First, note that it said "probably", so no claim that it would always be so.

Second, the film may be more expensive to purchase, but the purchase is a simple look up and purchase.  The real issue, which was my main emphasis, is the labor involved in dealing with exchange/gift lists.  Even if going through the lists is delegated to a low level clerk or student assistant, the hours add up very quickly.

But, there's no one right answer for everyone, and some libraries may have more time than money.

I will say that when I was director of a 200K volume college library 20 years ago we stopped the list-searching.  If I were a library director again, I'd make the same decision.

Of course as far as being a library director, yes, been there, done that.  Glad I did it, but even gladder I'm not doing it any more.

dan

Show Up, Suit Up, Shut Up, and Follow Directions
dan@riverofdata.com
Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA

  ----- Original message ----------------------------------------
  From: "Ian Woodward" <iwoodward@MAIL.COLGATE.EDU>
  To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
  Received: 4/9/2007 6:13:34 AM
  Subject: [SERIALST] FW: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists

  >I would take exception to point # 2.  In my experience, the invoice
  >charges for a roll of microfilm will exceed by a considerable multiple
  >the charges for purchased back issue (should UMI or Gale happen to
  >traffic in that title).  IW

  >I.  Woodward
  >Serials Office
  >Colgate University Libraries
  >Case Library and Geyer Center for Information Technology
  >13 Oak Drive
  >Hamilton, N.Y. 13346
  >Ph.:   315-228-7306
  >Fax:   315-228-7029

  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
  >[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Dan Lester
  >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:49 PM
  >To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
  >Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists

  >My personal belief is that the days of needing to fill in perfectly are
  >long gone.

  >Several reasons immediately come to mind.

  >1.  As your boss noted, it is labor intensive.
  >2. You could probably buy the microfilm of that volume cheaper and
  >easier.
  >3. What are the chances that someone who wants to read The Journal of
  >Underwater Basketweaving will actually need Volume 5, 1967?
  >4. Are the journals you're working so hard to fill in even worth keeping
  >at all?
  >5. ILL is so cheap and fast with electronic document delivery, it has
  >become a much more practical solution than it was 20 years ago.
  >6. No collection can ever be complete, even in a specialized collection.
  >7. There are some places that will recycle books and journals.  You can
  >perhaps find some locally.

  >In my personal and professional opinion your boss is right.

  >dan

  >Show Up, Suit Up, Shut Up, and Follow Directions
  >dan@riverofdata.com
  >Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA

  >  ----- Original message ----------------------------------------
  >  From: "R Davis" <RDAVIS@STARK.KENT.EDU>
  >  To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
  >  Received: 4/6/2007 11:15:40 AM
  >  Subject: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists

  >  >In the last year I have completed 82 volumes and now have 15 more
  >titles
  >  >with complete uninterrupted runs from a discard list. However, our
  >library
  >  >director has decided it is a waste of time to use discard lists for
  >collection
  >  >fulfillment. Of course, my belief has always been to keep surplus
  >issues out
  >  >of the landfills and give them to libraries that could use them. I
  >thought all
  >  >libraries wanted the most complete collection possible. Has there
  >been a
  >  >change in library philosophy that I missed? I would appreciate
  >(off-list) any
  >  >insights or responses to this policy change.

  >  >Roger Davis
  >  >Serials Librarian
  >  >(at an academic college library)
  >  >rdavis@stark.kent.edu