[DCRM-L] Contemporary "unofficial" editions?

Tue Apr 17 16:08:20 MDT 2018

The identification of a publication as pirated is a scholarly question. Since you have no evidence, don't call it that. If you want to make a note, you could make reciprocal notes, something like "Also published as: Twelve subjects : water cure &c.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Barbara Tysinger
Sent: Friday, 06 April, 2018 16:11
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Contemporary "unofficial" editions?

Hi Honor,
Yes, I've seen those. I didn't include it in my message, since that was complicated enough in itself!
But I did create an html page for my own reference to help me compare the versions.
http://www.unc.edu/~btysingr/WaterCure/WaterCureComparison.html

It's also interesting to note that the images, but not the text, are reversed between the 1857 and 1860 editions of the Thomas Onwhyn engravings.

Barbara
On 4/6/2018 2:06 PM, Moody, Honor M. wrote:
Hi Barbara,
This doesn’t really answer your question, but there may be something more complicated happening here.  The text for the sitz bath image is very similar to what appears in “The pleasures of the water cure<http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:RAD.SCHL:11102956>,” (1860) (and the hair is pretty similar if you squint your eyes). Here’s an earlier version<https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951d03409116b> (1857), with some significant differences from the 1860 edition.
Best,
Honor

Honor Moody
Metadata Creation Manager
Harvard Library Information and Technical Services
honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Tysinger, Barbara R
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 1:28 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Contemporary "unofficial" editions?

All right, lets try this again...
I originally sent this message yesterday afternoon, but never saw it appear in listserv email, so I went looking.
I found that my campus email had flagged it as a potential spoof message and dumped it into my junk folder.
I'm not sure why, but the original message had the word "p i r a t e d" (without the spaces!) in the subject line instead of "unofficial", and I had also used the P-word here and there in the message.
Since it happened to me, and I sent the message, I am concerned that it may have been dumped in everyone’s junk mail, so I'm editing out the P-word and resending, to see if HAL will accept this version.
Happy Friday!
Barbara

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Contemporary "xxxxx" editions?

Date:

Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:26:33 -0400

From:

Barbara Tysinger <btysingr at email.unc.edu><mailto:btysingr at email.unc.edu>

Reply-To:

Barbara_Tysinger at unc.edu<mailto:Barbara_Tysinger at unc.edu>

Organization:

UNC-CH Health Sciences Library

To:

DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu><mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>

Hello Everyone,

Here is an interesting puzzle for a Thursday afternoon...

I have a small booklet, circa 1870, that contains what appear to be 2-color lithographs copied from another publication. (We also have the source publication in our collection.)

The source publication:
    OCLC # 47003110
    Twelve subjects : the water cure.
    London : Newman & Co., [1869-1870]
    12 unnumbered leaves : illustrations ; 19 x 14 cm
    Title from cover.
    1 image per leaf; publisher and dates on each engraving

The questionable "P" publication:
    OCLC # [none yet!]
    The water cure.
    [London?] : [Newman & Co.?], [1870?]
    1 sheet leporello folded to 12 leaves : chiefly illustrations ; 7 x 120 cm, folded to 7 x 10 cm, in cover 8 x 11 cm
    Title from cover.
    No place, publisher, or dates anywhere on the item.

I have no evidence that this is a contemporary "P" edition, but neither do I have evidence that is isn't. It could simply be a cheaper version issued by the same publisher. (Although if that is true, why would they not put their name on it somewhere?)
I don't think it is a modern reproduction, but I don't have any proof of that either.
Here is what I have found:

Each contains 12 captioned vignettes, 11 of the identical illustration, with one differing in each.

Images in the source publication each include the name of the publisher, Newman & Co, and most also include a date (6 have "May 1869", 4 have "May 1870", and 2 have no date)

Images in the "P" publication are smaller, appearing to have been cropped before printing, retaining the captions but no other text. These images are also a bit muddier in appearance, and have a second color overprint, with a drawn-line frame of the same color. (Thus leading me to suppose they are commercial lithographs.)

Neither publication shows plate marks.
I've attached a few representative images from each.

So, my questions...
Could this be a contemporary, Victorian questionable "P" edition?
If so, how would I reflect that in my notes? Or should I?

Thanks!
Barbara

...................All opinions are entirely my own....................

Barbara R. Tysinger                                Phone: (919)966-0949
Health Sciences Library                            Fax:   (919)966-1388
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
335 S. Columbia Street, CB# 7585
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7585
ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6759-5465
e-mail: Barbara_Tysinger at unc.edu<mailto:Barbara_Tysinger at unc.edu>

......."Non pilus tam tenuis ut secari non possit."-- St. Minutia......

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180417/b3152dcc/attachment.html>