[DCRB-L] WG3: Physical description area

[Richard Noble]

At 1/23/03    12:10 PM, Deborah Leslie wrote:
>5B5. With the advent of publishers' bindings, can we assume that most 
>commercial advertisements were in fact issued with the book? I'm afraid I 
>don't see the value of these rules. I also want to consider eliminating 
>the instruction to include mention of advertisements in the statement of 
>extent, something I hadn't thought of before I looked at these gymnastics 
>to get catalogers not to do something.

The question is at what point the advertisement became part of the book in 
hand. Integral advertisement leaves--those included in a text gathering, 
and perhaps by extension any subsequent leaves that are inseparable in 
contents with such integral leaves (I don't recall having run across this 
situation, actually)--differ from non-integral leaves as to ideal copy 
status. C19 books were frequently warehoused unbound/uncased, to be done up 
in small lots as needed, and very frequently advertisements would be added 
from a stock of current versions supplied to the binder by the publisher, 
to be added as the publisher's various warehoused books were bound. Thus 
copies of a single printing may contain a variety of appended, non-integral 
adverts, often dated (though it's quite possible to have leftover out of 
date adverts find their way into a book in a binding lot later than one 
with later adverts). One notes these, since they may serve as evidence 
pertaining to the sales history of the book, if nothing else; but they most 
often distinguish binding states only, and should not trigger the creation 
of separate records based on variant 300-field data. In my own practice I 
note non-integral advertisements in a local note, and usually add a general 
note (sometimes institution rather than copy specific, with $5) concerning 
the various binding states evidenced by the copy or copies in hand, and if 
relevant of other copies known and reliably described. (Aside: We really 
ought to differentiate copy-specific features [hand bindings, inscriptions, 
defects, etc.] from features that distinguish groups of copies [variant 
publisher bindings, inserted advertisements, etc.]).

Though I've mainly alluded to C19 books, one also finds (much less often) 
non-integral advertisements in hand press books. The matter is complicated 
by the fact that such leaves (as well as integral advert leaves) may well 
be removed by a binder whose customer doesn't like them (and who himself 
wants the waste paper)--i.e. adverts are iffy in the hand press period, 
though in perishingly few cases are we talking about copy-specific 
features: most often it's a matter of binding states, occasionally one of 
issue-variants. In any case, integral advertisements MUST be treated as 
ideal-copy features.

What's required of catalogers is the ability to distinguish integral from 
non-integral advertisements (or anything else for that matter--e.g. errata 
leaves, binder's leaves, etc.), in both HP and MP books, in order to avoid 
the creation of ghost issues. This requires analysis of physical evidence 
beyond any manipulation of numberings that can be profiled in the rules.

>5B9. The statement of extent provides a count for every leaf in the book 
>excluding those added in the binding. You can't leave off counting them in 
>the extent just because you can't figure out whether they're plates or 
>not. You have to choose. Therefore, you might give a default (e.g., if 
>impossible to determine the nature of a book's illustrations,  count them 
>as pages or leaves of plates if unnumbered, or as pages or leaves of text 
>if included in the pagination).

Again, this depends upon the ability to analyze the book properly, but the 
default is reasonable enough. (And I do count e.g. non-integral unnumbered 
leaves [NOT pages] of letterpress-printed illustrations, usually wood 
engravings, as plates, even though I would not do so in bibliographical 
practice. I've made my peace with some of the sloppiness of AACR2 that 
migrates into DCRB.) The cataloger ought, however, to provide the 
information necessary to understand any features obscured by the 
distribution of data in the 300 field, as well as the cataloger's own 
uncertainties.

>5C3. I find this section problematic. What is the difference between a 
>chromolithograph and a colored lithograph? There is no such thing as a 
>"col. wood engraving", because it could only be printed in one color, and 
>any hand-coloring is considered copy-specific. I also would try to 
>discourage catalogers from counting and listing the various types of 
>illustration techniques in the 300. If it's that important, it can be 
>elaborated in a note. Otherwise, the statement should be something like $b 
>ill. (steel engravings, lithographs)

As to chromolithographs, color lithographs, and colored lithographs: The 
first two are distinguished by tradition, chromos being popular, color 
lithos artistic, though technically speaking chromos are simply color 
lithographs by another, somewhat disparaging name. These are the result of 
printing with multiple stones (or zincs), one for each of the colors that 
are superimposed to create the overall coloring. Colored lithographs are 
monochrome prints that have been hand colored. There are also tinted 
lithographs, essentially monochrome with additional printed color (itself 
either lithographic or relief), often to give sky and ground color.

There are indeed color wood engravings, also called chromoxylographs, which 
again involve superimposed color by way of multiple (relief in this case) 
printing surfaces. This was a much-used process in the 1870s and 1880s. For 
all of these processes see Bamber Gascoigne, How to Identify Prints, the 
reference text by which all the Rare Book School illustration examples are 
classified.

>It was also the case that many HP books with hand-colored ills. were 
>issued that way by the publisher, so the principle should hold regardless 
>of whether we're talking about HP or MP books. I've never heard anyone 
>explain it, but I assume that hand-coloring is always considered 
>copy-specific because it is not printed in any way. I'd love to hear from 
>anyone with more knowledge on this matter.

Hand coloring is not always copy-specific. As Deborah indicates, many 
books, generally from the later C18 on, and especially in the C19 before 
the advent of more efficient color printing techniques, were sold colored, 
advertised as such, and sometimes issued both ways--"penny plain, tuppenny 
coloured", so to speak. The existence of two states in a single issue 
(though it could be argued that these constitute separate issues) is an 
obvious nuisance when it intrudes itself into the difficult one record/two 
record decision, but the facts of publication/issue should not be 
misrepresented by a blanket treatment of all hand coloring as copy 
specific. Whatever goes into the 300 field, notes on any such coloring, 
even conjectural ones, ought to be tagged as general.


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