[BULK] Re: [DCRM-L] Collated & Perfect

[Rettberg, Dan]

That, or course, is the other option. When I cataloged sixteenth century works at Emory U. to OCLC, I sometimes used the 500 field with the delimiter 5 and our library code for physical descriptions of the piece in hand I thought might be of assistance to other libraries.
 
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: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of John Overholt
Sent: Mon, July 16, 2007 9:47 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [BULK] Re: [DCRM-L] Collated & Perfect
Importance: Low


It seems like you'd want the note in a holdings record if possible, or at least in a field that doesn't end up in the WorldCat master record (which a 590 wouldn't, if I'm not mistaken). If you were creating an original record in Connexion, I guess you'd have to wait to add it until after you exported to your local system. I've always preferred keeping local information out of WorldCat unless it has implications for other libraries cataloging the same item.
--John

John Overholt

Assistant Curator

The Donald and Mary Hyde Collection of Dr. Samuel Johnson/

Early Modern Books and Manuscripts

Houghton Library

Harvard University

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/hydeblog


Margaret Nichols wrote: 

One thought that occurs to me is that since people don't always remove the previous institution's notes from the record when they copy it for their own institution, the "collated & perfect" note might end up being misleading in those cases. On the other hand, if the note begins with "Folger copy" or the like, I suppose that removes that danger (except for the occasional extremely unobservant patron).

Hope this doesn't sound too muddled--it's Monday ...

Cheers,

Margaret Nichols

At 05:02 PM 7/14/2007, you wrote:



At ALA annual this year, RBMS  co-sponsored a program with MAGERT on library map security. One of the speakers was Smiley's prosecuting attorney, who stated that a catalog record that didn't mention imperfections wouldn't stand up in court as evidence that it had no imperfections at the time it was cataloged; a defense attorney would merely need to find a few examples of cataloging that failed to mention existing imperfections at the time of cataloging. 

It occurred to me that for cataloging rare materials, it might be worth considering incorporating the old "collated & perfect" (sometimes abbreviated "c.&p.") note that booksellers and collectors used to pencil into books or include in descriptions. I'm imagining something like this, where a note on the state of the volume's completeness would come at the front of all copy-specific notes:

590 Folger copy: C.&p. DJL 20070714. Bound in <...> 

Thoughts? 

_____________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
Head of Cataloging 
Folger Shakespeare Library 
djleslie at folger.edu 
http://www.folger.edu 

________________________________

Margaret Nichols
Head, Special Collections Materials Unit
Library Technical Services
110 Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY. 14853-5302 
mnr1 at cornell.edu  *  Tel. (607) 255-5752 / 255-3530  *  Fax (607) 255-9524 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20070716/4c51d28c/attachment.htm