[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I'll jump in too.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2015 13:04
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

Manon,
I’ll take a stab at answers, inserted below. I encourage fellow task force members to jump in wherever I go astray.
Will 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"?
FL: Yes, definitely.
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?
FL: The decision represents the fact that we create catalog descriptions only for what we have in hand (generally). We will rarely be able to match a given hand-colored copy with the hand-colored issue; so frequently the hand-colored issue will not be represented by a separate catalog description. [DJL: ] As I mentioned earlier, there turns out to be an astonishing lack of hard evidence regarding hand-coloring of individual manifestations; what hard evidence there is  shows that even when a portion of maps were issued hand-colored by the publisher, even more copies exist that show later hand-coloring as evidenced by differing color schemes. If research on the hand-coloring of individual copies of an issue has been published, a cataloger could create a separate issue for copies that had been issued that way, which would necessarily require a full description of the coloring scheme.
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.
FL: Correct, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we would consider hand coloring to be a copy-specific attribute. The manifestation-level attribute (300 $b) would not record coloring. Even when there exist separate descriptions for uncolored and colored issues – where at least one copy is known to be from the colored issue – a cataloger would still relate a hand-colored copy to the uncolored manifestation, in the absence of evidence that the copy in hand was issued colored.

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?
FL: The task force did not discuss this situation (unless I dozed for that bit), but I believe your assumption is correct: we would indicate color in 300 $b.
[DJL: ] Legends with instructions about hand-coloring do not provide evidence that all copies of a map were issued hand-colored, so once again, a cataloger will not know whether the hand-colored map in hand was issued that way by the publisher.

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.
FL: This question probably merits more discussion among members of the task force. We welcome input.
[DJL: ] Given the research that was presented in the recent conference, the presence of hand-coloring in itself means nothing, just as printed information like different prices for colored vs plain copies means nothing regarding an individual copy. It is far too great a leap to presume that the hand-colored copy in hand was issued that way.

I'm copying Chet Van Duzer on this conversation; he's traveling at present but may be able to add something in due time. He is an historian of medieval and renaissance maps, one of the organizers of the Paint Over Print conference, and the presenter of the paper on his census of hand-colored maps in the 1513 Ptolemy. He will have more precise information about current research on hand-coloring.

Best,
Deborah

Thanks,
-Manon


On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<tel:401-863-1187>
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369<tel: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> [mailto: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<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369<tel: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:203.432.9672>  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto: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/20150316/7fb4d8df/attachment-0001.html>