[DCRB-L] Revision of DCRB

[Richard Noble]

At 2/19/03    09:45 AM, John Hall wrote:
>If the publication is simply the reissue of old sheets in a new wrapper
>or binding, and the title is unchanged, is there not a strong case for
>choosing the original title-page, and giving information from the
>wrapper/binding in a note (or, if the new information is confined to the
>publication etc. area, giving it as an addition to the imprint, i.e.
>adapting DCRB 4E and AACR2 1.4F4)?

We are dealing with publisher bindings and wrappers, which may well provide 
the sole evidence that a group of items constitute an issue--that is, a 
consciously planned publishing unit. Distinction of issue by way of 
bindings and other phenomena not usually regarded as sources of 
bibliographical evidence in the treatment of pre-C19 books is discussed by 
G.T. Tanselle in "The Bibliographical Concepts of Issue and State", PBSA, 
69 (1975), 17-66; and again, more briefly, in "The Description of 
Non-Letterpress Material in Books", SB 35 (1982), 1-42.

Librarians have tended to use the words "edition" and "issue" so 
loosely--with no reference to their bibliographical definitions--that the 
latter is not properly perceived to be the basic unit for entry in the 
catalogue, just as it is the basic unit of "ideal copy" in a bibliography, 
though the principal is more or less adhered to in the rule that a change 
in publisher is a criterion for separate entry. A source other than the 
title page that provides evidence of issue trumps the title for that 
purpose, and cannot be relegated to a note without conflating issues.


RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU