That runs very much counter to how collectors actually collect books currently. The more pristine the book, the better, aside from particularly rare or valuable inscriptions.
Arguably the “lived in” copies are only notable if they’ve been owned and scribbled in by someone who is themselves notable. There’s no serious demand for books that have been scribbled in by nobodies like myself.
While that's true, and I do prefer books that actually have interesting histories, rather than being purely pristine and box-ticking, I have to admit that many collectors seem not to be, and are purely interested in box-ticking first edition first printing, pristine copies of books, with no marks, or just an author signature. Outside of the most exceptional and well-known of cases, this seems to extend to cases where other editions seem more interesting, rarer, or more notable.
Of course, this has the advantage of keeping prices down for those of us looking for those other editions and conditions, but it can at times be rather perplexing. I was once in an auction where it was evident that the auctioneer was also surprised by a case of this: in an auction with a first edition by an American trade press, and a first UK edition from a year later by a particularly notable private press, with a smaller print run, typeset and printed by hand by notable historical figures and friends of the author, and an estimate of around four times the first trade edition... the UK edition sold within estimate, and while the first edition sold for significantly more than the UK edition, vastly over its estimate.
In another case, I had a bit of trouble finding sellers online who even noted the edition of a particular 19th century book in its description if it was not a first edition, despite the second edition being at the center of a significant historical legal drama, being nominally banned and ordered destroyed, and making a mess of British blasphemy law in a case where no one, including both the government and the prosecution, wanted the publisher to be found guilty.
My guess is that many book collectors will set a particular goal, for example, collecting first editions or author-signed copies of a particular genre, set of authors, etc, and will follow that goal, rather than acquiring individual books for individual reasons.
More generally, collecting communities often seem to fall into purely seeking rarity, placing the highest demand on the items with the least supply regardless of why the supply is small. Thus at an extreme in book collecting, for example, you have collectors who see entirely uncut pages as being preferable, despite it making the book unreadable. I have a friend who is fond of antique pens who expressed disappointment that in seeking the rarest pens, the community often ended up placing the highest value on the worst: the pens with bad designs that didn't work well, the variants and colors that were particularly ugly, all the models that sold very poorly and were quickly discontinued, and are thus rarer.
True, but collecting is generally a terrible investment from a pecuniary perspective, unless you’re the mercenary type of collector who sells to people making terrible investments.
Yeah, speaking as someone who inherited a stamp collection, the one thing to avoid is thinking you’re in it for the resale value when you really just want an excuse to buy the object of your desire.
Sure. But while I can understand this approach for rare objects which are the result of great craftsmanship (I would rather not have a crack in my faberge egg) a book is generally a mass produced article with little individual character until someone has left their mark on it.
