[DCRM-L] Double leaves

[Manon Theroux]

Matt's understanding of a double leaf matches mine. A good illustration of
a book printed on double leaves can be seen in the "fukuro toji" binding
pictured here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_books

An example of a book in LC's Special Collections with this style of binding
is:
Karma: a story of early Buddhism
http://lccn.loc.gov/96158070

And much information on this particular book can be found here:
http://www.baxleystamps.com/litho/hasegawa/karma.shtml

-Manon


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Matthew C. Haugen <mch2167 at columbia.edu>
wrote:

> To follow up on Deborah's email: the DCRM task force encountered some
> confusion about the definition and treatment of double plates in DCRM and
> RDA, so we appreciate the feedback that might improve those definitions and
> instructions.
>
> I understand a double leaf to be sewn or tipped in with the fold at one of
> the outer edges of the volume, functioning as one leaf because it cannot be
> unfolded, with blank versos facing inside the fold that are not meant to be
> seen. An entire volume may consist of double leaves, as in the case of
> books in traditional East Asian format, or isolated double-leaf plates
> bound in with a letterpress volume.
>
> This seems to stand in contrast to:
>
> -two leaves joined by a fold on an outer edge, but which are meant to be
> opened by the binder or reader and to function as two leaves.
>
> -two conjugate leaves sewn or tipped in with the fold at the inner
> margin, which function as two leaves, much like any other conjugate pair of
> leaves in the volume.
>
> -a folded leaf, which may have one or more folds and which may open out to
> other dimensions relative to the volume besides "double", but functions as
> one leaf.
>
> If a double leaf has been opened by a subsequent binder or owner, And this
> is not apparent I imagine it would just be counted as two leaves without a
> note, or if it is apparent it could be handled in a local note.
>
> Matt
>
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:21 PM, JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:
>
> 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 Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.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
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbPlateSLASHglossary&hash=PlateSLASHglossary&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>.
>> Make a note to indicate any folded letterpress
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbLetterpressSLASHglossary&hash=LetterpressSLASHglossary&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>> leaves, if considered important
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbIfSPACEconsideredSPACEimportant&hash=IfSPACEconsideredSPACEimportant&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>.
>>
>>
>> 50, [2] p., [2] folded leaves of plates
>>
>> Optional note
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbOptionalSPACEnote&hash=OptionalSPACEnote&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>> : The folded leaves are letterpress
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbLetterpressSLASHglossary&hash=LetterpressSLASHglossary&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>> tables
>>
>>
>>
>> 5B11. Double leaves   <image001.png>
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?&view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=aacr22PERIOD5B11&hash=2PERIOD5B11&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>>
>> 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
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbNote&hash=Note&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>> : Printed on double leaves
>>
>> [18] leaves
>>
>> Note
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbNote&hash=Note&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>> : Printed on 18 double leaves
>>
>> 72 p., 1 leaf of plates
>>
>> Note
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbNote&hash=Note&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>> : Plate
>> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbPlateSLASHglossary&hash=PlateSLASHglossary&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
>> 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/20150630/8ca1ecd1/attachment-0001.html>