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

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I checked our copy of America, 1671. We have [8] leaves of single plates (engraved portraits+engr. t.p.), [47] plates printed on "double leaves," and [2] folded plates. 

 

Each of the 47 double-size plates are attached to a stub and fold out from the middle. In thinking more about this, I would consider them to be [49] folded leaves of plates—the 47 folded at the center and the 2 more attached to stubs bound at the left side. 

 

Regarding terminology: the final leaf contains instructions about placing the "whole-sheet prints" which is quite descriptive. I advise against using the phrase "double plates;" it's ambiguous even to catalogers, let alone researchers and other staff.

 

This is how I will update the 300‡a in our record (not yet in OCLC).

 

[8], 674, [2] p., [57] leaves of plates (49 folded) 

http://shakespeare.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=136531

 

Back to my original answer, I was envisioning separate plates on folio leaves, designed in such a way so that  when bound facing each other, they would portray a single image. If that were the case, I'd still say that each plate needed to be counted separately, and more information about the content of the plates could be made in a note. But it's not the case.

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, 02 December, 2010 10:37
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about 5B9.1: counting leaves of plates folded and bound at the inner margin

 

 

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/a6fbe1ce/attachment.htm