[DCRM-L] almanac dating and fixed fields

[JOHN LANCASTER]

In every case I’m aware of from the 18th century, where there is documentation in the form of advertisements or inscriptions with a date of purchase, almanacs were available for sale (and thus I would argue, published) in the year preceding that for which they were designed.  I would need clear evidence that publication was delayed until the year of use to accept that as a publication date.  Almanacs printed by the Bowyers were usually printed several months before the year’s end, sometimes even as early as August.  It’s hard to imagine that they would be embargoed until January 1.

Just because we ignore such evidence in modern books (because it’s easier to do so?) doesn’t make it correct.

John Lancaster


> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu> wrote:
> 
> <image002.gif>
> Don’t forget that we’re looking for a publication date for the date of publication element. An almanac can perfectly well be printed in 1759 and published in 1760. Unless you have evidence that the book was in fact issued in 1759. Which I guess we assume it probably was, but I’d go with the assumption that it was published in 1760. We do that all the time with modern books that arrive on our desk late in the year with a publication or copyright date of the following year—we still take it at face value.
>  
> Bob
>  
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568 
> 
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>  
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Nipps, Karen
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 8:14 AM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: [DCRM-L] almanac dating and fixed fields
>  
> Hi, All – I know this subject has come up before, so I apologize for the resurrection should my question be redundant ….
>  
> It is quite common in almanac printing that the date of printing precedes the year for which a given almanac was issued by one year. So, for instance, if the imprint date of an almanac is 1760, this might be expressed in the MARC record’s imprint field as “… 1760 [i.e. 1759?]”. My question is, what do people do about the fixed fields to represent both dates? My cloudy memory recalls that the community was considering putting in a request to the powers-that-be for a new publication status (008/06) – did this ever get any traction? Thanks. - Karen    
>  
> Karen Nipps
> Head, Rare Book Team
> Houghton Library
> Harvard University
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> Phone: 617-496-9190
> FAX: 617-495-1376
>