[DCRM-L] Collation: partially duplicated signing

[Noble, Richard]

Ouch! A palpable hit, my dear Lancaster.

I suppose I could argue that inferring A makes sense where the next
gathering is signed B (in however preliminary a way), but, as Bowers
suggests, the ultimate appeal is to clarity. What I tell students is that,
in the end, you can't anticipate every crazy thing a printer may do, and as
long as you use a formulary that is internally consistent, unambiguous, and
that conforms to a well recognized standard, it's OK. In the very worst
cases (a lot worse than the present case), don't agonize--"use words", as my
wife would say to her kindergarten pupils.

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 Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM, John Lancaster <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:

> I'm hesitant to differ from Richard, who surely knows Bowers's Principles
> inside and out, but sitting in Charlottesville with the shade of Fredson
> hovering over me, I'm led to page 214, where I find:
>
> "Some of these title-gatherings or single-leaf titles may cause trouble
> when they precede a number of preliminary gatherings. Thus, since π [pi] may
> be used when it is inadvisable to infer the signing of a prefixed gathering,
> it seem to me a free choice in a book beginning the text with B to write
> π[pi]1 a-g^8 h-l^4, B-2M^8 or [A]1 a-g^8 h-l^4, B-2M^8, although I consider
> the first to be slightly preferable, but only because of slightly superior
> clarity."  (I bracket the inferred A, and use caret+number rather than
> superscript, as italics and superscripts, in my experience, don't make it
> through some e-mail systems.  Similarly with π.)
>
> This general statement seems to me directly on point in the present
> instance, and preferable (for determining WWBD) to inference from other
> examples, especially since (as Richard suggests, obliquely) Bowers is not
> always consistent in applying his principles.
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:
>
> Well, in the "for what it's worth" department, I think the nearest WWBD*
> formula would be
>
>
> [A]4 πB4 b-i4, B-3X4
>
>
> which is how I infer from Bowers' preferences expressed on p. 216 and 220.
> Not to infer [A] is improper where, as usual in English practice--I assume
> this is an English book--the printer began the text with B, reserving A for
> the first gathering (Bowers p. 216). The B signature in the preliminaries is
> easily distinguished from the main series B with prefixed pi, interpreting
> the word "preliminary" somewhat broadly, and following examples in which a
> second or later preliminary gathering is thus differenced (p. 220, a rare
> instance of out and out pragmatism in Bowers).
>
>
> *What Would Bowers Do: RBS Des Bib motto.
>
>
>
> 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 Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM, John Lancaster <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:
>
>> Randal - I think any of the three choices you suggest (as well as [a])
>> could be defended, more or less, but I agree with your choice of pi.
>> Neither Gaskell nor Bowers is at all comprehensive - they couldn't be, I
>> think, so cataloguer's (or bibliographer's) judgment is still a significant
>> component of the descriptive process.
>>
>> John Lancaster
>>
>>
>> On Oct 03, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Randal Brandt <rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am cataloging a book with partially duplicated signatures and would
>> like some advice. The book is an octavo in 4's and the preliminaries are
>> signed as follows:
>>
>> unsigned gathering, B, b-i
>>
>> The main text is then signed:
>>
>> B-3X
>>
>> My question is about the initial unsigned gathering. Would it be
>> recorded as '[A]', '[superscript pi][A]', or 'pi'? The second gathering
>> has to be signed '[superscript pi]B' because of the duplicated B
>> gathering that begins the text. At this point I'm leaning towards 'pi'
>> since 'A' is not used in any of the subsequent sequences, resulting in a
>> signature statement as follows:
>>
>> pi^4 [superscript pi]B^4, b-i^4, B-3X^4
>>
>> Any other suggestions? I've looked at Gaskell p. 331 and Bowers p. 219+,
>> but do not see this particular situation.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> __________________________
>> Randal Brandt
>> Principal Cataloger
>> The Bancroft Library
>> (510) 643-2275
>> rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
>> http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
>> "It's hard enough to remember my opinions without
>> remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20111010/b3cd2deb/attachment.htm