[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Hmm, I disagree with myself. Even with evidence of two intentional issues, the cataloger is unlikely to know if the hand-colored map in front of her was done by the workshop or arranged by an owner. Which makes the bar of evidence so high as to make the creation of two descriptions virtually "never."

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Friday, 27 February 2015 14:13
To: DCRM Users' Group
Cc: Chet Van Duzer
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

Having recently attended a two-day conference on hand-colored maps and prints, I'm fairly confident about two things. One, that publishers sometimes issued groups of copies hand-colored and the rest uncolored, just the way a publisher may issue ordinary and large-paper issues. And, that it is usually impossible for the cataloger to know whether it was issued that way unless someone or something tells them. In Jeffrey's example, the two prices makes it clear. Otherwise, you'd have to depend on research.

One conference paper was on hand-coloring of the 1513 edition of Ptolemy's Geographia. Chet Van Duzer found over 30 hand-colored copies. Of those roughly a third displayed the same coloring scheme, while the remaining 2/3 were all different from each other. The conclusion that the publisher issued both hand-colored and non-colored copies, and that the colored copies were a mix of workshop and individual coloring. During the course of two days, we saw many images of different hand-colored copies of the same prints, and they nearly always were very different from each other. As I recall, only in Chet's presentation was there any evidence of workshop coloring.

I think I support creating two descriptions when it is known that the publisher produced two different "consciously planned publishing units," but only if the cataloger is quite certain, such as when different prices for hand-colored and uncolored copies are printed. Otherwise, assume as a default that hand-coloring is item-specific.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu

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 JOHN LANCASTER
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015 19:37
To: DCRM Revision List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions


>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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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. 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/20150227/2d3281b0/attachment-0001.html>