[DCRM-L] Signatures within signatures within...

[Noble, Richard]

Since the formula has to be an accurate representation of the leaf
relationships in the finished product,* your suggestion of  [1]²° is
correct. A formal statement  might read:

<leaf measurement h x w> [unsigned, 1²°] ...

The signatures are equivalent to "direction numbering", i.e. leaf
 numeration without a signature designation for the gathering. You should
include a note to explain why you're describing it as unsigned--especially
considering that a digital reproduction would almost certainly not include
the structural evidence, the recording of which makes your record a helpful
resource for understanding the original.



RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Robert Steele <rosteele at law.gwu.edu> wrote:

> Help.
>
> I have a 19th century pamphlet of 40 pages. There is an unsigned gathering
> of 8 leaves, with a gathering of 8 leaves signed 2 inserted in the middle,
> and a gathering of 4 leaves signed 3 inserted into the middle of that.
>
> Does a signature statement like this make sense?
>
>  [1]⁸ (1₄+2⁸ (2₄+3⁴))
>
> Or since this is machine-made paper w/out chain lines and hence no
> discernible format, should I just ignore the signings and call it [1]²° ?
>
> Robert Steele
> Jacob Burns Law Library
> George Washington University
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20131015/0a9393c1/attachment.html>