<font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">As so often with plates--beginning with ambiguity of the word "plate" itself (the thing that prints/the thing printed)--our vocabulary makes it very hard to do what we're supposed to be doing: provide an ideal-copy description of the book, in the process making it very clear what constitutes a complete copy, taking into account any tolerable variation that is discovered in comparison of copies. ("Tolerable" meaning variation that does not betoken a different bibliographical manifestation or an incomplete item.)</font></font><div>
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Anna Bryan refers to "double plates"--i.e. single plates that are bound as two leaves to display a single image as a 2-page opening, as opposed to "folded plates", bound as a single folded leaf. Since it is perfectly possible for the same plate to be bound either way, we allow the plate count--a significant factor in description--to vary from copy to copy as a function of mere binding variants that almost never distinguish the copies as different manifestations.</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Why? Because we have an overly restricted use of "double". Plates printed on "double leaves" are not the same as "double plates", but the latter phrase is not used in DCRM(B) (is it?). The instruction to regard a double plate as 2 leaves of plates, <i>without further qualification in the extent statement itself </i>(which <i>is</i> provided for in the case of folded plates) introduces what may well be (and always is potentially) an inherently copy-specific element into the basic description.</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">At a minimum, double plates should never be counted as 2 leaves without making a note. At best, that's a work-around, since the extent statement taken by itself (as it often will be taken) remains ambiguous. I'd also assert that whenever some copies have plates bound as doubles that are bound as folded plates in at least one other copy, the latter should be preferred as ideal copy--which requires a note of explanation (</span></font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: garamond, serif; font-size: large; ">notes regarding tolerable variants being vital elements of a truly descriptive record)</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: garamond, serif; font-size: large; ">. As a maverick at heart (or is that a claim one might avoid after 2008?), in the absence of copies known to have the plates folded I'd stick a qualifier into the extent statement, such as "15 leaves of plates (including 2 double plates)", which could be more or less safely matched to and replaced by an alternate description of a new copy in hand with "13 leaves of plates (2 folded)". (A real maverick uses "or" in extent statements. I guess I'm a real one. "Or" has the virtue of forcing the reader to look for a note.)</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: garamond, serif; font-size: large; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: garamond, serif; font-size: large; ">These double plates are to be distinguished from e.g. the case of separate images printed as a bifolia or other leaf multiples, including standard imposition formats, and clearly intended to be bound as such.</span></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br></span></font></div><div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"></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, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Bryan, Anna <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:abry@loc.gov">abry@loc.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">One of the advantages of working in a very large collection as I do is to see that what is in one copy double plates is in another folded plates. My guess is that it depended on the binder, and is not standard across copies.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">This is why when I have double plates, I always add the note: The plates are double.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">And, I frequently need to amend the description in copy-specific notes because other copies are just as complete and have a different arrangement. Sometimes folded plates are cut down to the plate marks and squeezed into the binding as single leaves of plates. And so forth.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">This is only my experience; I've never heard others comment on this. Do others also find this to be the case?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Anna R. Bryan</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Senior Cataloger</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color:#1F497D">Rare Materials Section</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">US Anglo Division</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Library of Congress</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color:#1F497D">Washington, DC 20540</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I speak only for myself.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> <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>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Deborah J. Leslie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:59 PM<br><b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Question about 5B9.1: counting leaves of plates folded and bound at the inner margin</span></p></div>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Hi Rebecca,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">I'm afraid that each of those images spread across two leaves and bound in the middle are to be counted as [2] leaves of plates (distinct from folded leaves, which by definition can be unfolded.) DCRM(B) is not departing from previous practice. Any special information about the content of the plates – such as that there are 57 images on 107 plates – can be put in a note. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">By the way, I looked up this title myself in OCLC, and the only dcrb record that I saw was ESTC cataloging in a Huntington record. Unfortunately, despite the coding, the ESTC frequently employs non-standard practices and cannot provide a reliable model for standard rare book cataloging. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">I also noticed that many records have '32' or '[32]' leaves of plates, while others have '57' or '[57]'. Just think what a service you'll do, Rebecca, by creating an fully-correct and authoritative record for this title?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> <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>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>McCallum, Rebecca<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, 01 December, 2010 15:35<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] Question about 5B9.1: counting leaves of plates folded and bound at the inner margin</span></p>
</div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Hello everyone,</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I’d like to make sure that I’m correctly understanding DCRM(B) 5B9.1, specifically the sentence that says: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>“Count a plate folded and bound at the inner margin as two leaves of plates.”</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I’m currently editing our bib record for John Ogilby’s “America: being the latest, and most accurate description of the Nevv VVorld…” published in 1671.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The book is full of plates that are folded and bound at the inner margin, as described in 5B9.1, but which really each represent a single image or map printed as a single leaf.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">In various records in OCLC (none of which are DCRM(B) records, and only one of which is DCRB), the number of leaves of plates is generally listed as [57]. However, if I count those folded plates as two leaves, the total count should really be [107] leaves of plates. Is DCRM(B) departing from previous practice here? If so, how can I indicate that there are really only 57 images, rather than 107?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for any clarification on this!</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">- Rebecca</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca McCallum</p><p class="MsoNormal">
Cataloging Librarian</p><p class="MsoNormal">Wesleyan University</p><p class="MsoNormal">252 Church Street</p><p class="MsoNormal">Middletown, CT 06457</p><p class="MsoNormal">(860) 685-3839</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:rmccallum@wesleyan.edu" target="_blank">rmccallum@wesleyan.edu</a></p>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>