[DCRM-L] OCLC cataloging question

[Noble, Richard]

I certainly agree with John Lancaster that there doesn't seem to be a real
difference of issue here--unless the title leaf is a cancel. Are you able
to determine whether the title leaf (and last leaf) are integral in both of
your copies? The signatures note in OCLC 5165516 is a simple A-Y^8.

Have you compared signature positions vis-a-vis last line of type as a test
of setting? If it consistently passes that test then you are dealing copies
of the same edition. If the title leaf is integral in both variants, then
you're simply dealing with press variants within the formes that contain
those pages.

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 Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Shiner, Elaine <eshiner at fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:

>  The title-page has been re-set (with a different woodcut device), and a
> dedication (and “argumentum” for the first title) have been added to (or
> subtracted from) the t.p. verso. The device on the verso of the final leaf
> is different. Those are the only differences I’ve noted. The signatures are
> the same, and the final numbered leaf has been misnumbered in both
> variants.  As far as I can tell, it’s the same setting of type except for
> the title-leaf and the final leaf, although I haven’t compared every page.
>
>
>
> See OCLC 5165516.
>
>
>
> Elaine Shiner
>
>
>
>
>
> dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf
> Of *JOHN LANCASTER
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 3:29 PM
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC cataloging question
>
>
>
> A couple of questions:
>
>
>
> Is it really accurate to speak of "issues", when there is no variation
> that would suggest different conditions of distribution, publication, ete.?
>
>
>
> What are the details of the collation?  Is it possible that the variants
> at the end and beginning were printed as part of the same sheet or forme?
>
>
>
> I suspect I'm not the only one who would like to know what the
> work/edition is, and what the distinctions are - in case there might be a
> copy in one of our collections.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2014, at 1:50 PM, "Shiner, Elaine" <eshiner at fas.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>   Hello:
>
>
>
> This is a variation of an theme that has come up before.
>
>
>
> In the process of adding a copy to an Aldine record, I discovered that I
> actually had a different issue.  In my issue, the title-page was a
> different setting of type, but with exactly the same text.  Also, the
> printer’s devices on the t.p. and final leaves were very similar in the 2
> issues, but not identical.  The issues are easy to identify because 1 has a
> dedication and summary (Argumentum) on the t.p. verso, while the t.p. verso
> of the other is blank.
>
>
>
> I haven’t noticed any description of the 2 issues in any bibliographies
> that I’ve checked (although to begin with, I wasn’t looking for that).
>
>
>
> OCLC has more than 10 records for this edition, with various numbers of
> holdings attached.  Only one of these records the dedication as a contents
> item, but it doesn’t make any mention of another issue.
>
>
>
> If I decided to make a new dcrmb OCLC record for the “other” issue, I’m
> not sure which issue to describe, since all the other OCLC records, save 1,
> (and their holdings) could represent either issue.
>
>
>
> If I changed 1 record to say “Two issues are noted …,” describing the two
> issues, I could then report all other qualifying OCLC records for that
> edition as duplicates.
>
>
>
> What is the best thing to do, in this case?
>
>
>
> Elaine Shiner,
>
> Rare Book Cataloger
>
> Houghton Library
>
> eshiner at fas.harvard.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140605/22d3b515/attachment-0001.html>