[DCRM-L] DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 18

Thu Feb 26 12:45:01 MST 2015

Hi!

Concerning color, I believe it is difficult to come up with one rule that can apply to all cases. Sometimes, it is clear that there are two editions. For instance, I may have two prints bearing the same title: one is printed in black and numbered 2/4; the other is printed in color, and numbered 7/25. Clearly, those are two different manifestations, so I create two records.
In other cases, the artist may produce a varied edition. For example, he/she produces 10 prints from the same matrix but each of them is printed in a different color (1/10 is blue, 2/10 is red, 3/10 is green, etc). Then, I create one record and I devise an appropriate edition statement ([Varied edition]) 
And of course, there is the case when I am not sure whether I am dealing with a varied edition or not ... This happens, for instance, when I have 2 proofs to compare; the color are different but the prints are numbered in a similar fashion (let's say, 2/30 et 7/30). As long as I don't have tangible proof that they belong to two separate editions, I keep them on the same record, and write up local notes to explain the differences between the two copies. I would also do the same with a hand-colored proof: as long as I don't have tangible proof that it belongs to a discrete edition, I keep it with the proof in black (perhaps an owner in the 18th century water-coloured the print, as it was common at that time ...) 

Therefore, I try to take the best decision using the general guidelines of DCRM(G). And I very much believe art catalogers need the flexibility that those guidelines provide. 

Greetings,

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho
Bibliothécaire  
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730
mc.coelho at banq.qc.ca
www.banq.qc.ca

-----Message d'origine-----
De : dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] De la part de dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu
Envoyé : 26 février 2015 14:15
À : dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Objet : DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 18

Send DCRM-L mailing list submissions to
	dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	dcrm-l-owner at lib.byu.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of DCRM-L digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: hand coloring and new descriptions (Cordes, Ellen)
   2. Re: hand coloring and new descriptions (Allison Jai O'Dell)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:06:49 +0000
From: "Cordes, Ellen" <ellen.cordes at yale.edu>
To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
Message-ID:
	<67E9B0EEEC6F364C8C93CB28F42553B2338F55FA at x10-mbx6.yu.yale.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I still think the concept that G uses is central:  was there or was there not a change to the matrix?  If yes, then a new record. If no, than the issue of hand-coloring is item specific whether the publisher caused it to be hand-colored and sold them as such or a later owner commissioned the coloring. Sometimes we can tell because it says on the print that it is sold both colored and uncolored, but we cannot tell if a later owner had his print colored to his liking.

Ellen

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:44 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

On behalf of the DCRM2 task force, I would like community thoughts on what appears to be an inconsistency on the matter of Variations requiring a new record (Appendix E).

The draft of DCRM(C), rule E1.2 says: "... generally consider that a new bibliographic record is required whenever the material distinguishes itself from other variants by one or more of the following characteristics: ...

*         change in the presence of hand coloring, if there is evidence that the resource was issued both with and without the hand coloring (in case of doubt, assume the material was issued both ways)"

Contrast this to DCRM(G), rule E1.3, which says: "Examples of differences that do not in themselves necessarily signal the need for a new record in the absence of other differences include: ...

*         the presence or absence of hand-coloring

*         a difference in printed colors"

The other DCRM manuals do not explicitly treat the issue of color in this context. That said, the matter is still relevant to other formats. It is common, for example, for publishers of color-plate books to announce (on the item) the availability of the book in colored and uncolored versions, at different prices. In this circumstance, it is uncommon practice (as far as I know) to create separate records for the colored and uncolored versions.

The default DCRM guideline is to "assume that a separate bibliographic record [i.e. a new Manifestation?] will be created for each bibliographic variant that represents what is referred to as an 'edition' in AACR2 and an 'issue' in bibliographic scholarship." It's not a leap to argue that a difference in coloring meets the definition of a distinct issue (from DCRMB): "A group of published copies which constitutes a consciously planned publishing unit, distinguishable from other groups of published copies by one or more differences designed expressly to identify the group as a discrete unit."

I would like DCRM2 to take a consistent (and principled) stand on the matter, allowing (as DCRM does) for agencies to vary when it makes sense to do so. What, then, would make most sense as the default approach?

I've already received useful comments from members of the Cartographic team on this question, and I encourage them to chime in again here.

Thanks,
Francis

Francis Lapka  *  Catalog Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts Yale Center for British Art
203.432.9672  *  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

BUILDING CONSERVATION PROJECT
The Center will be closed from January 2, 2015 through February 2016 for its Building Conservation Project<http://britishart.yale.edu/architecture/building-conservation-project>. Please email the Study Room<mailto:ycba.studyroom at yale.edu> and/or the Reference Library<mailto:ycba.reference at yale.edu> to request an appointment, which will be accommodated on a limited basis Tuesday-Friday, 10 am-4 pm, contingent upon the construction schedule.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150226/9d0b8560/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:15:03 -0500
From: "Allison Jai O'Dell" <ajodell at gmail.com>
To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
Message-ID:
	<CACzH5DHjeu3Aiw9T7Hy+tAm=mT3QpG2MNtiSJkd6kNW8e4Ph2g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Another question that is, of course, relevant: does it serve users to create a new description for color variations?

Maybe we can ask the research community?

Allison

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Cordes, Ellen <ellen.cordes at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  I still think the concept that G uses is central:  was there or was 
> there not a change to the matrix?  If yes, then a new record. If no, 
> than the issue of hand-coloring is item specific whether the publisher 
> caused it to be hand-colored and sold them as such or a later owner 
> commissioned the coloring. Sometimes we can tell because it says on 
> the print that it is sold both colored and uncolored, but we cannot 
> tell if a later owner had his print colored to his liking.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ellen
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] 
> *On Behalf Of *Lapka, Francis
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:44 PM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
>
>
> On behalf of the DCRM2 task force, I would like community thoughts on 
> what appears to be an inconsistency on the matter of Variations 
> requiring a new record (Appendix E).
>
>
>
> The draft of DCRM(C), rule E1.2 says: ?? generally consider that a new 
> bibliographic record is required whenever the material distinguishes 
> itself from other variants by one or more of the following characteristics: ?
>
>
>
> ?         change in the presence of hand coloring, if there is evidence
> that the resource was issued both with and without the hand coloring 
> (in case of doubt, assume the material was issued both ways)?
>
>
>
> Contrast this to DCRM(G), rule E1.3, which says: ?Examples of 
> differences that do not in themselves necessarily signal the need for 
> a new record in the absence of other differences include: ?
>
>
>
> ?         the presence or absence of hand-coloring
>
>
>
> ?         a difference in printed colors?
>
>
>
> The other DCRM manuals do not explicitly treat the issue of color in 
> this context. That said, the matter is still relevant to other 
> formats. It is common, for example, for publishers of color-plate 
> books to announce (on the item) the availability of the book in 
> colored and uncolored versions, at different prices. In this 
> circumstance, it is uncommon practice (as far as I know) to create 
> separate records for the colored and uncolored versions.
>
>
>
> The default DCRM guideline is to ?assume that a separate bibliographic 
> record [i.e. a new Manifestation?] will be created for each 
> bibliographic variant that represents what is referred to as an 
> ?edition? in AACR2 and an ?issue? in bibliographic scholarship.? It?s 
> not a leap to argue that a difference in coloring meets the definition 
> of a distinct *issue* (from
> DCRMB): ?A group of published copies which constitutes a consciously 
> planned publishing unit, distinguishable from other groups of 
> published copies by one or more differences designed expressly to 
> identify the group as a discrete unit.?
>
>
>
> I would like DCRM2 to take a consistent (and principled) stand on the 
> matter, allowing (as DCRM does) for agencies to vary when it makes 
> sense to do so. What, then, would make most sense as the *default* approach?
>
>
>
> I?ve already received useful comments from members of the Cartographic 
> team on this question, and I encourage them to chime in again here.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Lapka  ?  Catalog Librarian
>
> Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> Yale Center for British Art
>
> 203.432.9672  ?  francis.lapka at yale.edu
>
>
>
> BUILDING CONSERVATION PROJECT
> The Center will be closed from January 2, 2015 through February 2016 
> for its Building Conservation Project 
> <http://britishart.yale.edu/architecture/building-conservation-project
> >. Please email the Study Room <ycba.studyroom at yale.edu> and/or the 
> Reference Library <ycba.reference at yale.edu> to request an appointment, 
> which will be accommodated on a limited basis Tuesday-Friday, 10 am-4 
> pm, contingent upon the construction schedule.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150226/2f5b15e3/attachment.html>

End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 108, Issue 18
***************************************