[DCRM-L] signature statement question

Wed Jun 13 17:14:30 MDT 2018

Here is the complete thread for this question; read from bottom up
Jane Carpenter
UCLA Library Special Collections

Nina,
Maybe for greater clarity:

“first 3 leaves of each of the first 16 gatherings are numbered continuously from 1 to 51; first leaf of last gathering is numbered 52.”

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Schneider, Nina
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:44 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] crazy signatures

Thanks to Jane (and Richard and Joseph), here’s what I came up with:

Signatures: pi⁴ [1]-[16]⁶ [17]²; first 3 leaves of each gathering are numbered continuously from 1 to 51; first  leaf of last gathering is numbered 52.

Would this make sense if you were reading the description without the book in hand?

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:04 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] crazy signatures

I like Jane's approach. It serves the formulary purpose quite elegantly, without saying (falsely) that the book is unsigned. The underlying principle is that one uses the printer's designations of gatherings if they are not confusing in the context of a collational formula.

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

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Carpenter, Jane <jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu<mailto:jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu>> wrote:
Nina,
I had a similar situation with parts of a 1520 Venetian Talmud—
I gave the collation in brackets, and then in a note, explained that the first four leaves of each gathering were numbered continuously:

Here’s the note as I wrote it:

[part 4 (Nezikin), 8]: Avodah Zarah [1520]]: 97 leaves; signatures: [1]-[11]⁸ [12]¹⁰; final blank leaf [12]₁₀ wanting; first 4 leaves of each gathering are numbered continuously from 1 to 44; first 5 leaves of last gathering numbered 44-49. ‡5 CLUS

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 9:03 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] crazy signatures

"Continuous bifolium numeration"--certainly as good a term as any--is obviously analogous to the direction numbering that one occasionally encounters in later books. Per Bowers one treats such gatherings as "unsigned", which is fine if they're isolated pi's or chi's; but because Nina's example is numbered in a way that could be used for reference, one searches for a way to incorporate the numbers into a formula.

Maybe (I dunno) 1/2/3-49/50/51^6 52^2? Explanation will be required, whatever one does, and it could just as well be [unsigned, 1-17^6 18^2], which tells the structural story very neatly, but doesn't work very well for reference; and a formula that doesn't refer well doesn't quite fulfill its purpose.

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

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Joseph Ross <jross at nd.edu<mailto:jross at nd.edu>> wrote:
Nina,

I seem to remember this as one of the unusual signature patterns of the manuscript period. The term that comes to mind is "continuous bifolia numeration."  There is no quire signature but the bifolia are numbered continuously from beginning to end.  It was not a common practice.  I don't remember if any printers used it.  Sorry I don't have any references I can quote.

Joseph Ross
Rare Books Cataloger
University of Notre Dame

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Schneider, Nina <nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>> wrote:
Another question for the advance bibliographers amongst us...

I have in my hand the French translation of Hystoyre et plaisante cronicque. It is printed in 1793/4 (an II) in Paris. It is signed in such a way that I'm at a loss on how to record it.

It starts off innocently enough: pi^4 but then this happens (and this is a page-by page recreation):
1,2,3, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 4, 5,6, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 7,8,9, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 10, 11, 12, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned] ... 49, 50, 51 [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 52, [unsigned].

Is there a way to capture this in a signature statement or do I just include the whole thing? Bowers is failing me.

Chain lines run vertical. My uncut copy is 14 cm high.

Thanks in advance!

Nina

+---------------
Nina M. Schneider
Rare Books Librarian
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
2520 Cimarron Street
Los Angeles, CA  90018
(323) 731-8529<tel:%28323%29%20731-8529>

nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>
http://www.clarklibrary.ucla.edu/

** Please note that the Clark Library is currently CLOSED for our seismic retrofit **
****************************************************************************

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Ross
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:09 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] signature statement question

Noah,

This situation has come up on our list before in a discussion on Friday September 25, 2015. Nina Schneider posed the question:

 I have in my hand the French translation of Hystoyre et plaisante > cronicque. It is printed in 1793/4 (an II) in Paris. It is signed in such a
> way that I'm at a loss on how to record it.
>
> It starts off innocently enough: pi^4 but then this happens (and this is a
> page-by page recreation):
> 1,2,3, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 4, 5,6, [unsigned], [unsigned],
> [unsigned], 7,8,9, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 10, 11, 12,
> [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned] ... 49, 50, 51 [unsigned], [unsigned],
> [unsigned], 52, [unsigned].

I made the following point to the discussion: ''

 I seem to remember this as one of the unusual signature patterns of the > manuscript period. The term that comes to mind is "continuous bifolia
> numeration."  There is no quire signature but the bifolia are numbered
> continuously from beginning to end.  It was not a common practice.  I don't
> remember if any printers used it.  Sorry I don't have any references I can
> quote. I still think that is the best description of this signature pattern. Joseph Ross Unversity of Notre Dame

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu<mailto:richard_noble at brown.edu>> wrote:
Dear Noah,

I'm not sure there's one correct way to deal with this, but it's best to follow the structure in the formula and use the signing statement to explain what one sees--so something like:

      Collation: folio: [1]^10 (signing 1st rectos of the inner 4 bifolia as b-e)

If that seems too much compressed for the sake of compression, the signing statement could be presented as a discursive note pretty much like the description in your inquiry, which is perfectly clear; but the formula seems a useful bibliographical declaration that this is structurally a single unsigned folio gathering of 10 leaves. Those who understand the formula and those who care are probably the same people.

Cheers,
Richard

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

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Noah Sheola <sheola at bc.edu<mailto:sheola at bc.edu>> wrote:
Hello all,

I am cataloging a folio, consisting of a single gathering of 5 bifolia. The first leaf is unsigned, the second is signed "b", the third "c", the fourth "d", and the fifth "e". I don't think I've seen this before and am uncertain how to do the signature statement. Any advice much appreciated.

For context, the imprint is Lisbon, 1767.

Thanks,
Noah

--
Noah Sheola
Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
Burns Library
Boston College

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180613/6052f8d0/attachment-0001.html>