[DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

[Manon Theroux]

I agree with Deborah that cataloging rules would have us call this "[2]
leaves of plates" in the statement of extent. And that a note giving more
details would be a good idea, though I would be okay with using the term
"double plate" in the note.

The one exception to this would be if I knew (or was fairly certain) that
the book had originally been issued with the "thing" bound as [1] folded
leaf of plates (i.e. something you only needed to turn once when flipping
through the book but needed to unfold to see the content) but in my copy
the "thing" had subsequently been rebound to create [2] leaves of plates
(i.e. something you had to turn twice when flipping through the book but
did not need to do anything special to see the content). Then I'd describe
it as [1] folded leaf of plates in the statement of extent and add a local
note to describe how it was bound in my copy. Of course sometimes it is
hard to know what's going on, but that is not unusual in rare materials
cataloging ...

Manon

--
Manon Théroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library



On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> I must disagree with my distinguished disagreers. It is a matter of
> definition. “Double leaf. I don’t think those words mean what you think
> they mean.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Let’s first get this one out of the way: the one thing the situation
> cannot be is a “double leaf.” In re-reading the discussion of June/July
> 2015, I can see that confusion about the definition of double leaves did
> not abate by the time it ended. In fact, confusion about the definition is
> why I started the conversation in the first place. The upshot is that even
> though many of us have used the term “double leaf” to mean a single folded
> sheet with the opening at the fore-edge, that is incorrect by definition.
> “Double plate” doesn’t appear anywhere in the rules.
>
>
>
> The RDA glossary defines a double leaf as:
>
>
>
> A leaf of double size relative to the rest of the resource, folded in
> half at the fore-edge or top edge, with the fold uncut and no printing
> inside the fold, and typically bound at the inner margin.
>
>
>
> This is a clarification of the DCRM(B) (and earlier) definitions, not a
> change in definition, although as has been noted, “double leaf” was
> understood in quite different ways by our community:
>
> *5B11. Double leaves*. Count numbered double leaves (leaves with fold at
> either top or fore edge and bound at the inner margin) as pages or as
> leaves according to their numbering. Count unnumbered double leaves as
> pages (2 printed pages per double leaf) or as leaves (1 printed page per
> double leaf). Always indicate the presence of double leaves in a note.
>
>
>
> Now, as to whether the sheet in Will’s examples are properly identified as
> [1] folded leaf of plates or [2] leaves of plates, consider that:
>
>
>
> -        The statement of extent is blind as to content. That is why
> DCRM(B) ended the practice of including added engraved title pages in the
> pagination statement. Under current rules, a plate is a plate, regardless
> of the content. Therefore, the argument about whether there is one image or
> two, or the orientation of the image(s) is moot: in the statement of
> extent, we are counting extent only.
>
>
>
> -        A single engraved sheet folded and bound at the inner
> margin—even if attached to a stub that’s bound at the inner margin—is
> functionally two leaves.
>
>
>
> -        Neither RDA nor DCRM(B) defines “folded.” But by implication,
> folded leaves must be unfolded to be used. In this case, the two leaves
> open naturally; there is no unfolding to be done.
>
>
>
> -        I can see the argument for calling it a folded leaf of plates,
> although I still think [2] leaves of plates is more accurate.  The most
> important thing, however, is that the statement of extent be unambiguous;
> whichever description is used, a note describing the plate really should be
> made. (Just don’t call it “double.”)
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 *Eric Holzenberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, 09 June 09 2016 14:15
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate
>
>
>
> 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/20160611/67f9289b/attachment-0001.html>