<font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">My takes on Randy's examples below. The basic response is to say "signing $1 as $2" and such--i.e. remove any taint of atttributed error and simply state the facts, and deal with the metafact that a bibliographer's concern with structure may differ from a printer's plausible stab at indicating sequence, or a compositor's faithfulness to the position of a type page in the forme, where a sheet is destined to be parcelled out into multiple gatherings.<br>
</span></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Randal Brandt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu">rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
And here is another:<br>
<br>
8vo, $2 signed:<div class="im"><br>
<br>
Leaf 1: unsigned, unpaginated, recto blank, verso full-page
engraving (frontispiece)<br>
Leaf 2: unsigned, unpaginated, recto title page, verso blank<br></div>
Leaf 3: signed *2, unpaginated, recto begins dedication<br>
Leaf 4: unsigned, unpaginated, remainder of dedication<br>
Leaf 5: signed A, paginated [1]-2, recto begins text ... [etc.]<br>
<br>
One might be tempted to just say *^4, with *3 missigned *2, but the
binding is loose enough to see that the frontis. and t.p. are
conjugate, so the same situation as the others.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>RN per WWBD (perhaps): pi^2 *^2 A-..... [...signing *1 as *2 ...]</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/9/2010 3:03 PM, Randal Brandt wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
Here is a typical signing/paging of the examples I have in front
of me:<br>
<br>
8vo, 8 leaves in the gathering, $5 signed:<br>
<br>
Leaf 1: unsigned, unpaginated, recto blank, verso full-page
engraving (frontispiece)<br>
Leaf 2: unsigned, unpaginated, recto title page, verso blank<br>
Leaf 3: signed A2, paginated [3]-4, recto begins text<br>
Leaf 4: signed A3, paginated 5-6<br>
Leaf 5: signed A4, paginated 7-8<br>
Leaf 6: signed A5, paginated 9-10<br>
Leaf 7: unsigned, paginated 11-12<br>
Leaf 8: unsigned, paginated 13-14<br>
Leaf 9: signed B, paginated 15-16 ... [etc. </blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div><div class="h5"><blockquote type="cite">
<br>
I have another example that is the same as above, except that Leaf
9, signed B, is paginated 17 (i.e. 15-16 are skipped in the
numbering), clearly indicating that the frontispiece is indeed
printed on Leaf 8 of gathering A and is not a plate.<br></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div>You just deal with what the printer gives you. In the former case (leaving aside debates about inference) [A]^2 chi^6 B- ...</div>
<div>[... signing A1-4 as A2-5 ...]; ... pp. [<u>2</u>] [1-3] 4- ...</div><div><br></div><div>In the second case pp. [<u>2</u>] [1-3] 4-14 17- ...</div><div><br></div><div>It gets much wilder than this, of course, but start always with a correct account of structure, then track the signatures and pagination as best you can, following the printer's designations where it's possible, even if a bit weird. You're talking to other bibliographers when you write this stuff, and they'll attribute the weirdness correctly to the printer, not to you. It can't be made clear to those who know little or those who know much with purely discursive description--those who know little won't get it because they don't know structure, while those who know structure will go nuts trying to reduce your discourse to a sensible, compact formulation that can be usefully compared with the compact formulation for similar books. (And the may not trust you, because you seem to be ignorant of well established descriptive conventions, and so perhaps also inept in analysis.) Where the printer becomes terminally confused, the bibliographer takes over and provides designations that work, with notes that express understanding of and perhaps even sympathy for the printer's confusion (which may be the fault of the author).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sorry, I've let the substance of another thread leak into the paragraph above. I know I'm talking to the analytically apt, but I'm also trying to come up with some non-inflammatory response to people who seem, as a matter of policy, to be annoyed by other people doing their best to care about things that they themselves don't care about, with a strong whiff of pseudo-populism just to make it clear what heartless elitists those other people are when e.g. they try to account for the integrity of certain "carriers" and their many leaves. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div class="h5"><blockquote type="cite">
<br>
I can see how the above could be given, as Richard originally
suggested, as pi^2 A^6 ... but, then would you also say that A1-4
are "missigned" A2-5?<br></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div>To sum up, you can take the curse from "missigning" by using the more neutral "signing" when you're accounting for a tactic rather than a mistake.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Richard</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div class="h5"><blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Randy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/9/2010 1:48 PM, John Lancaster wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Yes, very much a sideshow (and possibly only
theoretical) - I guess I prefer having to think about it -
clearly A is being reserved for the first gathering - but in the
printer's terms, that's all eight leaves, one sheet, even though
he of course knows how the book is supposed to end up. Since we
can't use A for all the leaves, it feels awkward to me to use it
for just one of the two resulting gatherings, even if one of
them includes the title leaf.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do agree that chi should come after [A], if it's
inferred. Bowers has an amusing sequence of possible examples
for a slightly different situation: [A]^2 *^4 [B]^4 C-...
("somewhat irregular"); pi^2 *^4 2pi^4 C-... ("more
conservative"); pi^2 *^4 [2*]^4 C-... ("clearer").<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd still be interested in knowing what the signing and
paging of the actual examples are, and further whether these
8 leaves are in fact preliminaries (textually speaking).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Lancaster</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">The question is a bit of a
sideshow here, but anyway--I read Bowers as thinking
that the English habit of starting the text with B
was in order to reserve A for the title gathering,
which at least felt like a reason for inferring the
initial gathering as "[A]", instead of leaving the
question unsettled and having to think about it
every time. I prefer chi for the next gathering,
only because in reference notation pi so clearly
implies a gathering or gatherings that "p[recede]"
any other series; "[p]reliminary" gets to be iffy,
and once again you end up having to make judgments
about a really rather trivial matter, when what you
want to do is just lay out the structure and leaf
relationships in a way that will support unambiguous
reference. So I guess I think of pi as representing
"[p]rae".</font></font>
<div> <font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br clear="all">
</font></font><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD
NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : <a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" target="_blank">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</a> </font><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:55
PM, John Lancaster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jjlancaster@me.com" target="_blank">jjlancaster@me.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Richard beat
me to it - but to the last point (i.e. if there
is no signing before B), it's an awkward
situation, as Bowers reveals in wavering back
and forth between inferring [A] for the first of
two such gatherings, using chi for the second,
or using pi, 2pi - he calls the latter a
"conservative formula" (p. 215), but then on the
next page says he prefers inference, saying the
pi-2pi solution "exhibits an unnecessary, and
even incorrect, conservatism."
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>I prefer not to infer [A] for either
gathering and would go with pi^2 2pi^6 -
whether that's "conservative" or not, I can't
fathom. But it doesn't seem to me there's any
particular rationale for considering one or
the other of such gatherings the reasonable
precursor to the rest of the signing sequence
(to "privilege" it, in the current jargon) -
which, it seems to me, is the suggestion when
an inferred signature is used.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the other hand, given the scenario
described, it seems unlikely that there
would be no signing in the first gathering,
so the problem might never arise. Randy,
what is the signing (and pagination) of
those first leaves in the examples you're
working with?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<font color="#888888">
<div>John Lancaster</div>
</font>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Sep 9, 2010, at 2:41 PM,
Noble, Richard wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">If you
were in RBS Des Bib, I'd have
the right to tell y'all that the
right way to describe this is
pi^2 A^6 ... etc. The <i>printing
</i>formula is A^8; but in the <i>issue</i> formula
for the correctly finished book
you always describe the
structure in terms of the
relationships of the bifolia
(folds). To call these eight
leaves A^8 leaves you with a
formula that is, quite simply,
incorrect: that superscript 8
has a very unambiguous meaning.
(This is the most basic of all
rules for this species of
notation.)</font></font>
<div> <font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br>
</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">You may
still--really should--explain
how this bit of structure came
about, since you need to make
it clear that the frontispiece
leaf is not a plate. Also, </font></font><span style="font-family:garamond,serif;font-size:large">assuming that gathering
A includes signatures, it may be
that, say, leaf A2 in the book
as bound is signed A3--in which
case it must be noted as
missigned. ("Missigned" doesn't
necessarily mean that the
printer made a mistake; it
simply means that the signature
doesn't correspond to the
structure of the finished book.)
If there are no signatures
before B, the right formula
would be [A]^2 chi^6 ..., though
there's (just) wiggle room for
debate about the designation of
the second gathering.</span>
<div> <font face="'courier new',
monospace"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new',
monospace">RICHARD NOBLE :
RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN
HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 :
401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : <a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" target="_blank">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</a>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu,
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:03 PM,
Deborah J. Leslie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:DJLeslie@folger.edu" target="_blank">DJLeslie@folger.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex"> Randy,<br>
<br>
I would stay away from your
first example; there is no
need to separate<br>
'A' out of the sequence,
since the parenthetical
doesn't affect the<br>
number of leaves, but only
gives more information about
the content. One<br>
way is to put this kind of
information after a
semi-colon at the end of<br>
the signature statement.
I.e., Signatures:
A-Z[superscript8]; A8 is the<br>
frontispiece.<br>
<br>
I like the wording of your
note, though, which could be
used along with<br>
or instead of the
information as part of the
signature statement.<br>
Perhaps a slight tweaking,
something like: Leaf A8 is
back-folded to<br>
form the frontispiece.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
On<br>
Behalf Of Randal Brandt<br>
</div>
<div>Sent: Thursday, 09
September, 2010 13:48<br>
To: DCRM Revision Group
List<br>
Subject: [DCRM-L]
Frontispiece conjugate
with t.p.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div> I'm trying to come
up with a clear (and
elegant) way to describe
a<br>
frontispiece that
integral to the first
gathering and is
conjugate with<br>
the title page. I have
seen several examples of
this situation, and a<br>
couple of different ways
to express it, and would
appreciate it if<br>
anyone on this list has
something better to
offer.<br>
<br>
Here's the deal: In, for
example, an octavo, the
frontispiece<br>
illustration is printed
on the verso of the last
leaf (A8) of the first<br>
gathering. The sheet is
folded and opened (at
least partially) before<br>
binding, A8 is then
folded around so that it
precedes A1, thus
forming a<br>
<br>
frontispiece that is
conjugate to the t.p.
(A1). Assuming the page<br>
numbering starts with
A1, the page number of
B1 is then 15, and so
on.<br>
<br>
Here are some ways of
expressing this in the
catalog record:<br>
<br>
Example 1:<br>
Signatures:
A[superscript 8]
(A8=frontispiece)
B-Z[superscript8]<br>
Note: Frontispiece is
conjugate with title
page<br>
<br>
Example 2:<br>
Signatures:
A-Z[superscript8]<br>
Note: Leaves A1.8 folded
to form frontispiece
(leaf A8) and title page<br>
(leaf A1)<br>
<br>
<br>
Any preferences for
either of the above
examples? Any other
ideas? I've<br>
looked through Bowers
and Gaskell and cannot
find anything like this.<br>
(Most of the examples
like this I have seen
have been in German<br>
imprints.)<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
Randy<br>
<br>
--<br>
__________________________<br>
Randal Brandt<br>
Principal Cataloger<br>
The Bancroft Library<br>
(510) 643-2275<br>
<a href="mailto:rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/" target="_blank">http://bancroft.berkeley.edu</a><br>
"It's hard enough to
remember my opinions
without<br>
remembering my reasons
for them"--The Streets.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
<a href="mailto:rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu</a>
<a href="http://bancroft.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">http://bancroft.berkeley.edu</a>
"It's hard enough to remember my opinions without
remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><pre cols="72"><font color="#888888">--
__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
</font><div class="im"><a href="mailto:rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu</a>
<a href="http://bancroft.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">http://bancroft.berkeley.edu</a>
"It's hard enough to remember my opinions without
remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.
</div></pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>