[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[Noble, Richard]

True enough--all it takes is a brush and a bit of paint to upgrade that
"penny plain".

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 Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

>  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 |
> 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
> <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>
> 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/abd46c49/attachment-0001.html>