<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Sorry - I should have added that quire kk is signed variously "kk" and "Kk" - so it wasn't lack of a lower-case "k" that occasioned the odd signing (perhaps the Kks got muddled in the case).<div><br></div><div>But I don't think that affects the thinking about the anomalous single "K" - I still agree that "k^6" is to be inferred here, because anything else creates even worse problems.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for working it through so meticulously.</div><div><br></div><div>John</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 2015 Jun 15, at 10:22, Noble, Richard <<a href="mailto:richard_noble@brown.edu">richard_noble@brown.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Since the printer's font lacked a distinct glyph for lc 'k', but your font doesn't, the 'K' means something different coming from the printer than it will coming from you. (Sorry--just musing on first or second principles here.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">I assume that 2k's 'kk' signature is likewise represented by 'KK', so the problem (of course) is the isolation of the k^6 gathering required by its variant extent--but in so saying, I come to a conclusion that it <i>is</i> the "k^6 gathering", to be referred to as such, and that the actual glyph is to be noted in the signing statement, perhaps, depending on historical bibliographical context, with a further note regarding the font and the non-significance of the signature in any other respect.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">The isolation of k^6 as 'K^6' on the basis of the glyph would entail isolation of 2k^8: 2a-2i^8 2K^8 2l-2m^8; but this seems to suggest that the signature "means" something, when it fact it doesn't, an undesirable outcome. This is related to the rather vexed (that is, complicated) protocols that Bowers devised for quoting/non-quoting of signatures with respect to inserts, cancels, and the like. Whatever one thinks of the result, the purpose was to maintain focus on the structural story that the collational formula is designed to tell, which is a good principle--one that can be invoked in the present case, I think.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">But--what <i>really</i> tips it is the cap signatures, which include an unambiguous K^8. That being so, for the sake of simplicity in reference to structural elements of the book, the use of 'k^6' and implicit '2k^8' seems by far the best way to go: the best combination of what and where.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY</font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: 401-863-1187</font></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><</span><a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace" target="_blank">Richard_Noble@Br</a><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><a href="http://own.edu/" target="_blank">own.edu</a></span><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">></span></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:00 AM, 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">I’d be grateful for suggestion of the appropriate way to deal with this situation.<br>
<br>
The 1487 Brescia Dante is signed:<br>
<br>
&^8 a-i^8 K^6 l-r^8 aa-mm^8 nn^4 A^6 B^8 C-L^8.<br>
<br>
That is, the gathering that one would expect to be signed “k” has a capital “K” on all three signed leaves.<br>
<br>
How can this best be represented so that a reference to a leaf signed with “K” is unambiguous?<br>
<br>
Can the “k” gathering be recorded as “K[i.e. k]^6”, with an explanatory note? Or, as I’ve seen elsewhere, just as “k^6” with a note that all three signed leaves are “mis-signed K”?<br>
<br>
There may be no really satisfactory way to do this in abbreviated form. But given that “k” is often a problem for early printers, this may not be a unique case. (I’ve seen “l” plus “round r” used as a substitute, but that’s easily dealt with.)<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
John Lancaster</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>