[DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

Thu Jun 9 11:55:48 MDT 2016

I agree with Richard absolutely on this. Deborah’s argument is an impressive bit of reasoning, but other issues aside, it does not take the commonsense expectations of readers, or the observed realities of traditional book making, into account. I would expect anything described as “[2] leaves of plates” to consist of two separate images produced from two distinct plates. I would expect anything described as “[1] folded leaf of plates” to cover EITHER a folded leaf attached to a stub at one end, or one folded in the middle, and attached to a stub at the gutter. If it was printed from a single plate onto a single leaf, with the intent of presenting a single image, surely it REMAINS a single leaf, even when folded.

Eric  Holzenberg
Director
The Grolier  Club
47 East 60th  Street
New York,  NY  10022
phone:  212/838-6690 ext. 1
fax:  212/838-2445
e-mail: ejh at grolierclub.org<mailto:ejh at grolierclub.org>
website: www.grolierclub.org<http://www.grolierclub.org>

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:36 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

I must disagree with this--the point of mounting to a stub is precisely not to have two leaves, but a single leaf that can be fully unfolded. I suppose that could be called a "double" leaf, but "2 leaves" is quite misleading. It can be bound to a stub at center or at one edge, a copy-level binding variation.

The best criterion: does the double-size leaf contain an image that runs across the center, such that binding it as a bifolium would result in a loss of information.

The situation with modern, machine-bound books is rather different: all too often a continuous image is bound as a bifolium--a whole book can consist of such things. Are these "double leaves"? It's one of those things may want to know--e.g. that it will be impossible to view the image properly in any copy or reproduction.

It's all a matter of being accurate about "What are you looking at?"/"What are you looking for?"

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>> wrote:
If I'm interpreting the images correctly—a single full sheet set oblong, folded in the middle, attached by a stub, and each resulting leaf is the same size as the other leaves in the bookblock—then what Will has are two leaves of plates.

See the discussion here: https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2015-June/004196.html

In brief, catalogers of early printed western materials will rarely if ever have "double leaves." In Will's example, these would be double leaves if the sheet were folded, blank verso to blank verso, and the edges pasted or bound into the gutter. This is clearly not what he has.

If he had folded leaves, when unfolded, they would be larger than the other leaves of the bookblock. This is clearly not what he has.

He has a bifolium attached to a stub bound in the gutter. Just the fact that the inner fold can be straightened out to view both leaves without interference doesn't change the fact that that the book has two leaves, both of which are the same size as or smaller than the other leaves in the bookblock. What he clearly has, in both cases, is [2] leaves of plates.

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger, 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<http://folger.edu> | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467<http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467>

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: Monday, 06 June 2016 16:09

To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

I'd think that "folded" is the way to go. It's clearly not intended to be bound into the gutter, which render this matter unusable; and "folded" allows for the differences that there might well be in different bindings, since one could attach these leaves at one edge, to be folded in.

That's the problem with "double" vs. "folded"--different descriptions from item-level differences, which one always wants to avoid if possible.

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<http://own.edu>>

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Will Evans <evans at bostonathenaeum.org<mailto:evans at bostonathenaeum.org>> wrote:
Deborah I’ve attached a few examples of the first situation (can we send attachments via DCRM-L?,) which I hope are illustrative. The images cover the entire side of a sheet or leaf (verso is blank,) and they are attached to a binding stub at the center.

Prior to the lengthy thread of a few months back, I’m afraid I’ve always counted this as 1 folded leaf of plates.

I’ll have to hunt around for an example of the second situation.

Best,
Will

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: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:00 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

Will, can you give us images, to make sure we're all on the same page regarding terminology?

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger, 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<http://folger.edu> | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467<http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467>

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 Will Evans
Sent: Monday, 06 June 2016 12:50
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

Sorry to resurrect this thread. I tried piecing to together some understanding of these concepts from the DCRM archives, but I want to be sure I’ve arrived at the correct conclusion.

If I have an unnumbered double plate (one image covering the entire side of a sheet of which its verso is blank) bound down the center of the plate, attached to a stub in the binding counts as:
[2] leaves of plates

But if an unnumbered folded plate (one image covering the entire side of a sheet of which its verso is blank) is bound-in on one of its edges it is counted as:
[1] folded leaf of plates

I this correct?

Thanks in advance.

Will

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will Evans
National Endowment for the Humanities
Chief Librarian in Charge of Technical Services
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA   02108

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 243<tel:617-227-0270%20ext.%20243>
Fax: 617-227-5266<tel:617-227-5266>
www.bostonathenaeum.org<http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20160609/1181d94b/attachment-0001.html>