[DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

Thu Jun 9 13:21:35 MDT 2016

Well, "[1] leaf of plates" isn't that bad, especially given the unfortunate
breadth of meanings assigned to "plate" (the printing surface / the printed
surface / an inserted leaf containing an image not counted in the
pagination-- oy!), since a leaf may contain images printed from more than 1
plate.

[*Obiter dictum*: What strikes me funny is bracketing "1" or saying "1
unnumbered". No doubt there's a few books somewhere with a single plate
numbered "plate 1", but that anomaly suggests re-use that one might want to
remark on.]

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 Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Eric Holzenberg <ejh at grolierclub.org> wrote:

> As a follow-on, as cataloguers, we have rather dug ourselves into a hole
> with the insistence on “[x] leaf [or leaves] *of plates*,” regardless of
> whether [x] calls for a plural “plates” or not. “[1] leaf of plate” is
> inelegant, but arguably safer/clearer, particularly in the context of this
> discussion.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> website: www.grolierclub.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Holzenberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:56 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate
>
>
>
> 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
>
> website: www.grolierclub.org
>
>
>
> *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 *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 <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <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 | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE,
> Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* 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
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Will Evans <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] *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 | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE,
> Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Will Evans
> *Sent:* Monday, 06 June 2016 12:50
> *To:* 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
>
> Fax: 617-227-5266
>
> www.bostonathenaeum.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20160609/42cf2d29/attachment-0001.html>