[drcy]

It's not a simple topic. My usual rule is 'as long as it is described accurately.' However, I'm against the destruction of books and similar. However, many cutouts pictures and such are found in old albums and on old autographed index cards, and I don't think should ban the sale of those things cut out 100 years ago. If you look at a kid's Victorian album you'll see all sorts of cutouts and long ago handmade 'diecuts' mixed in with the trade cards and scraps.

So I'll say they can be sold as long as they are accurately described. But I'll voice my opinion (I said opinion not rule) that books shouldn't be destroyed in modern times.

And, realize, that if you ban book and magazine cutout pictures, you'd have to ban the sale of cutout Harper's Woodcuts to be consistent. I'm pretty sure even the purists don't mean to ban the sale of Harper's Woodcuts and have even sold them. As I said, it's not a black and white topic. Some Police Gazette 'supplements' are full page pictures from the magazine with article text on the back, though I suspect the publisher half expected, or even intended, that many would cut them out. Likely, most on the market were removed from the magazine when the magazine came out.

Though the woodcuts can be removed as part of the whole pages without scissors, as the magazine pages were loose and folded like the standard newspaper. No staples or binding involved. On the other hand, some might argue that removing loose pages from the rest of the magazine is still a sort of destruction. The famous Leslie's Illustrated James Creighton woodcut is a middle two page spread with a fold line down the middle. It's not cut out, but was removed from the publication.

For the record, I'm not against the selling of Harper's Woodcuts.