COPY of letter

Father Luke

Founding member
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 ;)
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
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
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
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.
 

mjp

Founding member
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."
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
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.
 

mjp

Founding member
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
 

Father Luke

Founding member
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
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
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...
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
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 ...
 

mjp

Founding member
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.
 
Top