Pity the digitization is from a facsimile, not an original print. But the justification doesn't convince me:
> Given how few copies of the Kelmscott Chaucer were originally produced, thirteen copies on vellum, and another 58 on pig’s skin, “any special collection’s library who are lucky enough to own an original copy are likely to be very reluctant to embark upon any form of digitization due to the significant risk of damage that the process could inflict upon the book.”
Huh? Damage from leafing through the book with gloves and snapping a photo of each page? For a book printed on animal hide (which can last millennia) in the late 19th century?
Meanwhile, papyrus scrolls, which are infamous for crumbling to dust from a sharp look, are routinely digitized around the world.
Wearing gloves to handle old books is no longer considered a best practice in most cases:
> Contrary to popular belief, gloves are generally not recommended as proper handling for rare books! The best way to prepare for handling rare materials is to simply wash and dry your hands thoroughly.
They don't provide the why, the most important part... If I were to guess it's because gloves make it harder to handle the books so you risk damaging them. Gloves (in the right material) that fit your hands perfectly are probably better than washing your hands, but those don't really exist!
It's all trade-offs, I'd argue. The nonsense with cotton gloves is clear rubbish*, but, there's no question that human skin is FULL of ... well, everything. Bacteria, "chemicals" (incl. oils), etc. And, skin varies dramatically between people along even "basic" axes like acidity**. Usually, when I work in a lab, I wear gloves not to protect myself, but to protect samples (more accurately, to minimize transfer from myself to said samples, and sometimes even potential transfer between samples etc.).
Even the concept of "clean dry skin" can vary markedly between people.
This isn't my field at all, so, I'm absolutely not disputing this guidance. I'd follow their recommendations were it relevant. Rather, just raising some points that perhaps others might even correct my thinking on ... I may take a look in the literature at some point to see if there is specific empirical research providing some real strength to this conclusion / guidance.
(I see that the NY Times article touches on extraction of DNA, for example, from past handlers / owners / etc. Is this "yet another attempt to _catalog us??_ ... In Soviet Russia, book catalogs you!)
* Though, easy to imagine the case for using such gloves - barring experience and better understanding / dissemination of relevant science
** Ugh - "punintended" ... seriously, only caught as I was typing
I'm guessing that it's much more reasonable for him to do high res scans of the version he has on hand than to go through the process of getting access via a library and proving archivist bona fides. Certainly not impossible, but I'm grateful for seeing this incredible work in any form.
Do you have any evidence or expertise to support this take? I've heard many times of other texts not digitized for the same reasons; I trust the experts have a reason.
Also, as the author doesn't have access to an original copy, what should they do?
> Given how few copies of the Kelmscott Chaucer were originally produced, thirteen copies on vellum, and another 58 on pig’s skin, “any special collection’s library who are lucky enough to own an original copy are likely to be very reluctant to embark upon any form of digitization due to the significant risk of damage that the process could inflict upon the book.”
Huh? Damage from leafing through the book with gloves and snapping a photo of each page? For a book printed on animal hide (which can last millennia) in the late 19th century?
Meanwhile, papyrus scrolls, which are infamous for crumbling to dust from a sharp look, are routinely digitized around the world.
That makes no sense at all.