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

[Noble, Richard]

As so often with plates--beginning with ambiguity of the word "plate" itself
(the thing that prints/the thing printed)--our vocabulary makes it very hard
to do what we're supposed to be doing: provide an ideal-copy description of
the book, in the process making it very clear what constitutes a complete
copy, taking into account any tolerable variation that is discovered in
comparison of copies. ("Tolerable" meaning variation that does not betoken a
different bibliographical manifestation or an incomplete item.)

Anna Bryan refers to "double plates"--i.e. single plates that are bound as
two leaves to display a single image as a 2-page opening, as opposed to
"folded plates", bound as a single folded leaf. Since it is perfectly
possible for the same plate to be bound either way, we allow the plate
count--a significant factor in description--to vary from copy to copy as a
function of mere binding variants that almost never distinguish the copies
as different manifestations.

Why? Because we have an overly restricted use of "double". Plates printed on
"double leaves" are not the same as "double plates", but the latter phrase
is not used in DCRM(B) (is it?). The instruction to regard a double plate as
2 leaves of plates, *without further qualification in the extent statement
itself *(which *is* provided for in the case of folded plates) introduces
what may well be (and always is potentially) an inherently copy-specific
element into the basic description.

At a minimum, double plates should never be counted as 2 leaves without
making a note. At best, that's a work-around, since the extent statement
taken by itself (as it often will be taken) remains ambiguous. I'd also
assert that whenever some copies have plates bound as doubles that are bound
as folded plates in at least one other copy, the latter should be preferred
as ideal copy--which requires a note of explanation (notes regarding
tolerable variants being vital elements of a truly descriptive record). As a
maverick at heart (or is that a claim one might avoid after 2008?), in the
absence of copies known to have the plates folded I'd stick a qualifier into
the extent statement, such as "15 leaves of plates (including 2 double
plates)", which could be more or less safely matched to and replaced by an
alternate description of a new copy in hand with "13 leaves of plates (2
folded)". (A real maverick uses "or" in extent statements. I guess I'm a
real one. "Or" has the virtue of forcing the reader to look for a note.)

These double plates are to be distinguished from e.g. the case of separate
images printed as a bifolia or other leaf multiples, including standard
imposition formats, and clearly intended to be bound as such.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU


On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Bryan, Anna <abry at loc.gov> wrote:

> 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/c050a9e4/attachment.htm