<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>My comments were intended only to reflect DCRM(B) instructions (as I understand them):<br><br></div>5B9.1: Leaves or pages of plates: "... Count a plate folded and bound at the inner margin as two leaves of plates ..."<br></div><div><br></div>In practice, I do remember situations where I had two copies of a book that had the same "big plate" bound differently in each copy (i.e., as a double plate bound down the center in one copy and as a folded plate bound along one edge in another copy). I just tried to figure out the best I could how the book had been issued or, failing that, how the plate was bound in most copies, and used that as the basis for my 300 field. Then in notes I'd "explain" the situation and the differences between copies.<br><br></div><div>And yes, if the plates are numbered, I think you will sometimes have to correct the statement of extent. The publisher will not necessarily be numbering anything in accordance with the requirements of a particular
cataloging code. The physical number of "leaves or pages of plates" may not necessarily reflect the number of images depicted (the content). <br></div><div><br></div><div>It always made sense to me that the way something is described in the 300 $a would depend in large part upon its binding (as issued), while the 300$b would be the place for recording the details of the illustrative content:<br><br>[2] leaves of plates : 1 map<br></div><div>Note: Map of Tennessee on a double plate.<br><br></div><div>vs.<br></div><div><br>[1] folded leaf of plates : 1 map<br>Note: Map of Tennessee on folded plate.<br><br></div><div>But it does get tricky, especially because it can be so difficult to determine how something was issued (or even if it was issued in a consistent way). But that problem applies to many things in the physical description, not just plates. <br><br>RDA makes an even bigger distinction than AACR2 does between content and carrier. But I guess it will be up to the DCRM2 group to decide how to interpret these things going forward.<br><br>I think there could be a whole BSC seminar on the topic of plates, preferably one with plenty of illustrative images! Maybe better guidance could be provided on how to word explanatory notes to make things as clear as possible.<br><br></div><div>Here are some examples I found in LC's catalog:<br><br><a title="Click to copy permalink for this item" id="permalink" href="http://lccn.loc.gov/86675228">http://lccn.loc.gov/86675228</a><br><span dir="ltr" class="">[4], 51, [1] p., [40] leaves of <span class="">plate</span>s : 20 maps (engravings) ; 29 cm. (fol.)</span><span dir="ltr" class=""><br>The 20 maps, unsigned, and drawn at different scales, are each printed on a bifolium (in LC copy attached to a stub to form a <span class="">double</span> <span class="">plate</span>),
with explanatory letterpress on the reverse. The bifolia are "signed"
in direction-line position 1-7, 9, 9, 10-13, [14], 15-20.<br><br></span><a title="Click to copy permalink for this item" id="permalink" href="http://lccn.loc.gov/01013019">http://lccn.loc.gov/01013019</a><br><span dir="ltr" class="">[8], 60, 420 p., [2] leaves of <span class="">plate</span>s : map ; 27 cm. (fol.)<br></span></div><div><span dir="ltr" class="">Map is a double plate.<br></span><span dir="ltr" class=""><br></span><span dir="ltr" class=""><a title="Click to copy permalink for this item" id="permalink" href="http://lccn.loc.gov/85229409">http://lccn.loc.gov/85229409</a><br>[3] leaves, 100 [i.e. 102] leaves of <span class="">plate</span>s : all ill. (etchings) ; 34 cm.</span><span dir="ltr" class=""><br>Brunet and Graesse list 5 states of the <span class="">plate</span> used as t.p. That information plus a descriptive list of all 100 <span class="">plate</span>s in the work is in: Le peintre-graveur français / A.P.F. Robert-Dumesnil. VI, 176-188.</span>
<span dir="ltr" class=""></span><span dir="ltr" class=""><span class=""><br>Plate</span>s 87 and 100 are <span class="">double</span>.</span>
<br><span dir="ltr" class=""><br></span><span dir="ltr" class=""><a title="Click to copy permalink for this item" id="permalink" href="http://lccn.loc.gov/02030239">http://lccn.loc.gov/02030239</a><br>[6], 268, 10 p., [2] leaves of <span class="">plate</span>s : port. ; 17 cm. (8vo)<br></span><span dir="ltr" class="">LC copy is a made-up copy, from 3
different editions. The title page is from the first edition, 2nd or
3rd issue; the text is that of Madan 24, but wanting the "Reasons"; and
the portrait is a <span class="">double</span> <span class="">plate</span> (signed Guil: Marshall sculpsit), and appears to be from a third edition, and is without the explanation of the <span class="">plate</span>.
Cf. Francis F. Madan. A new bibliography of the Eikon basilike of King
Charles the First ... Oxford : Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1950.</span><span dir="ltr" class=""></span><br></div><div><br></div><div>Manon<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div><div><div>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Noble, Richard</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard_noble@brown.edu">richard_noble@brown.edu</a>></span><br><span class=""><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Manon Theroux <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manon.theroux@gmail.com" target="_blank">manon.theroux@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div> So, an unnumbered double plate with content on one side would be:<br><br></div><div>[2] leaves of plates</div></blockquote></div><br></span><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">
I think this would be misleading and incorrect. A bifolium is intended
to function as two separate leaves; it is not a single double-size leaf,
which is the proper way to account for "an unnumbered double plate with
content on one side". The illogic of describing it as [2] leaves of
plates is clear when you consider that it would be counted as a single
plate if it were numbered. Otherwise one would have to declare e.g. "15
[that is, 16] leaves of plates", where it is much closer to the truth to
say "15 leaves of plates (1 double)". That is to say, one unnumbered
double plate <i>is</i> "1 unnumbered double leaf of plates" (setting aside the illogic of the plural in "of plates").<br><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">In
sum, counting doubles plates as 2 leaves each will simply create
confusion as to the actual extent and nature of of the plates. Beyond
that, it is a binder's decision as to whether such a plate is to be
bound as a double leaf or as a single folded leaf--at least you want
the plate <i>count</i> to be the same in either case.<br></div><span class=""><br></span><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:53 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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
On 2015 Jun 28, at 20:11, Manon Theroux <<a href="mailto:manon.theroux@gmail.com">manon.theroux@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> A simple folded plate is one that can actually be unfolded (i.e. the plate is folded to the size of the textblock but only bound along one edge - you have to manually unfold the free edge to see what's inside). So, a single unnumbered folded plate with content on one side would be:<br>
><br>
> [1] folded leaf of plates<br>
><br>
</span>> ... to be distinguished from a "double plate" (i.e. a single plate bound along its center fold, creating a "double spread" when you turn to it). Again, although the plate is technically folded, it is bound along the fold (or attached to a stub in the binding), so you can turn each side of the double plate as if it were its own separate plate and you don't actually have to unfold anything. I think it is somewhat analogous to describing a bifolium as two leaves despite the fact that they are technically joined by a fold. So, an unnumbered double plate with content on one side would be:<br>
><br>
> [2] leaves of plates<br>
<br>
The problem with this distinction is that any single plate (i.e. with a continuous image) that can be bound through the fold (or attached along the fold) can also be bound along one edge. From the point of view of the reader, this would seem preferable, since the plate can be opened flat and there is no sewing to mar the view.<br>
<br>
(If a "double spread" consists of two separate images, the sheet (or half-sheet, or quarter-sheet, etc.) on which they appear could also be bound attached at the edge, but could still be described as [2] leaves of plates, based on the content, with a note about the unusual binding.)<br>
<br>
But to distinguish a "folded plate" (= one leaf) from a "double plate" (= two leaves) makes it possible to have two different statements of extent for copies that differ only in the binder's choice of how to attach the plate in question.<br>
<br>
And if the plates are numbered, what then? Say there are 10 plates, numbered I-X, and they are all bound with sewing through the fold. Do you have "X [i.e. 20] leaves of plates"?<br>
<br>
I think the analogy of "bifolium" is misleading - that term says only that the two leaves are conjugate, whether blank, printed on one side with a continuous image, printed on both sides with four pages, etc.<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
John Lancaster</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>