<html>
<body>
I'm going to have to agree with David here. What makes a plate a plate is
not the printing technique, but that it is inserted into the regular
gatherings and does not form part of the sequence of paging or
signatures. An earlier (draft) version of the glossary definition reads:
<dl>
<dd>A single leaf or page that is not an integral part of the preliminary
or main sequence of leaves or pages, or that is part of a separate
gathering consisting entirely of plates. A plate generally, but not
necessarily, contains illustration, and may have been produced with a
different printing technique, and/or a separate signature. Includes
illustrated title pages . <i>See also</i> Leaf of plates<b>. </b>
</dl>This definition is more in line with the AACR2 definition:
<dl>
<dd>A leaf containing illustrative matter, with or without explanatory
text, that does not form part of either the preliminary or main sequence
of pages or leaves.
</dl>I also think that the introduction of whether or not it is folded
adds another layer of complexity that is probably unnecessary. <br><br>
One other minor Glossary question: In the definition of Gathering there
is a phrase that is set off with long dashes (em? en? can't tell which).
This is the only instance of this style in the glossary. Do we want to
introduce or not? That phrase could probably be set off simply with
commas or be within parentheses. Personally, I'm a big fan of the em/en
dashes, but they kind of stick out when there is only one pair.<br><br>
I also think that whenever there a "see also" note, the words
"See also" should be italicized. This is the AACR2 style. The
term following does not need to be bolded or italicized.<br><br>
Randy<br><br>
At 11:46 AM 9/18/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">p. 191, Plate. A leaf that is
chiefly or entirely non-letterpress, or a folded leaf of any kind,
inserted with letterpress gatherings of text. - The broad definition in
the Glossary of Letterpress as relief printing causes a problem here: if
plates can’t be letterpress, woodcuts can’t be plates. The printing
technique of the plate shouldn't matter for the purposes of definition.
It may be different from that of the text, or the same (e.g. lithographic
plates with lithographic text). I don’t see any alternative to some
version of the DCRB definition, qualified to allow for engraved titles,
etc., and tables. That definition reads: A primarily illustrative leaf
that is not an integral part of a gathering. This could be followed
by the second sentence in the present definition: A plate usually
contains illustrative matter, with or without accompanying text, but may
contain only text (e.g., an engraved title page or a folded letterpress
table).<br>
Also a question about “a folded leaf of any kind” * would such a leaf
still be a plate if printed with normal letterpress text, not in table
form?</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
__________________________<br>
Randal Brandt<br>
Principal Cataloger<br>
The Bancroft Library<br>
(510) 643-2275<br>
rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu<br>
<a href="http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/" eudora="autourl">
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu<br>
</a></body>
</html>