Very nice and much more in the appearance they would have had when first bound.
We seldom had the luxury of deciding what lengths to go to. The customers wishes and depth oftheir pockets was always the deciding factor. In Bristol I worked on a lot of books for the university library. These had to be done to a strick specification where durability and matching with the style of the other books was the priority. Do students still use a university library any more?
The trend towards non interferance with the binding and not doing anything to compromise its "integrity" is one which will have contributed to the dwindling pool of binders with th skill to sensitively repair an old book with both a proper regard to its original binding and to preserve it in a readable state.
Quite a few of the problems of older bindings stem directly from a lack of understanding at the time of the materials used. Machine made paper coming into use in the first couple od decades of the 19th cent. had nothing like the lasting qualities of handmade paper. Methods of tanning leather and the developement of chemical dyes later in the same centuary led to many books of that era not lasting as they should. I have had to work on books that had each section held together with rusted staples. And in our own time there is still nothing that can be done for a "Perfect Bound" paperback (or even hardback) which is falling into separate sheets because the glue on the spine has disintergrated, except of course, to keep it in a box!
Douglas Cockerell in the 1920s was responsible for reversing the trend towards unsatisfactory methods but in doing so raised tha actual cost of having good binding done which led to it being a luxury trade.
I'm all for some books being uniterfered with so that future generations can do what they think best with them. But to take my other interest of old motorcycles as an example, There is the choice to be made between full restoration, a usable example or total preservation with no attempt a restoration. As with books its for the owner to choose. What is the book or the motorcycle for? To show off? To ride or read and enjoy? or to preserve in an unridable/unreadable stat? Even in a museum, a fully restored bike gives no actual view of what it would have been like when new (and as a static exhibit, there's no need for it to be all there internally) An exhibit of an unrestored "preserved" example is no more informative. An example of each treatment ehibited side by side could be informative but with limitations. I don't have that problem. My books are done up, as sensitively as I could with materials of the time, to be read and enjoyed and my '52 500 Red Hunter is unrestored, but tidied up, rebuilt wheels, rebuilt mag & Dyno etc to be ridden, not hidden and appreciated as it is by many who see it.