[DCRM-L] Cataloging unpublished facsimiles

[Carol Fink]

Deborah,
At LM, when we have two copies, one original, one a facsimile, we add the facsimile to the bib record for the original and note that copy 2 [3, etc.] is a facsimile copy. 
 
When we only have the copy (or we make the copy), we create a new bib record and add a 533 field saying it's a reproduction.
Hope this helps,
Carol

>>> DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu 10/1/2007 12:27 PM >>>

Dear catalogers and friends,The Folger collects facsimile editions of rare materials, published facsimiles as well as informally-made photostats, photocopies, microfilm, &c. The question we’re re-considering is what is the best way to catalog the latter when we do not also have the original? When we have the original, we use one bib record to describe the original, and put the unpublished facsimile edition as a copy. The question of whether we should have done that aside, it’s reasonably clear what’s going on to anyone looking at our opac. The way they’re currently cataloged  when there is no original, the user has to be able to interpret pretty subtle clues to realize this. We are looking for a way forward that involves the least clean-up work on our part, is readily apparent to anyone looking at the opac description that we don’t have the original, and is consistent. We would love to hear what other libraries do or think they ought to do.Thanks,Deborah __________________________Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.Head of CatalogingFolger Shakespeare Library201 East Capitol St., S.E.Washington, D.C. 20003202.675-0369djleslie at folger.edu | http://www.folger.edu 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20071001/7f4e888c/attachment.htm