[DCRM-L] Uneven gatherings for broadsheet format books?

[Gemberling, Ted P]

Bob,
Thanks for the input on this. The book does have watermarks on every sheet. Let me see if I can understand the implication. Are you saying that if it were a folio, the watermarks would be in the middle of the sheet? They are not. They are placed in agreement with what Gaskell says about whole sheets on p. 61: “… by the sixteenth century they were normally put in the centre of one half of the oblong, so that when a sheet of paper was folded in half (as in a folio), the watermark appeared in the centre of *one* of the two leaves” (emphasis mine). So I guess the fact they are present on every leaf indicates it must be full sheet.

One other question: why would [1]-[45]1 be better than pi² A⁶ B-C5 D-G⁶ H3? (I’ll admit I missed the fleuron on the second leaf.) Is it that the use of lettered signatures disguises the real format of the book?

Thanks, Ted


From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Robert Steele
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 6:43 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Uneven gatherings for broadsheet format books?

The British Library record, which I looked at in Early English Books Online, following a record from the Universal Short Title Catalog, has a note which reads:

Bound from separate sheets, not gathered in quires. After the title page the sheets are signed [fleuron], A1-6, B1-6 (i.e. B1-5, with 4 signed "B iiii v"), C1-5, D1-6, E1-6, F1-6, G1-6, H1-3.

There really are no gatherings. The signing does not represent the structure of the book. (Folding a sheet produces an even number of leaves; in this case individual sheets are simply piled up, with signatures serving to keep the individual sheets in order, and so the printer could use any erratic system he thought made sense.)

You could ignore the signings and use:[1]-[45]1 (if I am right about the number of leaves), with a note explaining the observed signing. That way the structure of the book is represented correctly. I am nonetheless prepared to defer to those better informed than I.

One further question: Do you see any watermarks? That will help you understand whether the book is constructed from whole sheets, as per the British Library record, or detached half-sheets.

Bob Steele
GW Law

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Gemberling, Ted P <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>> wrote:
I haven’t done a lot of broadsheet books. I notice, looking over the ones I’ve done, that they usually are either unsigned or look something like this one:

Signatures: pi1 A-N¹ ; 14 leaves.

So there are really no “gatherings.”

Ted G.


From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Gemberling, Ted P
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:21 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List (dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>) <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Uneven gatherings for broadsheet format books?

I remember at Rare Book School we were taught that gatherings cannot be of odd numbers of leaves. If a gathering has 5 leaves, we must add a parenthetical statement saying one leaf has been added to a gathering of 4 leaves or removed from a gathering of 6. My understanding of that was that if gatherings are created by folding, they have to be of even numbers of sheets because the first fold creates 2 sheets. But would that apply to broadsheet format? It seems like it wouldn’t.

The book I’m working on is Compendiosa totius anatomie delineatio, aere exarata, by Thomas Geminus, 1545. The sheets are 39 centimeters, and the original cataloger interpreted it as full sheet format. I assume that in terms of Gaskell p. 86 (2007), she is interpreting the paper as “pot” size, where the height is 39 cm. The paper has horizontal chainlines, so I thought maybe that’s correct. However, I notice that the normal gathering in the book is 6 leaves. There are two gatherings that have 5 and one with 3. One of the gatherings with 5 has leaf B4 (or B5?) signed: 'Biiii v', as if the printer figured the gathering could be reduced from 6 to 5 leaves, with that leaf taking the place of two. Doesn’t that imply this book has leaves that are folded, and should therefore be interpreted as folio with turned chainlines?

Thanks for any enlightenment.

Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180719/b828c56f/attachment.html>