[DCRM-L] Double leaves

[Manon Theroux]

My comments were intended only to reflect DCRM(B) instructions (as I
understand them):

5B9.1: Leaves or pages of plates: "... Count a plate folded and bound at
the inner margin as two leaves of plates ..."

In practice, I do remember situations where I had two copies of a book that
had the same "big plate" bound differently in each copy (i.e., as a double
plate bound down the center in one copy and as a folded plate bound along
one edge in another copy). I just tried to figure out the best I could how
the book had been issued or, failing that, how the plate was bound in most
copies, and used that as the basis for my 300 field. Then in notes I'd
"explain" the situation and the differences between copies.

And yes, if the plates are numbered, I think you will sometimes have to
correct the statement of extent. The publisher will not necessarily be
numbering anything in accordance with the requirements of a particular
cataloging code. The physical number of "leaves or pages of plates" may not
necessarily reflect the number of images depicted (the content).

It always made sense to me that the way something is described in the 300
$a would depend in large part upon its binding (as issued), while the 300$b
would be the place for recording the details of the illustrative content:

[2] leaves of plates : 1 map
Note: Map of Tennessee on a double plate.

vs.

[1] folded leaf of plates : 1 map
Note: Map of Tennessee on folded plate.

But it does get tricky, especially because it can be so difficult to
determine how something was issued (or even if it was issued in a
consistent way). But that problem applies to many things in the physical
description, not just plates.

RDA makes an even bigger distinction than AACR2 does between content and
carrier. But I guess it will be up to the DCRM2 group to decide how to
interpret these things going forward.

I think there could be a whole BSC seminar on the topic of plates,
preferably one with plenty of illustrative images! Maybe better guidance
could be provided on how to word explanatory notes to make things as clear
as possible.

Here are some examples I found in LC's catalog:

http://lccn.loc.gov/86675228
[4], 51, [1] p., [40] leaves of plates : 20 maps (engravings) ; 29 cm.
(fol.)
The 20 maps, unsigned, and drawn at different scales, are each printed on a
bifolium (in LC copy attached to a stub to form a double plate), with
explanatory letterpress on the reverse. The bifolia are "signed" in
direction-line position 1-7, 9, 9, 10-13, [14], 15-20.

http://lccn.loc.gov/01013019
[8], 60, 420 p., [2] leaves of plates : map ; 27 cm. (fol.)
Map is a double plate.

http://lccn.loc.gov/85229409
[3] leaves, 100 [i.e. 102] leaves of plates : all ill. (etchings) ; 34 cm.
Brunet and Graesse list 5 states of the plate used as t.p. That information
plus a descriptive list of all 100 plates in the work is in: Le
peintre-graveur français / A.P.F. Robert-Dumesnil. VI, 176-188.
Plates 87 and 100 are double.

http://lccn.loc.gov/02030239
[6], 268, 10 p., [2] leaves of plates : port. ; 17 cm. (8vo)
LC copy is a made-up copy, from 3 different editions. The title page is
from the first edition, 2nd or 3rd issue; the text is that of Madan 24, but
wanting the "Reasons"; and the portrait is a double plate (signed Guil:
Marshall sculpsit), and appears to be from a third edition, and is without
the explanation of the plate. Cf. Francis F. Madan. A new bibliography of
the Eikon basilike of King Charles the First ... Oxford : Oxford
Bibliographical Society, 1950.

Manon

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>

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.


On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:

>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150711/c2d7202a/attachment-0001.html>