easily multiplied. I'll take a carbon copy over any Xerox, signed or not, any day.
 
Provenance could play a role; but I still find it hard to cross the bridge of value when it comes to a photocopy (Xerox loving us all calling it that; boy those were the days for Xerox, eh?)

Photocopy is a photocopy is a photocopy. Thanks, Gertrude!

And Padre, right on the money, as usual...
 
Now what about a photocopy that's nailed down in time due to the unusual paper it's on, and perhaps the provenance -- does that give it collectibility/value? No special reason for asking ...
 
The only time I can see a copy having any value is if the original was destroyed or lost. But still, the copy can be copied forever which makes the value negligible. To me. But what do I know. People sell them, so they have a value.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top