[DCRM-L] Folio or broadsheet?

[Ted P Gemberling]

Richard and David,
Thanks for the enlightenment. However, here’s one question: David says that it “just barely qualifies as a Royal folio.” Is Gaskell wrong to say that Royal folios have uncut height of 46 cm., considerably shorter than this book? (Page 86)

A more elementary question: do broadsheets usually have horizontal chainlines?

David, I am working on a DCRM(b) record for the book. At present I am using OCLC #54136513. I created a NACO authority for Gulielmus Dundass, who was apparently the editor. I have not created one for Nicolaus Muntendam or Rudolph Schomberg.

Thanks again,
Ted

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of David Stumpp
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 10:09 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folio or broadsheet?

Ahh, thank you, Richard! You’ve answered my lingering question regarding the final leaves. We lack (by my best guess) the final leaf.


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 Noble, Richard
Sent: 22 December 2015 15:13
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folio or broadsheet?

Dave Stump has called this one correctly, from the paper evidence of the single sheets alone. Beyond that, and more definitively, the preliminaries include what appear from the signatures to be sheets of folio in 2s, and the text ends with a gathering *^6. (There are some complications that are not easily resolvable from a page-by-page online display, but basic make-up is obvious.) If the paper is the same throughout, you have your answer: it's folio, largely made up of folio half sheets (single leaves), presumably printed work-and-turn, very efficient and typical of the work of this period.

The obvious reason for the single leaves is to facilitate binding of the plate descriptions with the plates.

Based on quick inspection of: http://doc.rero.ch/record/11684


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

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:55 AM, David Stumpp <david.stumpp at chch.ox.ac.uk<mailto:david.stumpp at chch.ox.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi Ted,

Christ Church Library has a copy, and the binding is just good enough that I wouldn’t have been able to say whether leaves were conjugate or not. In size, I do think that it just barely qualifies as a Royal folio but is a bit too small to be considered an elephant folio or anything larger. That all being said, I think that, given the position of the watermarks (ours are centered between head and foot, but are, perhaps, a bit offset towards the fore-edge) and the direction of the chain-lines, I would have called it a folio nonetheless. Could the single-leaf ‘gatherings’ be evidence of the printer’s decision to print on half-sheets?

In fact, since I have it out, I think that I, too, will catalogue it and, at least for the time being, I will call it a folio. Thanks for drawing my attention to it, and let me know what you decide to do with yours. And happy holidays!

Best,
Dave

______________________________

David Stumpp
Antiquarian Cataloguer
The Library
Christ Church, Oxford, OX1 1DP
01865 276169



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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 Ted P Gemberling
Sent: 21 December 2015 21:17
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folio or broadsheet?

It is William Cowper’s Anatomia corporum humanorum, published at Utrecht (Ultrajecti) by Nicolaus Muntendam in 1750.

Thanks, Ted

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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 Noble, Richard
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 3:12 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folio or broadsheet?

What's the book, and when and where was it published?

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

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>> wrote:
I am cataloging a book that I’m pretty sure is broadsheet format. The dimensions of the sheets are approximately 53 x 35 cm., and the table on p. 86 of Gaskell (New Introduction to Bibliography. Oak Knoll Press, 2007) seems to show that as too large for any folio. And in addition, most of the “gatherings” in the book are only one leaf. It has vertical chainlines, and near the top of p. 106, Gaskell seems to say that broadsheets can have vertical chainlines. So how could it be anything but broadsheet? But on the same page, he also says “the watermark would be offset from the middle of the leaf.” And in the leaves where I’ve found a watermark, it seems to be about in the middle of the leaf. Does that disqualify it from being broadsheet? Am I missing something?

Thanks for any enlightenment!

Ted P. Gemberling
Historical Collections Cataloger
UAB Lister Hill Library, rm. 234B
1720 Second Ave. South
Birmingham, Ala. 35294-0013
Phone: (205)934-2461<tel:%28205%29934-2461>
Fax: (205)934-3545<tel:%28205%29934-3545>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151222/96e92f10/attachment-0001.html>