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

[Robert Steele]

I'll defer to Deborah, but I'd like to point out the following from Bowers,
page 228-229:

"There do exist, however, a very few extraordinary books for which it would
be acceptable to use odd index numbers when the odd leaves indicate a
consistent method of printing a whole book and not simply an isolated
gathering." He goes on to mention gatherings in 3's, 9's and 11's.

I think my proposed collation statement is completely clear and accurately
represents the makeup of the book.

Bob Steele

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Gemberling, Ted P <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:

> Deborah,
>
> I think the easiest thing to do will be to copy the note from the ESTC.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Ted
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Deborah J.
> Leslie
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:20 PM
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Uneven gatherings for broadsheet format books?
>
>
>
> I don't believe there's any circumstance in which a superscript '1' or any
> other superscript odd number is allowed (with the rare exceptions for
> 18mo's in 9's). It seems to me you have a choice between doing what the
> ESTC does, describe how the leaves are signed but not try to create a
> signature statement since the signatures have nothing to do with the book's
> collation; or devise a signature statement using the traditional formula
> and making it clear that the signings don't match the book, as in 7B9.5
> (Signatures do not match gatherings).
>
>
>
> Except that you don't have gatherings. I don't see any reasonable way of
> doing it except as the ESTC has done.
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Gemberling, Ted P
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 July, 2018 15:39
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Uneven gatherings for broadsheet format books?
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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> *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) <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/20180720/be5d1eb3/attachment.html>