[DCRM-L] Treatment of advertisements

[JOHN LANCASTER]

I suspect the "also" applies to the qualification "in publishers' covers".

I'm strongly inclined to treat separable advertisements as manifestations of separate works, using a 501 note, and catalogue them separately - especially when (as is not infrequently the case) they have a different printer's imprint, or a date (often month as well as year) that varies, from that of the main manifestation in the volume.  Few of these will have survived independently, but sometimes the same printing of ads will turn up in copies of manifestations of different works, or different manifestations of the same work.

Just another area where OCLC's master record approach creates real issues for those interested in printing/publishing matters.

John Lancaster


On 2017 Jun 30, at 17:07, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu> wrote:

> The example cited is a "machine-press" book (Lee & Shepard was established in 1862), noted in response because "also applies to machine-press books" would seem to imply that this is not such a book.
> 
> Anyway, advertisements will almost always (a little whimper of an "almost", that) be found, often in multiple forms, in multiples of copies; and it is especially in machine-press books that non-integral advertisements may be regarded as evidence of conditions of issue that ought not to be overlooked in manifestation-level description.
> 
> I'm in favor of the quasi-copy-level--call it "sub-manifestation"?--note (500 with $5) that accounts for such evidence, since 590s are now invisible outside institutional databases, a survey of which is seldom practicable or economically defensible in the course of cataloging that might otherwise benefit from the information--that is, make for a better informed account of the copy-in-hand, advertisements and all.
> 
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <Richard_Noble at Brown.edu>
> 
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:
> Situation: Tendency to include advertisement leaves in physical description instead of copy note
> 
>  
> 
> DCRM(B) 5B5.2 makes it clear that for pages containing only advertisements, the default is to treat them as copy-specific unless there is definitive evidence that they were printed as part of the publication text block. Evidence is provided by: integral nature of the adverts to gatherings of text, continuous paging, continuous signatures, or a catchword connecting the adverts to the text. (The last condition will be added to DCRM(B) the next time it is updated.)
> 
>  
> 
> For example:
> 
>  
> 
> 300   ǂa 245, [1] p. <…>
> 
> 590   ǂa UW-Madison copy: [6] pages of publisher's advertisements at end with caption "List of books recently published by Lee & Shepard."
> 
> 655 7 ǂa Publishers' advertisements. ǂ2 rbgenr ǂ5 WU
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> This stricture also applies to machine-press books in publishers' covers. I'm not sure about 20th-century practices, but in the 19th century, advertisements were added to text blocks at the binding stage. An excellent illustration of varying adverts can be found by comparing the several digitized copies of An American girl abroad (1872) available from Hathi Trust: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005777308.
> 
>  
> 
> Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. | Washington, DC 20003 | 202.675-0369 | orcid.org 0000-0001-5848-5467
> 
>  
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20170630/5cd8ac3c/attachment.html>