[DCRM-L] Serial or monograph?

[Laurence Creider]

I am cataloging 18th century bound editions of The Spectator and The 
Guardian.  My question is whether these editions are serials or not. 
Like most editions of such periodicals, the editions contain the essays 
but not the advertisements.  The Spectator is in 8 vols., Edinburgh : 
Printed for Messrs Bell & Bradfute ... [no date, but NLS gives [1800]]. 
The Gaurdian is London : Printed by T. Gillet for Messrs. Longman, Law 
..., 1797 [I have v. 1 only].

DCRM(S) Appendix J2.1 says "Consider a reissued serial to be a 
republication if it preserves the complete text and order of the original. 
Variations in size, number of issues or volumes, designations, the 
addition of a new volume title page with new designations, and/or 
additional introductory matter, indexes, illustrations, etc., are common 
with such reissues."

It seems to me that this wording would exclude most of the common reprints 
of The Spectator or The Rambler from being treated as serials because such 
reprints do not contain the ephemeral material in the original 
broadsheets.  What gives me pause is that the cases given under J4, 
Reissue as a monograph, do not include an example of the complete run of a 
serial.  The examples in J5.1 seem to include such cases as serials.

Cataloging examples are all over the map, I think because older cataloging 
treated these as monographs and because the default reflex of many if not 
most rare materials cataloger was "book" for a long time.  I am 
inexperienced with serials, but I sense that the consensus on this issue 
has shifted.

So, I would appreciate hearing from the experts, especially those 
comfortable with both serials and monographs, explaining whether to 
catalog these items as serials or monographs and, above all, why.


Thanks,
Larry

Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu