[DCRM-L] Almanac dating

[Nipps, Karen]

That's good to know. The problem with indexing the 046 in HOLLIS is the problem that creeps up related to all indexing - the size of the database. I am currently fighting to get the subfield 5 to be permitted in the 500 field - after all, it is valid MARC - without luck. It doesn't help that at the moment the entire indexing function is broken. Needless to say, I hope they fix that soon!

Karen Nipps
Head, Rare Book Team
Houghton Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: 617-496-9190
FAX: 617-495-1376


-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:35 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Almanac dating

We do at the Folger. The 046 is indexed in both our local Voyager catalog and in Connexion.

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 Nipps, Karen
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2015 13:29
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: [DCRM-L] Almanac dating

Sorry for not replying sooner - I have been trying to determine if a bib record's 046 subfield c is indexed in our local catalog. (I haven't gotten an answer to that yet!) I certainly like the idea though - is anyone else using the 046 to provide access to incorrect dates?

I completely agree with what John is saying. (By the same token, I empathize with Bob's practical sentiments, which are certainly in keeping with the RDA philosophy of taking what one has as copy.) I am inclined to keep the question mark though. I don't think it is a good idea to pose as an assertion something for which I don't have absolute proof. And I do know occasional instances of almanacs being printed in the same year as that for which they are issued - not to mention two years prior :)

I would also argue that choosing one bibliography as an authority (no matter how good it is) is somewhat subjective. I see that AAS always dates their almanacs one year prior to issuance. 

Karen Nipps
Head, Rare Book Team
Houghton Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: 617-496-9190
FAX: 617-495-1376

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:21 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: [DCRM-L] Almanacs WAS RE: Book

Points well taken. I'll revise our records for almanacs in Hamnet and have documented the decision in Folgerpedia. <http://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Almanacs>. My question now is the level of confidence is appropriate in the corrected date and the accompanying note. You'll see that I've expressing a high level of confidence by saying that "Almanacs were printed ..." instead of "Almanacs were typically...", and by not putting a question mark in the 260‡c.

Comments? 

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: JOHN LANCASTER [mailto:jjlancaster at me.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 15:06
To: Deborah J. Leslie
Subject: Re: Book

I’m afraid I don’t see any rationale in the STC statement - just a statement of practice, which has no particular value or authority beyond STC, any more than modern practice with regard to modern books.  And it states clearly that “printing usually took place during the preceding autumn”.

The majority of the STC entries with alternative dates (many of which have been incorrectly entered in ESTC as “[i.e. <date>]”) are in fact records of colophon dates that differ from the title-page dates, which are entered in STC within, as the introduction calls them, “round brackets”.  These should not be confused with corrections, which I believe (impressionistically; I haven’t tried to count) are mostly providing a later date than that in the imprint, i.e. for reissues or concealed reprintings.

John Lancaster