[DCRM-L] hand coloring and new descriptions

[JOHN LANCASTER]

It seems strange to jettison a principle of DCRM simply because in some cases it may not be possible for a cataloguer to determine with certainty whether a particular hand-colored copy of an item was issued with coloring or was colored after publication.

All the more so, because by requiring that most colored copies be attached to the record for uncolored copies, the underlying assumption is that any given colored copy was issued uncolored (unless there is proof that it wasn't) - that seems clearly incorrect.  Also, it makes it more difficult for anyone whose interest is in locating colored copies, which can only be done by checking the local record for every copy.

Manon's point about 19th- (and even many 18th-) century colored copies being (relatively speaking) mass produced is well taken.  Is there any evidence that would lead us to believe that it's more likely that a colored copy of such a publication would have been colored post-publication than prior to issue?  Because that's what the exceptional treatment implies, and I don't think we can reliably extrapolate from medieval and renaissance practice to the 19th century.

I wonder how many pre-1700 items (maps or otherwise) were in fact issued in two versions, colored and uncolored?

It makes more sense to me to retain the principle of separate records for separate issues, and leave it to the cataloguer's judgment whether a particular colored copy shows evidence of having been colored post-publication.  I'd err on the side of using the "colored" record for a colored copy, absent evidence to the contrary (such as crude coloring or anomalous colors), at least for 18th- and 19th-century items.

John Lancaster

P.S.  I would maintain that cataloguers are in fact bibliographers, just generally working with a smaller sample than a bibliographer who examines multiple copies held in different locations, and subject to somewhat more restrictive rules in formulating their descriptions.