[DCRM-L] Glossary

[David Woodruff]

It's my turn to say "Ah, now I see." The glossary definition of plate it
just the way you want it. Nevertheless I am concerned about relying on
whether a disjunct woodcut illustration is folded or not to determine
whether it is a plate. Folding is post-production; is it
bibliographically relevant? Some plates are so big they have to be
folded, but others are close to the size of a text leaf, and can be
folded, or trimmed more closely, at the whim of the binder. Thus the
number of folded plates can differ from copy to copy. They can also
differ within a single copy over the course of its existence, if the
edges are trimmed in rebinding, requiring some plates to be folded that
in the original binding were flat. Or an owner (or a subversive
cataloger for that matter) could convert a disjunct illustrative woodcut
text leaf to a plate simply by folding over the fore edge. In all these
cases the books could be bibligraphically identical but would receive
different descriptions.

My inclination would be to treat books that are engraved throughout
under 5B1.4, as all text, but not to try to assimilate letterpress books
to what is after all an exception. The definition of plate could then be
a version of the DCRB definition, something like "any leaf, not part of
a text gathering, that bears a title page printed in a different medium
from the text, an illustration, or a table."


>>> "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>  >>>
It isn't true that plates can't be letterpress. Folded letterpress
leaves: the operative distinction is that they're folded, and therefore,
out of format. 
The problem with the DCRB definition is that many plates are not
primarily illustrative; and a primarily illustrative leaf not an
integral leaf in a gathering could be a singleton woodcut, which would
be counted as a leaf of "text." We most definitely do count singleton
leaves, as long as they're "in format," as leaves of text.
We were careful to define plates as those of a different format (either
going through a rolling press or clearly printed in a different format
than the main text block) because we have stated that books that are
wholly engraved are not to be considered having "leaves of plates," but
only "leaves." See 5B1.4.
So the upshot of all this is that I am unpersuaded by your argument that
there is a problem with the definition of plate. I welcome you to try
again. D.
__________________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || http://www.folger.edu   

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of David Woodruff
Sent: 18 September 2006 14:46
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Glossary

p. 191, Plate. A leaf that is chiefly or entirely non-letterpress, or a
folded leaf of any kind, inserted with letterpress gatherings of text. -
The broad definition in the Glossary of Letterpress as relief printing
causes a problem here: if plates can't be letterpress, woodcuts can't be
plates. The printing technique of the plate shouldn't matter for the
purposes of definition. It may be different from that of the text, or
the same (e.g. lithographic plates with lithographic text). I don't see
any alternative to some version of the DCRB definition, qualified to
allow for engraved titles, etc., and tables. That definition reads: A
primarily illustrative leaf that is not an integral part of a gathering.
This could  be followed by the second sentence in the present
definition: A plate usually contains illustrative matter, with or
without accompanying text, but may contain only text (e.g., an engraved
title page or a folded letterpress table).
Also a question about "a folded leaf of any kind" * would such a leaf
still be a plate if printed with normal letterpress text, not in table
form?