<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:st="" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns1="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1251">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--a:link
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINK
{mso-style-priority:99;}
a:visited
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINKFOLLOWED
{mso-style-priority:99;}
tt
{mso-style-priority:99;}
p.MSOACETATE
{mso-style-priority:99;}
li.MSOACETATE
{mso-style-priority:99;}
div.MSOACETATE
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.BALLOONTEXTCHAR
{mso-style-priority:99;}
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Bookman Old Style";
panose-1:2 5 6 4 5 5 5 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
tt
{font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:Tahoma;}
p.msolistparagraph, li.msolistparagraph, div.msolistparagraph
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#5C4676;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Bookman Old Style";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1058549924;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1993912312 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>[This note was stimulated by the
discussion, now some time back, that arose from my query about pagination that
includes plates. I hope it does not simply rehash discussion that went on
during and after the process of editing DCRM(B) – if so, I apologize. However,
given the range exhibited by the relatively few responses, it seems that the
issues are still very much alive. Since all of them revolve around the
question of the statement of extent (300 subfield a) and overlap with one
another, I have put my comments into a single post rather than respond
separately to each comment, and included (in Arial and in green, for those who
can view HTML) the original comments relevant to each of mine.]<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>I completely agree with Richard that
“extent” is a pretty crude descriptive tool, even in DCRM(B) (and more or less
the same rules are followed in ESTC, at least with regard to the letterpress
leaves, in that all pages must be accounted for, whether blank or printed –
it’s too bad that ESTC deals so summarily with non-letterpress material). [I
too am an editor of ESTC, and find all too often that records for reissues or
reprintings have different statements of pagination, sometimes even when there
is a note linking the records – and I’m referring to cases where I can verify the
agreement in pagination by examination of copies.] And ESTC all too seldom
includes a signature collation, let alone a complete pagination formula. So
I’m not sure ESTC is a very good example of a model bibliographical catalogue (leaving
aside entirely the differences in records supplied from STC, Wing, NAIP, and
the original E[ighteenth Century]STC).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>I also agree that a “proper formula” should
be provided in a note as part of a good descriptive catalogue record – all the
more reason not to clutter up the statement of extent with more details.
Tanselle suggests that a single number, giving the total number of pages
regardless of whether or how numbers are printed, is perfectly adequate to
indicate the extent of a work for reference purposes in a library catalogue
record, which has the advantage of not being misleadingly suggestive of
analytical detail – but to start doing that would require a massive
re-orientation on the part not only of cataloguers, but of all those who are
accustomed to having at least a semblance of physical detail provided. That
is, as a matter of practicality, I don’t think we can do away with indicating
last numbered pages in each sequence (and for DCRM(B) cataloguing, adding
sequences of unnumbered pages) in 300 subfield a – at least unless LC issues a
decree.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>In short, I don’t see how the “statement of
extent” in a catalogue record, using the current rules or anything similar, can
possibly be manipulated to provide an adequate descriptive formula, which is
why a concise summary statement seems preferable, with all details (collational
formula and pagination register, as well as all the details about
non-letterpress material) provided in notes.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>Richard Noble wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>[I think that there may be an
apples-and-oranges element in this discussion, since I tend to converge
cataloging and bibliography to a certain extent, whether wisely or not. In any
case, it does recapitulate in short form a part of Tanselle’s 1970s article on
bibliography vs. library cataloging, and I offer it only for what it’s worth as
a statement of principle. As an argument concerning cataloging practice, it
chiefly concerns the utility of the collational formula note. – rcn]<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>I suspected that in the context of
library cataloging my approach might be a bridge too far: thus that little
concession at the end. Nevertheless, I could not recommend, as adviser or as
instructor, the “incl.” approach (so to call it) for formal bibliographical
work, in which a proper analytical account of the structure of letterpress
sheets requires their distinction and the segregation of their description from
that of other matter produced by other means.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>The description of structure may indeed,
as a matter of convenience for reference, make use of the printer’s
designations for structural components; but the foundational principle is that
the collational formula and pagination register together constitute the basic
armature for an account of the distribution of the contents as it originates in
formes of type. For our more immediate purposes, in the context of the ESTC as
a bibliographical catalog (I’m now an editor, by the way), it is equally
indispensable as a consistent presentation of key physical evidence by which
one identifies books as specimens in our taxonomy of editions, issues, and
states.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>I suppose, therefore, that I have a
rather Tanselle-ish attitude towards the notion of “extent”, as a categorically
non-bibliographical basis for description, since it mixes up precisely the
elements that an analytical approach (=figuring out what what’s really in front
of you) requires one to tease out. In working with RBS students, I hammer a bit
on the point that there should be as much correlation as possible between the
simplicity or complexity of the book and its description, a principle that
extends to the various elements that make up the book as much as it does to the
book as a whole. Plates and other non-letterpress elements may present complex
variations among copies of an edition that is otherwise simple and invariant,
or that has its own tracks of variation. That all needs to be readily apparent
in the descriptive formula, which in turn enables us to explain clearly what we
found and where we found it. This is all the more important when our file
structure precludes much degressive compression, so that a group of entries
require reciprocal notes that express as succinctly and consistently as
possible the relationships among the bibliographical entities that each entry represents,
as well as any tolerable range of variation among the exemplars of any one
entity.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>“Extent”, as in AACR2 and even as
considerably refined in DCRM(B), is a pretty crude tool at best for all these
purposes—which is why I generally provide a proper formula in a note, if only
as a hedge against the occurrence of variants not known to me. I may be a
victim of my own inclinations in this very small matter that is so large a part
of what I do.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>On another aspect of “extent”: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>As someone who catalogues 19th-century
books almost as often as earlier ones now, I find a problem with DCRM(B) 5B1.1:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>“The statement of extent should account for every leaf in
the volume as issued by the publisher, including leaves of text, leaves of
plates, and blank leaves. It should not include leaves added as part of the
binding or the binding itself.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Since the endleaves and binding are in fact
part of “the volume as issued by the publisher” in many post-1800 books (and
not infrequently contain text or illustration), it seems to me the rule should
read something like:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>“The statement of extent should account for
every leaf in the volume as issued by the publisher, including leaves of text,
leaves of plates, and blank leaves, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>other
than</span></b> leaves added as part of the binding or the binding itself.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>And text or illustration on endleaves
should be mentioned in a note (or at least the option should be urged; I
suppose this is covered by 7B10.4, but a positive suggestion or example would
be helpful).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>With regard to Deborah’s comments:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>“One of the revisions in DCRM(B) was to
take away the option of putting notes in the statement of extent, for the sake
of decluttering that element. For example, you'll see that the option of adding
notes about blank pages or leaves (5B3.1) or advertisements (5B5) to the 300‡a
is no longer given. I appreciate the clarity of separating statement of extent
from notes about the nature or content of the extent. Even if that were not a
principle of DCRM(B), it isn't efficient, because with "(incl.
plates)" you'd still have to make a note explaining what you meant. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>“Likewise [Dislikewise?], I have the same
dislike of the "[i.e.]" in the 300‡a, except if the last page is
unnumbered. "100 [i.e. 104]" is a formulation that frustrates
me I just find it harder to visualize what's going on with the pagination.
Nevertheless, that way of representing internal, non-self-correcting mispaginations
is an option in DCRM(B), so it's a matter of institutional/personal choice.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>I’m quite
happy to have the content notes (e.g. blanks, ads) removed from the statement
of extent – they do clutter the summary. But a statement with “incl.” is not a
content statement; rather it states a relationship among the elements that have
to be included in the statement of extent anyway. “xii, 188 p. (incl. [2]
leaves of plates)” is no longer or more cluttered than “[4], ix-xii, 188 p.,
[2] leaves of plates”, and to my mind gives more useful information. In either
case, a detailed note of explanation is needed.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Finally, a thought or two prompted by
Deborah’s note about the two parts of the statement of extent:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>“I've twisted my tongue for years trying
to use formal language to make distinctions between the two parts that together
make up the statement of extent. I'm hoping this community can establish a
convention for referring to these two parts, and throw this out as a
suggestion. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 color=green face=Symbol><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;
color:green'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font size=2 color=green
face=Arial><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>The
"statement of text" = the first sub-element of the statement of
extent, comprising the extent of letterpress leaves (or plates, if the book is
wholly or primarily plates as in 5B1.4) <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 color=green face=Symbol><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;
color:green'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font size=2 color=green
face=Arial><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>The
"statement of plates" = second sub-element of the statement of
extent, comprising the extent of plates<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>“It's imperfect, because what's on the
letterpress may not be text, but I can't think of anything better. 5B1.4 itself
provides a precedent: "If the leaves are all or chiefly non-letterpress,
record them as leaves or pages of text ..."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Although those two phrases fit very well
the books of the hand-press period generally, and carry over pretty well for
later books (leaving aside the use of the term “letterpress” to designate text
[see note below]), I wonder if it might be preferable to characterize the parts
as<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>-- Primary statement of extent (typically
text)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>-- Secondary statement of extent (typically
inserted plates)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>with a series of criteria for
distinguishing primary from secondary in cases where they are not obvious.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Basically, the statement of extent
differentiates between two parts of a book that are typically produced by
different processes, or at least in different production streams, and brought
together before binding to create the book as a finished entity. Usually the
text part predominates, and usually the secondary part consists of illustrations
and is of lesser extent than the text part, but there are many exceptions, and
in some cases it may be difficult to decide which part is predominant.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>It’s not terribly uncommon, by the way, to
find yet a third part, produced in yet another production stream, namely guard
sheets with printed text, one preceding each plate. I don’t know if it’s ever
been suggested that these also be included in the statement of extent, though
logically it seems to me they should be. (If the guard leaves are unprinted, they
would be just “part of the binding,” like endleaves.) One could imagine a
fourth or fifth component, though I can’t recall ever having seen a book with
more than three.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>A note on “letterpress”: Once offset
printing enters the picture, it becomes increasingly the case that <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>nothing</span></i> in a book is printed letterpress,
even though the plates may be printed separately and inserted.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>And even before that happens, it’s
frequently the case that <i><span style='font-style:italic'>both</span></i>
text and plates are printed letterpress, usually on different paper.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Use of the term “letterpress” seems to be a
vestige of earlier iterations (BDRB, DCRB), despite the statement in I.2
extending the scope of DCRM(B) to “printed monographs of any age or type of
production.” I’m not suggesting that the term be eliminated, but perhaps a
note in the definition about the change in the post-1800 period would be useful,
and some rewording of the relevant sections (e.g. definition of “plate”, and some
sections of 5B).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>--<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:PersonName w:st="on"><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>John
Lancaster</span></font></st1:PersonName><font color=blue><span
style='color:blue'> (</span></font><a href="mailto:jlancaster@amherst.edu">jlancaster@amherst.edu</a><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'>)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on"><font size=3
color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>P.O.
Box</span></font></st1:Street><font color=blue><span style='color:blue'> 775</span></font></st1:address><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Williamsburg</span></font></st1:City><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'>, <st1:State w:st="on">MA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode
w:st="on">01096-0775</st1:PostalCode></span></font></st1:place><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>413-268-7679</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>