[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[Noble, Richard]

I agree absolutely with John Lancaster *in principle*, and I think the
principle is applicable to a focused bibliographical database--ESTC, for
instance. Our 990-pound gorilla of a utility, the WorldCat, is another
context altogether, and the one in which most of us have no choice but to
do our work.

Distinctions of issue at the level of colored/uncolored, alternate
dedications, partial re-settings, variations in inserted matter that may or
may not have mattered to the producers, c19 variant binding issues--none of
these can be maintained without well-informed cataloger judgment, which is
rarely available and infrequently applied, above all and most frequently in
copy cataloging, which has a definite bias towards one set of the choices
among "fast/cheap/good". At the *item* level--the basic scholarly research
level--all is simply chaos: God only knows what lies behind a holdings
symbol attached to a record, no matter how specific that record may be,
when the cataloger is constrained to employ the crudest possible matching
protocols.

I personally strive to maintain, at least, the distinction between
"concealed" editions, where MARC at least gives us the 250 field at the
basic matching level (don't know about Bibframe--not their highest
priority, I'd bet). Beyond that, however, there's practically no way to
evade the dreaded merge. Besides, when I discover a concealed edition for
what had been treated as a single manifestation and has attracted a fair
number of holdings (quite possibly in a record which is itself a merger of
multiple, often very sketchy records that may conflate some rather
obviously variant editions), I have *no idea* which of those holdings
represent one edition or the other. (On the other hand, some records
represent a false distinction of issue where there is only variation in
state of one or a few components of the edition--we've all seen it all
after the first 10,000 or so books. See for example OCLC #37043635.)

I cannot, in this situation, legitimately refashion an existing record
absent the ability to assess each copy and reassign the holdings. In such
cases I mercilessly enhance the record, and add a note on the order of
"This record represents two editions, printed from entirely different
settings of type" (the wording is redundant, but few people know what heck
an "edition" is, so I lend the others a clue), and provide a few diagnostic
details and, if I can, a bit of history by way of explanation. A researcher
is then alerted to the fact that individual copies need to be censused.
(See for example OCLC #13455452

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, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:37 PM, JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:

> From DCRM(B) (which was based on a substantial amount of scholarly
> discussion, not least Tanselle’s seminal paper, “The bibliographical
> concepts of issue and state” (PBSA 69 (1975), 17-66, and the responses to
> it over the years):
>
>  Issue
>
> 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.
>
> It seems pretty clear that versions of a printing designed to sell for
> different prices, with different physical characteristics, constitute
> different issues, whether those differences are in the illustrations, the
> quality or size of paper, or the quality of binding, to name a few common
> ones.  Both bookseller and purchaser would be quite clear which group of
> copies they were dealing with in any given transaction, and would not
> likely consider them the same.
>
> Appendix E states:
>
> As a default approach, the rules contained in DCRM(B) assume that a
> separate bibliographic record will be created for each bibliographic
> variant that represents what is referred to as an "edition" in AACR2 and
> an "issue" in bibliographic scholarship.
>
> The fact that it may be difficult to determine for a specific copy whether
> that copy was issued colored or not, does not invalidate the fundamental
> distinction between the types of copies as issued.
>
> As to confusing researchers, I guess it depends on the researcher - if one
> is interested in the physical characteristics, publication conditions, and
> the like, it would be more confusing to have all the copies of both
> versions lumped together as holdings on a single record, and to have to
> sort them out by querying individual libraries (even if only by consulting
> each of their on-line catalogues).
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Jeffrey P. Barton <jpbarton at Princeton.EDU>
> wrote:
>
> I agree with what both Allison and Ellen say.  I’ve always been guided by
> the “new setting of type” (matrix) guide in creating/not creating separate
> records, and it can be confusing to a researcher to see multiple titles
> listed separately, when the only real difference is hand-coloring of plates
> (or lack thereof) and they’re really the same issue.
>
> For Cotsen Library (children’s) 18th and 19th c. books, we often see books
> which specifically mention the colored/plain options on the wrappers or
> cover (a couple of examples below).  It seems like the publisher is thus
> cueing the public that there are two variations of essentially the same
> issue?
>
> "Price 1s. plain, or 1s. 6d. coloured"
> "6 d. Plain ; 1 s. Coloured"--Upper wrapper.
>
>
> Jeff Barton
> Cotsen Library
> Princeton RBSC
>
> ***
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
> 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
> <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. Please email the Study Room and/or the
> Reference Library 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/20150227/a26c6b84/attachment.html>