mr greene, you, apparently, feel some booksellers are asking too much for a book you (institutionally) want and, by implication, there should be an 'institutonal' price. rather stridently, you said: : If it were only that simple. Public institutions like a university : research library must answer to the demands of faculty, students, and : the general public, all of whom demand (rightly) that we collect : material necessary for their studies. Rare books and special : collections departments are held hostage by dealers who justify their : outrageous prices with just such "arguements" as James'. A private : collector can "just say no" to high prices; a library doesn't always : have that luxury. i think you're position is not only wrong, but exceedingly hypocritical and frightfully short-sighted in the bargin. may i be specific? you are wrong: - you may avail yourself of inter-library loan programmes for materials needs. - you can negotiate a 'cost, plus' contract and issue a blanket purchase order in favour of whomever you wish. - you can tell the requesting party to pay for it from departmental budgets, research grants, etc. if this acquisition does not benefit the university community as a whole. - you can use lesser editions, fascimile reprints, seek permission to copy from the copyright owner. - etc. you have several very good alternatives for acquiring many, if not most books you need or want - presuming, of course, you do not *want* first editions for which the marketplace has set a value, correctly or incorrectly. if you *want* 'firsts' welcome to the realities of the world. you are hypocritical: - what you want on the one hand you would deny on the other, among them: you get special rates and preferential treatment for goods and services denied individual collectors or dealers. - for something *important,* you have a unlimited chequebook filled with other people's money. it is only for what *you* (personally, in this case) judge to be priced excessively. once, at an auction, i sat between the kimble museum and the met. i quietly got my hat and left - but i didn't whine - i may have begged them to let me have a crumb or two - but i didn't whine. - you are judging the value of your want to be greater than another's and saying you should be able to have what you want at a subsidied price because of your prior want. - likewise, it is presumptious and hypocritical to assign entirely arbitrary higher 'values' to a book or an author and deny it to another. it is hard to quantify those things most of us hold dear - love, honour, respect, ..... compared to them, value is, actually, pretty easy - it comes in round, whole numbers. - you (institutionally) contribute in large part to scarcity - leading to short-sightedness. (a nice segue, don't you think?) you are short-sighted: - i am, primarily, a collector and my collections will, inevitably, someday, reach the market. yours never will, thereby adding to scarcity and raising collector's blood pressure. - your institution has one, specific title i would like. may i purchase it for 10 times what you paid for it? twenty times? one hundred times? one thousand? - you, simply, cannot insist your prior wants and insular viewpoint outweighs the interests of the commercial world. there are creative ways to procure that can soften your costs. the best way is to contract with specialist dealers (who pay other non-specialist dealers three & four levels deep) to find their high-demand product. guess what - profits are taken at each step. that is the way of the bookseller's world - they buy from other dealers. it is quite incestuous, really. perhaps all five of the 'generalist' dealers who touched * the glass key * before james mountain sold it to you at such an outrageous price should send you a thank you note for paying their rent and feeding their children. best regards, bob sikes <bsikes@wcnet.net> - # RARA-AVIS: To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" # to majordomo@icomm.ca