[DCRM-L] Double leaves

JOHN LANCASTER jjlancaster at me.com
Tue Jun 30 15:16:06 MDT 2015


Somehow Deborah’s original question didn’t make it into my inbox (iCloud has been behaving oddly recently), but I think she’s confusing two different things.

Perhaps she’s thinking of the old problem of plates that can be bound either as folding (attached on one edge and opening out) or “double” (sewn through or pasted at a fold).  But those are a different kind of “double leaf”.  I can’t recall ever seeing inserted plates printed on double leaves unopened at top or fore-edge.

I’ll (un)happily join Richard in flogging the dead horse, though the animal will never revive - the DCRM(B) definition of “plate” is like the rule to describe all 1- and 2-page printings as “1 sheet”, written in the closest thing to stone available in the electronic age.

John Lancaster


On Jun 30, 2015, at 4:53 PM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu> wrote:

> Double leaves intended to function as such, and to be bound as here described (whether or not the binding is correct in a given copy) are worth this degree of special attention--they may be an issue point (=evidence of variant manifestation), most likely as taken together with other evidence, but still ...
> 
> Under caption "Beating Dead Horse": It simply isn't appropriate to refer to letterpress leaves as "plates"; it's one of the fundamental principles of bibliographical analysis. I would have  no trouble with "[2] folded letterpress leaves" in the 300 field--where explicit "letterpress" acts as a confirmation that the leaves are not plates. I'd go so far (self irony) as to concede that inserted relief illustrations could be referred to as plates (leaves or pages), even though they may have been printed in the same operation. On the other hand, I suppose general use of "plates" makes less of a demand on cataloger knowledge/judgment where a complete inventory of physical bits is of principal concern.
> 
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <Richard_Noble at Brown.edu>
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:
> Is there any useful reason to maintain separate treatment of folded leaves of plates vs. double leaves?
> 
>  
> 
> DCRM(B)
> 
>  
> 
> 5B9.3. Leaves or pages of plates
> 
> Record folded leaves as leaves or pages of plates. Make a note to indicate any folded letterpress leaves, if considered important.
> 
> 50, [2] p., [2] folded leaves of plates
> 
> Optional note: The folded leaves are letterpress tables
> 
>  
> 
> 5B11. Double leaves   <image001.png>
> 
> Count numbered double leaves (leaves with fold at either top or fore edge and bound at the inner margin) as pages or as leaves according to their numbering. Count unnumbered double leaves as pages (2 printed pages per double leaf) or as leaves (1 printed page per double leaf). Always indicate the presence of double leaves in a note.
> 
> [36] p.
> 
> Note: Printed on double leaves
> 
> [18] leaves
> 
> Note: Printed on 18 double leaves
> 
> 72 p., 1 leaf of plates
> 
> Note: Plate printed on a double leaf
> 
>  
> 
> Deborah J. Leslie, for the DCRM/RDA Task Group
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150630/c6f1dc9a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the DCRM-L mailing list