[DCRM-L] When printers share a job

[Nipps, Karen]

I stand corrected!

________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Mary Person <person at law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:16 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] When printers share a job

Hi Karen,

Thanks for your reply about this. After a little more research (and off-list replies and suggestions from a couple of other catalogers), I realized I was confused about roles of these three. Symphorien Barbier was the only printer; Vincent and Frellon must have split publication costs.  So there seem to be two issues, and I ended up making another record; both have notes referring to the other issue.

Thanks again,
Mary

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Nipps, Karen
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:01 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] When printers share a job

Hi, Mary - I would follow DCRM(B) Appendix E 1.3 in this instance and make just one record. In all likelihood, they shared printing the formes and each got half of them to issue under their own imprint. - Karen

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Mary Person
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:17 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: [DCRM-L] When printers share a job

After spending too long looking through documentation for guidance and not finding any, I'm appealing to my Wiser Colleagues.

I have in hand two copies of Giovanni Nevizzano's Sylvae nuptialis libri sex (Lyon, 1546) -one printed by Antoine Vincent and the other by Jean Frellon, each with their respective devices, and both "excudebat Symphonorianus Barbierus."   Aside from the printers' devices the two copies appear identical.

According the Baudrier's Bibliographie lyonnaise (v. V, p.241), Frellon and Vincent often shared printing jobs, so I'm wondering how to treat these two copies.
Should they each get a separate record (with a note about the existence of copies of the other's printing?)?  (My 1st choice)
OR should one record serve for both, with 700s for both printers and notes explaining that the printing of the 1546 edition was shared?

Have I missed an obvious rule or fine print somewhere?

Thank you for any advice you can provide!
Mary

Mary Person
Rare Book Cataloger/Reference Librarian
Historical & Special Collections
Harvard Law School Library

person at law.harvard.edu<mailto:person at law.harvard.edu>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140621/94df327b/attachment-0001.html>