[DCRM-L] Glossary

[David Woodruff]

I think I see the problem here. Technique doesn't matter for
illustrations or tables. If they are printed separately from the text,
they are plates. But we want to call engraved title leaves plates as
well, and for them technique does matter. If a separately printed title
leaf is the same technique as the text, it will simply be an addtional
text leaf, and will appear in the signature statement as pi1 or an
addition to the first gathering. Could we say something roughly like
this: a plate is any leaf that is not an integral part of a text
gathering, and bears an illustration, a table, or a title page printed
in a different technique from the text?
Concerning any folded leaf being a plate - I occasionally see a leaf,
integral to a text gathering, that has been folded in at the fore edge
by the binder because it bears a slightly oversize in-text illustration.
Such a folded leaf clearly wouldn't be a plate.
David

>>> Randal Brandt <rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>  >>>
I'm going to have to agree with David here. What makes a plate a plate
is 
not the printing technique, but that it is inserted into the regular 
gatherings and does not form part of the sequence of paging or
signatures. 
An earlier (draft) version of the glossary definition reads:
A single leaf or page that is not an integral part of the preliminary or

main sequence of leaves or pages, or that is part of a separate
gathering 
consisting entirely of plates. A plate generally, but not necessarily, 
contains illustration, and may have been produced with a different
printing 
technique, and/or a separate signature. Includes illustrated title pages
. 
See also Leaf of plates.
This definition is more in line with the AACR2 definition:
A leaf containing illustrative matter, with or without explanatory text,

that does not form part of either the preliminary or main sequence of
pages 
or leaves.
I also think that the introduction of whether or not it is folded adds 
another layer of complexity that is probably unnecessary.

One other minor Glossary question: In the definition of Gathering there
is 
a phrase that is set off with long dashes (em? en? can't tell which).
This 
is the only instance of this style in the glossary. Do we want to
introduce 
or not? That phrase could probably be set off simply with commas or be 
within parentheses. Personally, I'm a big fan of the em/en dashes, but
they 
kind of stick out when there is only one pair.

I also think that whenever there a "see also" note, the words "See also"

should be italicized. This is the AACR2 style. The term following does
not 
need to be bolded or italicized.

Randy

At 11:46 AM 9/18/2006, you wrote:
>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?

__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu