Pity the digitization is from a facsimile, not an original print. But the justification doesn't convince me:

> Given how few copies of the Kelmscott Chaucer were originally produced, thirteen copies on vellum, and another 58 on pig’s skin, “any special collection’s library who are lucky enough to own an original copy are likely to be very reluctant to embark upon any form of digitization due to the significant risk of damage that the process could inflict upon the book.”

Huh? Damage from leafing through the book with gloves and snapping a photo of each page? For a book printed on animal hide (which can last millennia) in the late 19th century?

Meanwhile, papyrus scrolls, which are infamous for crumbling to dust from a sharp look, are routinely digitized around the world.

That makes no sense at all.