<font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">Ouch! A palpable hit, my dear Lancaster.</font></font><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">I suppose I could argue that inferring A makes sense where the next gathering is signed B (in however preliminary a way), but, as Bowers suggests, the ultimate appeal is to clarity. What I tell students is that, in the end, you can't anticipate every crazy thing a printer may do, and as long as you use a formulary that is internally consistent, unambiguous, and that conforms to a well recognized standard, it's OK. In the very worst cases (a lot worse than the present case), don't agonize--"use words", as my wife would say to her kindergarten pupils.</font></font><div>
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="georgia, serif"><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 Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM, John Lancaster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jjlancaster@me.com">jjlancaster@me.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">I'm hesitant to differ from Richard, who surely knows Bowers's Principles inside and out, but sitting in Charlottesville with the shade of Fredson hovering over me, I'm led to page 214, where I find:<div>
<br></div><div>"Some of these title-gatherings or single-leaf titles may cause trouble when they precede a number of preliminary gatherings. Thus, since π [pi] may be used when it is inadvisable to infer the signing of a prefixed gathering, it seem to me a free choice in a book beginning the text with B to write π[pi]1 a-g^8 h-l^4, B-2M^8 or [A]1 a-g^8 h-l^4, B-2M^8, although I consider the first to be slightly preferable, but only because of slightly superior clarity." (I bracket the inferred A, and use caret+number rather than superscript, as italics and superscripts, in my experience, don't make it through some e-mail systems. Similarly with π.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>This general statement seems to me directly on point in the present instance, and preferable (for determining WWBD) to inference from other examples, especially since (as Richard suggests, obliquely) Bowers is not always consistent in applying his principles.</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>John Lancaster</div></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><div>
<font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif">Well, in the "for what it's worth" department, I think the nearest WWBD* formula would be</font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><br>
</font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="georgia,serif"><div><br></div><p class="MsoNormal">[A]<sup>4</sup> <sup><span>π</span></sup>B<sup>4</sup>
b-i<sup>4</sup>, B-3X<sup>4</sup> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">which is how I infer from Bowers' preferences expressed on p. 216 and 220. Not to infer [A] is improper where, as usual in English practice--I assume this is an English book--the printer began the text with B, reserving A for the first gathering (Bowers p. 216). The B signature in the preliminaries is easily distinguished from the main series B with prefixed pi, interpreting the word "preliminary" somewhat broadly, and following examples in which a second or later preliminary gathering is thus differenced (p. 220, a rare instance of out and out pragmatism in Bowers).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">*What Would Bowers Do: RBS Des Bib motto.</p><div><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><span style="font-size:11px"><br>
</span></font></p></font></font></div><br clear="all"></font></font><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : <a href="tel:401-863-1187" value="+14018631187" target="_blank">401-863-1187</a>/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 Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:15 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div>Randal - I think any of the three choices you suggest (as well as [a]) could be defended, more or less, but I agree with your choice of pi. Neither Gaskell nor Bowers is at all comprehensive - they couldn't be, I think, so cataloguer's (or bibliographer's) judgment is still a significant component of the descriptive process.<br>
</div><font color="#888888"><div><pre style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">John Lancaster<br></pre></div></font><div><div></div><div><div><pre style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br></pre></div><div>On Oct 03, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Randal Brandt <<a href="mailto:rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
I am cataloging a book with partially duplicated signatures and would <br>
like some advice. The book is an octavo in 4's and the preliminaries are <br>
signed as follows:<br>
<br>
unsigned gathering, B, b-i<br>
<br>
The main text is then signed:<br>
<br>
B-3X<br>
<br>
My question is about the initial unsigned gathering. Would it be <br>
recorded as '[A]', '[superscript pi][A]', or 'pi'? The second gathering <br>
has to be signed '[superscript pi]B' because of the duplicated B <br>
gathering that begins the text. At this point I'm leaning towards 'pi' <br>
since 'A' is not used in any of the subsequent sequences, resulting in a <br>
signature statement as follows:<br>
<br>
pi^4 [superscript pi]B^4, b-i^4, B-3X^4<br>
<br>
Any other suggestions? I've looked at Gaskell p. 331 and Bowers p. 219+, <br>
but do not see this particular situation.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
-- <br>
__________________________<br>
Randal Brandt<br>
Principal Cataloger<br>
The Bancroft Library<br>
<a href="tel:%28510%29%20643-2275" value="+15106432275" target="_blank">(510) 643-2275</a><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></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>