[DCRM-L] Double leaves

[Noble, Richard]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So, an unnumbered double plate with content on one side would be:
>
> [2] leaves of plates
>

​I think this would be misleading and incorrect. A bifolium is intended to
function as two separate leaves; it is not a single double-size leaf, which
is the proper way to account for "an unnumbered double plate with content
on one side". The illogic of describing it as [2] leaves of plates is clear
when you consider that it would be counted as a single plate if it were
numbered. Otherwise one would have to declare e.g. "15 [that is, 16] leaves
of plates", where it is much closer to the truth to say "15 leaves of
plates (1 double)". That is to say, one unnumbered double plate *is* "1
unnumbered double leaf of plates" (setting aside the illogic of the plural
in "of plates").

In sum, counting doubles plates as 2 leaves each will simply create
confusion as to the actual extent and nature of of the plates. Beyond that,
it is a binder's decision as to whether such a plate is to be bound as a
double leaf or as a single folded leaf--at least you  want the plate *count*
to be the same in either case.


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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150710/a22f9016/attachment.html>