College and Research Libraries


D O N A L D R . B R I G G S 

Gift Appraisal Policy in Large 
Research Libraries 

In an effort to determine how extensively university libraries followed 
the gift appraisal policy recommended in 1961 by ACRL's Rare Books 
Section, a survey was made of forty-three research libraries. Responses 
indicate a great variation in practice, widespread dissatisfaction with 
practice, and differences of opinion as to the theory of appraisal. 
The responses are summarized. 

I N 1961 the ACRL Rare Book Section 
submitted its "Statement of Recom-
mended Library Policy Regarding Ap-
praisals."1 It recommended that libraries 
should not appraise gifts for inheritance 
or tax purposes "except in those cases 
where only items of comparatively low 
monetary value are involved." The pur-
pose of this study is to determine to 
what extent the recommendations have 
been followed by large research libraries. 
It was decided not to attempt a cross 
section of all libraries, but rather to con-
centrate only on large research libraries, 
since the latter are more often faced with 
the problem.2 

The person accepting gifts for the li-
1 H. R. Archer, ed., Rare Book Collections ( C h i -

c a g o : ALA, 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 2 1 . ( A C R L Monograph No. 2 7 ) . 
2 The libraries which responded to the survey were 

Auburn University, Brown University, University of 
California ( B e r k e l e y ) , Columbia University, Cornell 
University, Harvard College, University of Illinois 
( U r b a n a ) , I o w a State University, University of Iowa, 
University of Kansas, University of Kentucky, Library 
of Congress, Louisiana State University, University of 
Maryland, University of Michigan, University of Minne-
sota, University of Missouri, University of Notre Dame, 
Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Uni-
versity of Oklahoma, University of Pennsylvania 
( P h i l a d e l p h i a ) , University of Pittsburgh, Princeton 
University, Purdue University, Rutgers University, 
University of Texas, Tulane University, University of 
Washington, University of Wisconsin, Yale University. 

Mr. Briggs is Gift and Exchange Librar-
ian in the University of Illinois Library, 
Urbana, Illinois. 

brary should be aware of his function 
as a public relations agent. Any library 
that does not make gift appraisals must 
be prepared to explain its policy to 
friends of the library and other donors 
who have in the past been used to this 
service. Some libraries contacted during 
this study said that they continued to 
appraise books for donors who had re-
ceived this service previously, but did not 
give estimates for first-time donors. This 
approach presents obvious problems. 

In the course of this study forty-three 
research libraries were contacted; thirty-
two replied. The answers ranged from 
short one-paragraph letters to formal 
policy statements, some running to four 
and five pages. One library reported 
that its policy statement was included 
as a part of a routine acknowledgment 
form letter. 

Of the thirty-two responding libraries, 
two were presently revising their poli-
cies and could therefore make no state-
ment. Fifteen of the libraries make no 
appraisals at all, and one library has 
every collection appraised by a book 
dealer. 

Three indicated that they used the 
ACRL Policy Statement as the policy 
statement for their libraries. Four of 
those questioned responded that they 

/ 505 



506 / College <Lr Research Libraries • November 1968 

make appraisals for internal use only; 
the figures are not available to the don-
or. 

On what do libraries base their ap-
praisals? The Internal Revenue Service 
defines the value of a gift as follows: 
"The fair market value is the price at 
which the property would change hands 
between a willing buyer and a willing 
seller, neither being under any compul-
sion to buy or sell and both having 
reasonable knowledge of relevant 
facts. . . ."3 It emphasizes that the fair 
market value is the price the property 
would actually bring if presently of-
fered for sale, not what it should bring 
(considering its merits) .4 

Of those libraries that provide donors 
with appraisals, two use a flat figure 
(excepting only volumes of obvious high-
er value). One library estimates $5 per 
volume; the other uses $3-4 per bound 
volume, $2-3 per unbound volume, and 
250 per pamphlet. 

In the remaining libraries, there 
seemed to be no general agreement on 
the basis for arriving at an estimate. 
Three estimated the books on the basis 
of their value as "used books"; one of 
these gave a higher evaluation to those 
books which were needed by the library. 
Four libraries estimated on the basis of 
replacement costs to the library, one on 
the basis of "current market value," and 
two on the basis of the original list price 
of the book. 

Only one library cited a specific 
amount for serials (25-500 per periodi-
cal issue), although six indicated that 
they routinely check secondhand and re-
print catalogs to determine value. It can 
be assumed that this would apply to 
serials as well as to monographic publi-
cations. 

3 "Valuation for F e d e r a l T a x Purposes." Reprinted 
in Antiquarian Bookman, X X X I X (April 3 , 1 9 6 7 ) , 
1 3 7 2 . 

4 Karl Ruhe, "Valuation for Federal T a x Purposes," 
Antiquarian Bookman, X L ( N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 6 7 ) , 
1 9 1 5 - 1 7 . 

Nor is the selection of the appraiser 
a matter of uniform practice. In three 
libraries the appraisals were made by 
the acquisitions librarian, in two the gift 
and exchange librarian, in two simply a 
"member of the library staff," and in 
one by a committee of three persons 
whose individual appraisals are then 
averaged. At the Library of Congress 
the Principal Evaluations Officer, in con-
sultation with subject specialists, makes 
the appraisal; if the material is estimat-
ed to be worth more than $1,000, a 
formal ad hoc evaluation committee, con-
sisting of subject and acquisitions spe-
cialists, is set up.5 

Many libraries indicated that there 
was a price limit above which they call 
in an outside agency to do the ap-
praisal. There seems to be no general 
agreement among the libraries on this 
matter; each of them has a different cut-
off point. Many of those who responded 
to the survey did not answer this ques-
tion, which may indicate that they have 
no general policy. Listed below are the 
criteria used by the various libraries for 
calling in an outside agency to do the 
appraising. As no two libraries gave 
exactly the same standard, each of the 
responses below applies to only one in-
stitution. 

1. Value above $20 per item 
2. Value above $100 
3. Value above $10,000 (or containing 

many manuscripts or works of art) 
4. Extraordinary feature about the gift 
5. Average price exceeds above $3.00 a 

volume 
6. Rare Books 
7. Gift of major importance 
8. Very costly gifts 
9. $500 retention value 

Ten libraries reported that they re-
quire the donor to pay for the appraisal, 

5 Library of Congress Regulations, LCR 315 ( N o -
vember 1 5 , 1 9 6 6 ) . 



Gift Appraisal Policy in Large Research Libraries / 507 

five libraries pay for the service them-
selves, and four stated that the cost is 
handled by either party, depending on 
the circumstances. 

One library reported that it appraises 
gifts only if it can find the items listed 
in a bibliographic source, such as Books 
in Print or Book Prices Current. Other 
books cited as sources for appraisal in-
formation were American Book Prices 
Current, British Auction Records, and 
PTLA. Several libraries stated or sug-
gested that librarians were allowed to 
make appraisals, but not in their capac-
ity as library staff members. Four stated 
that they made appraisals only after the 

books had been definitely given to the 
library. 

Almost half of the libraries responding 
( 1 4 ) suggested in some way that they 
were dissatisfied with their present pol-
icies. Most of them refer to the ACRL 
Rare Book Section statement as a goal 
toward which they were working, but 
which they were at present unable to 
implement. While present practice may 
lag well behind recommended stand-
ards, it is heartening to note that li-
brarians are cognizant of the problems, 
and that they seem to be working to 
bring the policies of their institutions up 
to the recommended level. • • 

E R R A T U M 
A critical and unaccountable omission occurred in our printing of 

Richard Berner's paper "Observations on Archivists . . ." in our last 
issue. The last complete sentence on p. 276 should have read: "Li-
brarians, and archivists (by default), tend to act as if the user of manu-
scripts differed little in his approach to his material from the user of 
books and serials."