Talk:Remaindered book

Pulping / Stripping
Given AlainV's comment about his last revision, I suspect that the placement and wording of the second-to-last-paragraph here may lead to confusion. Should we move this paragraph to the article on Pulping and have just a brief mention here? --Jim Henry 20:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure where to cut or how to reword but I have the impression that a good part of the next to last paragraph should stay in order to do an intelligent lead to the link to the article on pulping. And of course, I think that much of the next to last paragraph should be inserted in the pulping article. AlainV 22:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All right. What about this revision for the "Remaindered book" article:


 * Only hardcovers and trade paperbacks (paperback books, often larger than "pocket" paperbacks, sold "to the trade" or directly to sales outlets) are typically remaindered. Mass market paperbacks ("pocket" paperback books sold through a third-party distributor) are often pulped; they are stripped of their front covers (which are returned to the publisher as evidence that the books have been destroyed), and the books are discarded or recycled into paper or cardboard products.

Meanwhile, the Pulping article should get this:


 * This system of pulping paperback books evolved from the rise of the mass market distribution system following World War II when paper was cheaper than the cost of transport. Coverless paperbacks are often found for sale in used bookstores, thrift stores, charity libraries (in hospitals, for instance), flea markets, and the like. In the 1990s, publishers began an information campaign to alert book buyers to the fact that these books have been reported as destroyed (many paperbacks from this period contain a warning notice in the indica) to mixed results.

Does that make sense? (In my experience, stripped paperbacks are far more often found in charity thrift stores, hospitals, and other places donated books end up, than in for-profit used bookstores.) --Jim Henry 22:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, looks great! AlainV 00:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How is it possible that the above excellent writing has not been edited into the article for 12 1/2 years‽‽ I came here to say that the "stripped" mention is linked, but still needs a super-brief description. Sadsaque (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

in the UK
I've added a reason as to why "remainder marks" aren't really used in the UK - The sale of Goods Act prevents the reduction in price of a book impinging on the customer's right to return it if it isn't "as described", "fit for intended purpose" or "of merchantable quality." Paul-b4 (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Returned
As it is the point of the remaindering, the article Really needs to be specific asto what is meant by "returned": "...prevent them from being returned". Sadsaque (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)