> >I was researching a book I have called "With Beatty off Jutland" by Percy F.
> >Westerman on the net and found others by this author but not this particular
> >title. Can I consider this title to be rare?
> I think "scarce" is better; a little less definitive. Even better,
> if you are putting it in a catalog for sale, is to say "not found on
> the internet."
> In pre-internet days it used to be "not found in NUC", which may
> perhaps be less definitive than the internet these days. I smell a
> discussion approaching.
> "rec.collecting.books" FAQ at
> (No FS or WTB messages on RCB!)
and usually mis-applied term "rare." (Witness Grosset & Dunlap reprints
postings I receive on bibliofinds "Rare" newslist.
I've listed books which were the only ones on the two major book search
sites we subscribe to, only later to see copies sitting on shelves in
local bookshops. This makes me tend to avoid describing them in terms of
rare, scarce, or even hard-to-find. If someone has been looking for your
particular title and finds it at long last in your catalog or on your
website, he or she will know it's rare, scarce, or hard to find. In the
long run, it is the book and the desire for it that should sell the book,
not the word "rare" in the description. Mis-use of the word has killed
it's meaning. (In my humble opinion.)
The only term I will confidently apply to many of my books is