[DCRM-L] Question about 5B9.1: counting leaves of plates folded and bound at the inner margin

[Bryan, Anna]

One of the advantages of working in a very large collection as I do is to see that what is in one copy double plates is in another folded plates.  My guess is that it depended on the binder, and is not standard across copies.

This is why when I have double plates, I always add the note:  The plates are double.

And, I frequently need to amend the description in copy-specific notes because other copies are just as complete and have a different arrangement.  Sometimes folded plates are cut down to the plate marks and squeezed into the binding as single leaves of plates.  And so forth.

This is only my experience; I've never heard others comment on this.  Do others also find this to be the case?

Anna R. Bryan
Senior Cataloger
Rare Materials Section
US Anglo Division
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540

I speak only for myself.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:59 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about 5B9.1: counting leaves of plates folded and bound at the inner margin

Hi Rebecca,

I'm afraid that each of those images spread across two leaves and bound in the middle are to be counted as [2] leaves of plates (distinct from folded leaves, which by definition can be unfolded.) DCRM(B) is not departing from previous practice.  Any special information about the content of the plates - such as that there are 57 images on 107 plates - can be put in a note.

By the way, I looked up this title myself in OCLC, and the only dcrb record that I saw was ESTC cataloging in a Huntington record. Unfortunately, despite the coding, the ESTC frequently employs non-standard practices and cannot provide a reliable model for standard rare book cataloging.

I also noticed that many records have '32' or '[32]' leaves of plates, while others have '57' or '[57]'. Just think what a service you'll do, Rebecca, by creating an fully-correct and authoritative record for this title?

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of McCallum, Rebecca
Sent: Wednesday, 01 December, 2010 15:35
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Question about 5B9.1: counting leaves of plates folded and bound at the inner margin

Hello everyone,

I'd like to make sure that I'm correctly understanding DCRM(B) 5B9.1, specifically the sentence that says:
"Count a plate folded and bound at the inner margin as two leaves of plates."

I'm currently editing our bib record for John Ogilby's "America: being the latest, and most accurate description of the Nevv VVorld..." published in 1671.

The book is full of plates that are folded and bound at the inner margin, as described in 5B9.1, but which really each represent a single image or map printed as a single leaf.

In various records in OCLC (none of which are DCRM(B) records, and only one of which is DCRB), the number of leaves of plates is generally listed as [57].  However, if I count those folded plates as two leaves, the total count should really be [107] leaves of plates.  Is DCRM(B) departing from previous practice here?  If so, how can I indicate that there are really only 57 images, rather than 107?

Thank you for any clarification on this!

- Rebecca

Rebecca McCallum
Cataloging Librarian
Wesleyan University
252 Church Street
Middletown, CT  06457
(860) 685-3839
rmccallum at wesleyan.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101202/505d9d5e/attachment.htm