[DCRM-L] signature statement question

[Noah Sheola]

Thank you all.  [1]^10, with a discursive note seems to make the most sense.
Best,
Noah

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Carpenter, Jane <
jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu> wrote:

> 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
> <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>
> *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
> <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 <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Carpenter, Jane <
> 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] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 9:03 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <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
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Joseph Ross <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> 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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2520+Cimarron+Street+%0D%0ALos+Angeles,+CA+90018&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Los Angeles, CA  90018
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2520+Cimarron+Street+%0D%0ALos+Angeles,+CA+90018&entry=gmail&source=g>
> (323) 731-8529
>
> 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>
> 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 <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Noah Sheola <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
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
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/20180614/49eff37a/attachment-0001.html>