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

[Noble, Richard]

What the system seems to indicate is a prescription on the part of the
printer as the the best quantity in gathering of guards (the right word?)
to which the leaves would be attached for sewing, in anticipation of
something like edition binding. Depends on the business arrangements and
the functions of the printer/bookseller/binder? There were
bookseller/binders in France at this period, as I recall from a recent
encounter. - Richard

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Robert Steele <rosteele at law.gwu.edu> wrote:

> Ted:
>
> I might be wrong in this case, but I was suggesting a formula with
> bracketed numbers on the analogy with nineteenth-century books printed from
> plates. The original plates often include signatures that represent the
> original imposition, but a later reprinting using the same plates might use
> a different imposition, and thus result in a different makeup for the book
> although the signatures are not changed. The signatures might indicate
> gatherings in 8, but if the book is bound loosely enough you can find the
> sewing threads and see that the book in fact was gathered (say) in 12s. The
> signatures in this case have nothing to do with the actual makeup of the
> book, so it best to treat the book as unsigned and create a bracketed
> formula that reflects the actual collation, with possibly a note indicating
> the (erroneous) signatures.
>
> That said, often the book is bound very tightly or -- worse -- has been
> guillotined and glued together, so you cannot discover how it was in fact
> gathered. The printed signatures are in that case all you can go on.
>
> Again, here I was suggesting a bracketed formula because the signatures do
> not reflect the structure of the book.
>
> Bob Steele
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Robert Steele <rosteele at law.gwu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/c33dea2e/attachment-0001.html>