[DCRM-L] Double leaves

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I've just realized that I have completely misunderstood what was meant by double leaves lo these many years. As fellow DCRM2 editors know, I was assuming that they could be unfolded. If in fact a double leaf by definition cannot be opened, I've been making much ado about a non-issue. 

Thinking out loud here. Why would you want to say anything about "double plates"? Do catalogers, faced with a single image across two facing leaves bound through the fold, need guidance on how to count them? And if so, couldn't you just describe the situation instead of using the term "double plate"? Aside from dealing with books with actual double leaves (which have never come across my desk and I am so grateful to now be able to ignore the rule), the only necessary or desirable distinction to make is when leaves are folded to fit the text block but meant to be opened, regardless of where that fold is. 


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

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of JOHN LANCASTER
Sent: Thursday, 09 July 2015 16:54
To: DCRM Revision List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Double leaves


On 2015 Jun 28, at 20:11, Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A simple folded plate is one that can actually be unfolded (i.e. the plate is folded to the size of the textblock but only bound along one edge - you have to manually unfold the free edge to see what's inside). So, a single unnumbered folded plate with content on one side would be:
> 
> [1] folded leaf of plates
> 
> ...  to be distinguished from a "double plate" (i.e. a single plate bound along its center fold, creating a "double spread" when you turn to it). Again, although the plate is technically folded, it is bound along the fold (or attached to a stub in the binding), so you can turn each side of the double plate as if it were its own separate plate and you don't actually have to unfold anything. I think it is somewhat analogous to describing a bifolium as two leaves despite the fact that they are technically joined by a fold. So, an unnumbered double plate with content on one side would be:
> 
> [2] leaves of plates

The problem with this distinction is that any single plate (i.e. with a continuous image) that can be bound through the fold (or attached along the fold) can also be bound along one edge.  From the point of view of the reader, this would seem preferable, since the plate can be opened flat and there is no sewing to mar the view.

(If a "double spread" consists of two separate images, the sheet (or half-sheet, or quarter-sheet, etc.) on which they appear could also be bound attached at the edge, but could still be described as [2] leaves of plates, based on the content, with a note about the unusual binding.)

But to distinguish a "folded plate" (= one leaf) from a "double plate" (= two leaves) makes it possible to have two different statements of extent for copies that differ only in the binder's choice of how to attach the plate in question.

And if the plates are numbered, what then?  Say there are 10 plates, numbered I-X, and they are all bound with sewing through the fold.  Do you have "X [i.e. 20] leaves of plates"?

I think the analogy of "bifolium" is misleading - that term says only that the two leaves are conjugate, whether blank, printed on one side with a continuous image, printed on both sides with four pages, etc.

John Lancaster