[DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

Mon Jun 13 07:55:16 MDT 2016

In cases like the one Will describes, I’ve given the extent of plates as “[1] plate on [2] leaves”—probably not phrased strictly according to Hoyle, but clearer than the alternatives, I think.

My two cents,

Margaret

_______________________________

Margaret F. Nichols
Rare Materials Cataloging Coordinator
Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections
2B Kroch Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-5302
Tel. (607) 255-9667

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 1:44 PM
To: 'DCRM Users' Group' <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] double plates vs. folded plate

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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:ejh at grolierclub.org>
website: www.grolierclub.org<http://www.grolierclub.org>

From: Eric Holzenberg
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:56 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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<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> [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<mailto: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/20160613/ddc8f6cf/attachment-0001.html>