[DCRM-L] Glossary Terms

[Rettberg, Dan]

Leslie--

For the most part, I agree with you. These are the sorts of distinctions
which my cataloging teachers emphasized, and which have informed my own
cataloging. However, I can't help wondering how practical it is to attempt
to distinguish between  an "ideal copy" and a "perfect copy". Such a
distinction may work for modern "firsts", but having cataloged a lot of
them, I can't help wondering what, for example would be the "perfect copy"
of a 1520's Reformation polemical tract? The number of variants between
pieces which otherwise appeared to have been issued by the same printer at
the same time often amazed me.

Dan Rettberg
Rare Book and Manuscript Bibliographer
Klau Library
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
Cincinnati, Ohio

drettberg at huc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah J. Leslie [mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:36 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Glossary Terms


I'm afraid I don't quite see what Nina is disagreeing with. I hope it's
not that she thinks I'm equating a misbound copy with different binding
styles issued by a publisher (which then fall under the definition of
"variant issue"). 

In my classes I've been drawing a distinction between "ideal copy" (an
abstract idea, what bibliographers describe, which may or may not
correspond with any actual individual copy) and "perfect copy" which
catalogers describe, a concrete object within a set of objects. Most of
the time the "ideal" and the "perfect" overlap pretty well. I guess
where I make the distinction is that a bibliographer's ideal copy is a
composite description of what was intended to be issued, while a
cataloger's perfect copy is one that actually was issued. "Imperfection"
as I understand it is what happens to individual copies after they have
left the printer's/publisher's hands. 

I wouldn't stake my career on upholding this distinction, but I'd like
to have it discussed. Perhaps here and now as pertinent, but perhaps in
another forum and at another time if not.

In terms of local cataloging policy, I have been accustomed to
considering any missing print (words or pictures) as "imperfect." A
missing leaf, a torn title page with part of the imprint missing, a
cropt copy that cuts off the top half of the page numbers, wormholes
that disturb the text of couple of dozen pages are all examples of
imperfect copies. The first two I would preface the note with the word
"Imperfect:", while the last two I would note without that preface. The
bottom line: leaves or pages with whole words missing are significant
enough imperfections to be prefaced with the red flag "Imperfect", while
other problems that affect printing but which can still be read are
worth noting but without that red flag. Tears &c. that do not affect
printing are not mentioned, with the exception of missing blank leaves
that are  included in the collation.

________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202.675-0369
djleslie at folger.edu
 


-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of nschneider at nypl.org
Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 16:59
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Glossary Terms



Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this. A publisher wants to issue
copies free from ANY errors (binding included). I'm copying an early
email
I sent to Stephen and Randy that might be useful:

>>I understand Stephen's concern with variants and the potential impact
on
the definition I've offered. The way I understand this, the publisher
planned binding variants to, among other reasons, increase sales. So
even
though one copy was bound in blue cloth with gilt and another in blue
cloth
with 2 ink colors they are both perfect since the publisher intended
them
to be issued the way they were issued. Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced since
I
work almost exclusively with books from the machine-press period and I
see
a lot of these variations, including limited editions produced in
conjunction with "regular editions." I did think of these when drafting
my
definition and I was hoping that the "as issued" took care of it. Maybe
not...

>>One of the reasons I think we can avoid the issue of inking quality to
the definition is simply as Stephen stated in his argument... that
quality
printing means different things to different people and there are a lot
of
over- and/or under-inked books produced by presses without a second
thought.

>>Imperfect copies, I agree, come in many forms. Do we want to be copy
specific? If a page is torn from a book it is imperfect but there is
evidence (hopefully) that that book was issued as intended when compared
to
other copies. Unfortunately, most books are imperfect if we start to
think
of copy specific problems. What about foxing? Crushed corners? Torn
headbands? Tight bindings? There are a lot of imperfections but I think
the
copy specific imperfections should not be part of the glossary.

Nina

+------------------
Nina Schneider
Librarian
Berg Collection of English & American Literature, Room 320
The New York Public Library
Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street
New York, NY  10018-2788

Tel.: (212) 642-0111
Fax.: (212) 930-0079
nschneider at nypl.org


 

                      "Deborah J.

                      Leslie"                  To:
<dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>                               
                      <DJLeslie at FOLGER.        cc:

                      edu>                     Subject:  RE: [DCRM-L]
Glossary Terms                        
                      Sent by:

                      dcrm-l-admin at lib.

                      byu.edu

 

 

                      01/11/2005 02:41

                      PM

                      Please respond to

                      dcrm-l

 

 





Yes, I think the definition of "perfect" ought to suggest a complete
copy as issued by the printer. In my mind, binding errors doesn't make a
copy imperfect. Yet there has to be something of that idea in the
definition so that when we tell a cataloger to base the description on a
perfect copy, she knows to base it on her copy as if it were correctly
bound.

________________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie at folger.edu









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050112/5365814c/attachment.htm