<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [DCRM-L] Glossary Terms</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Leslie--</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>For the most part, I agree with you. These are the sorts of distinctions which my cataloging teachers emphasized, and which have informed my own cataloging. However, I can't help wondering how practical it is to attempt to distinguish between an "ideal copy" and a "perfect copy". Such a distinction may work for modern "firsts", but having cataloged a lot of them, I can't help wondering what, for example would be the "perfect copy" of a 1520's Reformation polemical tract? The number of variants between pieces which otherwise appeared to have been issued by the same printer at the same time often amazed me.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dan Rettberg</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Rare Book and Manuscript Bibliographer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Klau Library</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cincinnati, Ohio</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>drettberg@huc.edu</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Deborah J. Leslie [<A HREF="mailto:DJLeslie@folger.edu">mailto:DJLeslie@folger.edu</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:36 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Glossary Terms</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'm afraid I don't quite see what Nina is disagreeing with. I hope it's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>not that she thinks I'm equating a misbound copy with different binding</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>styles issued by a publisher (which then fall under the definition of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"variant issue"). </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In my classes I've been drawing a distinction between "ideal copy" (an</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>abstract idea, what bibliographers describe, which may or may not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>correspond with any actual individual copy) and "perfect copy" which</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>catalogers describe, a concrete object within a set of objects. Most of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the time the "ideal" and the "perfect" overlap pretty well. I guess</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>where I make the distinction is that a bibliographer's ideal copy is a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>composite description of what was intended to be issued, while a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>cataloger's perfect copy is one that actually was issued. "Imperfection"</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>as I understand it is what happens to individual copies after they have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>left the printer's/publisher's hands. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I wouldn't stake my career on upholding this distinction, but I'd like</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to have it discussed. Perhaps here and now as pertinent, but perhaps in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>another forum and at another time if not.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In terms of local cataloging policy, I have been accustomed to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>considering any missing print (words or pictures) as "imperfect." A</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>missing leaf, a torn title page with part of the imprint missing, a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>cropt copy that cuts off the top half of the page numbers, wormholes</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that disturb the text of couple of dozen pages are all examples of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>imperfect copies. The first two I would preface the note with the word</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"Imperfect:", while the last two I would note without that preface. The</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>bottom line: leaves or pages with whole words missing are significant</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>enough imperfections to be prefaced with the red flag "Imperfect", while</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>other problems that affect printing but which can still be read are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>worth noting but without that red flag. Tears &c. that do not affect</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>printing are not mentioned, with the exception of missing blank leaves</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that are included in the collation.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Head of Cataloging</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Folger Shakespeare Library</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>201 East Capitol St., SE</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Washington, DC 20003</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>202.675-0369</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>djleslie@folger.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: dcrm-l-admin@lib.byu.edu [<A HREF="mailto:dcrm-l-admin@lib.byu.edu">mailto:dcrm-l-admin@lib.byu.edu</A>] On</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Behalf Of nschneider@nypl.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 16:59</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Glossary Terms</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this. A publisher wants to issue</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>copies free from ANY errors (binding included). I'm copying an early</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>email</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>I sent to Stephen and Randy that might be useful:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>I understand Stephen's concern with variants and the potential impact</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>on</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the definition I've offered. The way I understand this, the publisher</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>planned binding variants to, among other reasons, increase sales. So</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>even</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>though one copy was bound in blue cloth with gilt and another in blue</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>cloth</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>with 2 ink colors they are both perfect since the publisher intended</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>them</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to be issued the way they were issued. Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced since</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>work almost exclusively with books from the machine-press period and I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>see</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>a lot of these variations, including limited editions produced in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>conjunction with "regular editions." I did think of these when drafting</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>my</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>definition and I was hoping that the "as issued" took care of it. Maybe</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>not...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>One of the reasons I think we can avoid the issue of inking quality to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the definition is simply as Stephen stated in his argument... that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>quality</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>printing means different things to different people and there are a lot</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>over- and/or under-inked books produced by presses without a second</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>thought.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>Imperfect copies, I agree, come in many forms. Do we want to be copy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>specific? If a page is torn from a book it is imperfect but there is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>evidence (hopefully) that that book was issued as intended when compared</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>other copies. Unfortunately, most books are imperfect if we start to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>think</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of copy specific problems. What about foxing? Crushed corners? Torn</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>headbands? Tight bindings? There are a lot of imperfections but I think</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>copy specific imperfections should not be part of the glossary.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Nina</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>+------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Nina Schneider</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Librarian</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Berg Collection of English & American Literature, Room 320</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The New York Public Library</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>New York, NY 10018-2788</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Tel.: (212) 642-0111</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Fax.: (212) 930-0079</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>nschneider@nypl.org</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> "Deborah J.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> Leslie" To:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> <DJLeslie@FOLGER. cc:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> edu> Subject: RE: [DCRM-L]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Glossary Terms </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Sent by:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> dcrm-l-admin@lib.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> byu.edu</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> 01/11/2005 02:41</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> PM</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> Please respond to</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> dcrm-l</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Yes, I think the definition of "perfect" ought to suggest a complete</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>copy as issued by the printer. In my mind, binding errors doesn't make a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>copy imperfect. Yet there has to be something of that idea in the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>definition so that when we tell a cataloger to base the description on a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>perfect copy, she knows to base it on her copy as if it were correctly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>bound.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Deborah J. Leslie</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Folger Library</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>djleslie@folger.edu</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>