[DCRM-L] Two comments on the delta draft

[David Woodruff]

I realized there are a few more points to be made on this issue — sorry for not responding sooner. Of course an illustration printed in a single color could be noted. But as an aspect of book design, not as a color illustration, because it doesn't involve the multiple workings, problems of registration, and added cost that led catalogers to record col. ill. in the 300 field in the first place. Our definition of col. ill. can be a fairly arbitrary choice from the possible definitions that range between one color, which I don't think is possible, and three colors, which would clearly be too restrictive. To me this very arbitrariness is an argument for retaining the AACR2 definition, on the principle that we should follow AACR2 when the requirements of rare book cataloging allow. On this point our requirements are exactly the same as in regular cataloging. The question is whether we can live with the AACR2 definition (two or more colors, neither black nor white is a color). I think we can. It falls in the range between calling for one color and three colors and it is clear, easy to apply, and gives generally good results. For example it nicely captures what Gascoigne calls the traditional distinction between tinted lithographs with one or two tint stones and full chromolithographs. My proposed alternative definition (two colors, one of which may be black — incidentally, the definition given in the 1967 ed. of AACR), is intended only as a compromise, if the AACR2 definition continues to be acceptable. It would broaden the range of illustrations considered col. ill. while excluding  monochromatic illustrations.