[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[Manon Theroux]

Francis,

I'd like to ask some follow-up questions, so I can be clear on the group's
thinking and its recommendation for changes to the DCRM(C) draft.

Will the the DCRM2 group be keeping the existing DCRM default approach that
"a separate bibliographic record will be created for each bibliographic
variant that represents ... an "issue" in bibliographic scholarship"? And
that this decision (on resources known to have been issued both colored and
uncolored) simply represents an exception to the general approach, made for
pragmatic reasons given that uncolored copies may have been colored at a
later date by their owners?

What would the 300 $b look like for a single bibliographic record
representing a resource issued both colored and uncolored? I'm assuming
color would not be indicated there, but thought I should confirm.

If you have a hand-colored item and evidence suggests that all copies were
issued with the hand-coloring (e.g. you have a map with a legend indicating
the colors used to portray different kinds of information), I assume the
bibliographic record would have color indicated in 300 $b?

If you have a hand-colored item and you are simply not sure if all copies
were issued with the hand-coloring or not, will you have an "in case of
doubt" instruction for 300 $b that applies across the board for all
resource types? As I indicated before, maps with hand-coloring are
extremely common so this is an important question for us. The DCRM(C)
instructions have also been influenced to some extent by Cartographic
Materials (CM), which specifies using "hand col." in 300 $b for
hand-colored maps.

Thanks,
-Manon


On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  I am grateful for the many well-reasoned responses to this query.
>
>
>
> In its meeting last week at the Lewis Walpole Library, the DCRM-RDA task
> force favored the idea that the presence of hand coloring should not be
> considered a difference requiring a new description, *even if* there is
> evidence that the material was issued both with and without the hand
> coloring. The instruction in the current draft of DCRM(C) should not be
> retained as written.
>
>
>
> The crucial line of reasoning is provided in Deborah’s message below: “… it
> is usually impossible for the cataloger to know whether it [i.e. a given
> hand-colored copy] was issued that way unless someone or something tells
> them.” A *bibliographer* may logically create separate entries for the
> colored and uncolored versions; but a *cataloger* will rarely be able to
> associate (with certainty) a given hand-colored copy to the version issued
> as such.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2015 3:18 PM
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
>
>
> True enough--all it takes is a brush and a bit of paint to upgrade that
> "penny plain".
>
>
>   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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=J6qMj6cTATv5kcCm_5Ih-gzZraKOOEAWUuI1CNyHnuo&s=016fhIzxwydCO37ajZsI6TPKHy1kZSiMkM5Gid7o_nY&e=>
> >
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hmm, I disagree with myself. Even with evidence of two intentional issues,
> the cataloger is unlikely to know if the hand-colored map in front of her
> was done by the workshop or arranged by an owner. Which makes the bar of
> evidence so high as to make the creation of two descriptions virtually
> "never."
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
> folger.edu
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__folger.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=J6qMj6cTATv5kcCm_5Ih-gzZraKOOEAWUuI1CNyHnuo&s=RMeg8NyM9i11iOpCEYzIMMNZZwmgNU_xuOnFUZ66jtM&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Friday, 27 February 2015 14:13
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Cc:* Chet Van Duzer
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
>
>
> Having recently attended a two-day conference on hand-colored maps and
> prints, I'm fairly confident about two things. One, that publishers
> sometimes issued groups of copies hand-colored and the rest uncolored, just
> the way a publisher may issue ordinary and large-paper issues. And, that it
> is usually impossible for the cataloger to know whether it was issued that
> way unless someone or something tells them. In Jeffrey's example, the two
> prices makes it clear. Otherwise, you'd have to depend on research.
>
>
>
> One conference paper was on hand-coloring of the 1513 edition of Ptolemy's
> *Geographia*. Chet Van Duzer found over 30 hand-colored copies. Of those
> roughly a third displayed the same coloring scheme, while the remaining 2/3
> were all different from each other. The conclusion that the publisher
> issued both hand-colored and non-colored copies, and that the colored
> copies were a mix of workshop and individual coloring. During the course of
> two days, we saw many images of different hand-colored copies of the same
> prints, and they nearly always were very different from each other. As I
> recall, only in Chet's presentation was there any evidence of workshop
> coloring.
>
>
>
> I *think* I support creating two descriptions when it is known that the
> publisher produced two different "consciously planned publishing units,"
> but only if the cataloger is quite certain, such as when different prices
> for hand-colored and uncolored copies are printed. Otherwise, assume as a
> default that hand-coloring is item-specific.
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
> folger.edu
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__folger.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=J6qMj6cTATv5kcCm_5Ih-gzZraKOOEAWUuI1CNyHnuo&s=RMeg8NyM9i11iOpCEYzIMMNZZwmgNU_xuOnFUZ66jtM&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *JOHN LANCASTER
> *Sent:* Thursday, 26 February 2015 19:37
> *To:* DCRM Revision List
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
>
>
> From DCRM(B) (which was based on a substantial amount of scholarly
> discussion, not least Tanselle’s seminal paper, “The bibliographical
> concepts of issue and state” (PBSA 69 (1975), 17-66, and the responses to
> it over the years):
>
> * Issue*
>
> A group of published copies which constitutes a consciously planned
> publishing unit, distinguishable from other groups of published copies by
> one or more differences designed expressly to identify the group as a
> discrete unit.
>
>
>
> It seems pretty clear that versions of a printing designed to sell for
> different prices, with different physical characteristics, constitute
> different issues, whether those differences are in the illustrations, the
> quality or size of paper, or the quality of binding, to name a few common
> ones.  Both bookseller and purchaser would be quite clear which group of
> copies they were dealing with in any given transaction, and would not
> likely consider them the same.
>
>
>
> Appendix E states:
>
>
>
> As a default approach, the rules contained in DCRM(B) assume that a
> separate bibliographic record will be created for each bibliographic
> variant that represents what is referred to as an "edition" in AACR2 and
> an "issue" in bibliographic scholarship.
>
>
>
> The fact that it may be difficult to determine for a specific copy whether
> that copy was issued colored or not, does not invalidate the fundamental
> distinction between the types of copies as issued.
>
>
>
> As to confusing researchers, I guess it depends on the researcher - if one
> is interested in the physical characteristics, publication conditions, and
> the like, it would be more confusing to have all the copies of both
> versions lumped together as holdings on a single record, and to have to
> sort them out by querying individual libraries (even if only by consulting
> each of their on-line catalogues).
>
>
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Jeffrey P. Barton <jpbarton at Princeton.EDU>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with what both Allison and Ellen say.  I’ve always been guided by
> the “new setting of type” (matrix) guide in creating/not creating separate
> records, and it can be confusing to a researcher to see multiple titles
> listed separately, when the only real difference is hand-coloring of plates
> (or lack thereof) and they’re really the same issue.
>
> For Cotsen Library (children’s) 18th and 19th c. books, we often see books
> which specifically mention the colored/plain options on the wrappers or
> cover (a couple of examples below).  It seems like the publisher is thus
> cueing the public that there are two variations of essentially the same
> issue?
>
> "Price 1s. plain, or 1s. 6d. coloured"
> "6 d. Plain ; 1 s. Coloured"--Upper wrapper.
>
>
> Jeff Barton
> Cotsen Library
> Princeton RBSC
>
> ***
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
> Another question that is, of course, relevant: does it serve users to
> create a new description for color variations?
>
> Maybe we can ask the research community?
>
>
> Allison
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Cordes, Ellen <ellen.cordes at yale.edu>
> wrote:
> I still think the concept that G uses is central:  was there or was there
> not a change to the matrix?  If yes, then a new record. If no, than the
> issue of hand-coloring is item specific whether the publisher caused it to
> be hand-colored and sold them as such or a later owner commissioned the
> coloring. Sometimes we can tell because it says on the print that it is
> sold both colored and uncolored, but we cannot tell if a later owner had
> his print colored to his liking.
>
>
> Ellen
>
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:44 PM
> To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> Subject: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions
>
> On behalf of the DCRM2 task force, I would like community thoughts on what
> appears to be an inconsistency on the matter of Variations requiring a new
> record (Appendix E).
>
> The draft of DCRM(C), rule E1.2 says: “… generally consider that a new
> bibliographic record is required whenever the material distinguishes itself
> from other variants by one or more of the following characteristics: …
>
> •         change in the presence of hand coloring, if there is evidence
> that the resource was issued both with and without the hand coloring (in
> case of doubt, assume the material was issued both ways)”
>
> Contrast this to DCRM(G), rule E1.3, which says: “Examples of differences
> that do not in themselves necessarily signal the need for a new record in
> the absence of other differences include: …
>
> •         the presence or absence of hand-coloring
>
> •         a difference in printed colors”
>
> The other DCRM manuals do not explicitly treat the issue of color in this
> context. That said, the matter is still relevant to other formats. It is
> common, for example, for publishers of color-plate books to announce (on
> the item) the availability of the book in colored and uncolored versions,
> at different prices. In this circumstance, it is uncommon practice (as far
> as I know) to create separate records for the colored and uncolored
> versions.
>
> The default DCRM guideline is to “assume that a separate bibliographic
> record [i.e. a new Manifestation?] will be created for each bibliographic
> variant that represents what is referred to as an ‘edition’ in AACR2 and an
> ‘issue’ in bibliographic scholarship.” It’s not a leap to argue that a
> difference in coloring meets the definition of a distinct issue (from
> DCRMB): “A group of published copies which constitutes a consciously
> planned publishing unit, distinguishable from other groups of published
> copies by one or more differences designed expressly to identify the group
> as a discrete unit.”
>
> I would like DCRM2 to take a consistent (and principled) stand on the
> matter, allowing (as DCRM does) for agencies to vary when it makes sense to
> do so. What, then, would make most sense as the default approach?
>
> I’ve already received useful comments from members of the Cartographic
> team on this question, and I encourage them to chime in again here.
>
> Thanks,
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian
> Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
> Yale Center for British Art
> 203.432.9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu
>
> BUILDING CONSERVATION PROJECT
> The Center will be closed from January 2, 2015 through February 2016 for
> its Building Conservation Project. Please email the Study Room and/or the
> Reference Library to request an appointment, which will be accommodated on
> a limited basis Tuesday-Friday, 10 am-4 pm, contingent upon the
> construction schedule.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150316/b23c6345/attachment-0001.html>