[DCRB-L] WG5: Problems draft

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks very much, Dorothy. I am aware of most of the problems you mentioned. Would you be willing to go one step further, and make specific recommendations? Or at least provide specific examples to give us something concrete to work from. And better yet, both!

Cheers,
Deborah

Deborah J. Leslie
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie at folger.edu
www.folger.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Auyong, Dorothy [mailto:dauyong at huntington.org]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 6:30 PM
To: 'dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu'
Subject: RE: [DCRB-L] WG5: Problems draft


Great job Deborah,

And now having complimented you on your good work, may I respectfully make
the following suggestions:  

5B9

As an addendum, may we also consider cases in which engraved plates
(frontispieces mostly, but sometimes distributed elsewhere in the
publication) are clearly intended by the printer as part of the pagination
sequence?  

A similar problem can arise when a non-letterpress leaf is clearly an
integral part of a gathering. A printer may or may not choose to include
this in the pagination.  Do we deal with it as a "plate" (because its not
letterpress) or not?  The instructions on engraved title pages have already
been noted as problematic.

Also consider clarification of the definition of "double plate" (given in
paragraph 1).  From the current wording, it appears that a "double plate"
must be folded and MOUNTED at the inner margin.  If the same sheet were
folded in the middle, but inserted at one of its outer edges, is it now
defined as a "single" (albeit oversized) plate??  This is only a problem
when they are unnumbered (as they frequently are).

This situation is obviously binder- (and therefore copy-) specific.  A
problem can sometimes only be evident if you have the privilege (dubious) of
having multiple copies.  The difference in handling a double vs. a single
plate can make one copy appear to be either imperfect or a variant.  A
uniformity of description is desirable to ensure proper identification.  

5B11

Again need clarification of what is meant by "double leaf" (see argument re:
mounting of "double plates")  and also give guidelines for copy-specific
cases.

Yes, we have examples. 

In all of this, we're trying to account for the completeness and
identification of the item. Current instructions regarding plates vs.
letterpress often result in confusion between the signature and pagination
statements, creating a bibliographic muddle. This, Martha will agree, is Not
A Good Thing.

My two cents contributed.  (1 cent from Eileen)  Which is more wages than I
usually earn on a Friday afternoon.

Dorothy Auyong
Principal Rare Book Cataloger
Henry E. Huntington Library
dauyong at huntington.org