[DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term

Sat Jul 6 20:20:56 MDT 2019

Weighing from California Rare Book School:

I concur with Deborah on the signatures questions.

For the relator term, I would use "bookseller" because the imprint
identifies him as such ("bibliop." = abbreviation of "bibliopola" =
"bookseller" [and please forgive me if my Latin isn't perfect here]). The
imprint statement does state that he funded the printing, but he identifies
himself as a bookseller, so I'd go with that (or both, if you really feel
you need to bring out the "at the expense of" aspect; but my personal
preference in using these terms is to pick one).

Cheers,
Randy

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 9:23 AM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> What a doozy for your first original dcrmb record, Angela!
>
> I'll take the second question first. For early English imprints, the
> default relationship is 'bookseller' unless another relationship is
> specifically identified. This is usually expressed as *Printed for
> So-and-so. *But your book is continental. Still, the relationship
> translates *at the expense of* and indicates a publisher, which is the
> relator I'd use. Quite possibly also the bookseller, but I'll let my
> colleagues with more extensive experience with continental books comment.
>
>
>
> For the signatures, thanks for the opportunity to flesh out some of the
> more complicated collation situations we weren't able to cover in class.
> You have a partial duplication of an alphabet: two preliminary gatherings
> both signed [sec.]. Covered in dcrmb 7B9.3 *Special uses of pi and chi*
> which sends you to Gaskell p. 330. I'd say that the original *[sec*.*]*
> is the outlier, and as the first preliminary gathering, I'd render it: * Signatures:
> [superscript pi][sec.]6 [sec.]-4[sec.]4*  <…>
>
>
>
> *Caveat*: the following is oversimplified for the purpose of a cataloger
> determining the signatures of an individual book, my use of *assume* is
> meant to convey a tentative assumption of individual features, all of which
> is to be taken together for a final determination.
>
>
>
> For the final gathering, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
> default to the rule of assuming the next higher even number and qualifying
> it by which leaf is missing. So, a 6-leaf gathering with the final leaf
> absent. Now, look for other evidence to support that initial assumption.
>
>
>
> ·        Notice the signing. Printers typically used a consistent pattern
> throughout a book in how many leaves of each gathering they signed. The
> most common patterns were to sign the first half of the leaves (e.g., first
> four leaves in an 8-leaf gathering), half + 1 (first five of an 8-leaf
> gathering), or half – 1 (first three of an 8-leaf gathering). In your book,
> the first three leaves are signed, followed by the first two leaves for the
> rest of the book, so your printer's signing pattern is half the leaves.
> When you get to the final gathering, the first three leaves are signed,
> confirming evidence for a 6-leaf gathering
>
>
>
> ·        Check the sewing. Gatherings are sewn through the middle, so if
> you see sewing between the 3rd and 4th leaves, you have confirming
> evidence. If instead you see sewing between the 2nd and 3rd leaves, you
> have evidence for a 4-leaf gathering with the fifth leaf either inserted
> somewhere or appended as a singleton.
>
>
>
> ·        If the book has watermarks, check for conjugacy in the center of
> the gutter.  If you see a watermark spread between the 2nd/5th or 3rd/4th
> leaves, you have confirming evidence. If instead you see a watermark spread
> between the 1st/4th or 2nd/3rd leaves, you have evidence for a 4-leaf
> gathering.
>
>
>
> ·        If everything checks out, you can assume a 6-leaf gathering.
> Your final gathering is signed 4L, 4L2, 4L3; suggesting it's the last leaf
> missing rather than another leaf. So: <…> *4L6(-4L6)*.
>
>
>
> Let us know what you find.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jones,
> Angela
> *Sent:* Friday, 05 July, 2019 10:54
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This is my first question to the DCRM list – I took Deborah J. Leslie’s
> VERY helpful class on rare book cataloging last month, and I am now
> determined to make sure that all my original catalog of rare books is up to
> DCRMB standards!
>
>
>
> My first rare book that requires original cataloging is in front of me,
> and I have a few questions that I wanted to pose to those who have been
> doing this much longer than I have.
>
>
>
> My first question is in regards to signatures. The first part of the book
> has signatures using the [sec.] character. There is a gathering of 6 leaves
> signed with a single [sec.] character, then another sequence of a single
> [sec.] character, with a gathering of 4 leaves. Then the signatures are
> regular gathering of 4 leaves, through the 4th [sec.] character, followed
> by a fairly normal range of gatherings of 4 leaves designated with
> alphabets (with one exception). The last signature that is signed is
> designated LLLL, but there is a single unsigned leaf at the end.
>
>
>
> My attempt to note the signatures is: [sec.]⁶, [sec.]-4[sec.]⁴, A-4E⁴,
> 4F², 4G-4L⁴, [4M]1.
>
> Does it look correct, or am I missing something? In regards to the single
> gathering at the end, I wasn’t sure if I should infer it as an extra leaf
> in the 4L gathering, or as a single gathering.
>
>
>
> Also, I had a question about a relator term for one person named in the
> publisher’s statement. The full statement has a printing statement (Typis
> Hectoris Cicconij), but also a person whose name is prefaced with the term
> “expensis” (Expensis Io. Alberti Tarini Bibliop. Neap.). It seems that this
> is referring to the person who funded the printing of the book. At least, I
> think that is the case. If that is so, what is the correct relator term for
> the tracing of his name? Would it be “book producer” or something else? I
> looked through the LC relator code terms and didn’t find a relator code
> that really seemed to fit, but perhaps I am missing something.
>
>
>
> If it is helpful, a scanned version of the book can be found on Google
> Books at
> https://books.google.com/books/ucm?vid=UCM5323530628&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
>
> Any advice or words of wisdom would be much appreciated!
>
>
>
> Happy Friday,
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Angela Jones
>
> Head of Technical Services
>
> Underwood Law Library, Dedman School of Law
>
> Southern Methodist University
>
> P.O. Box 750354
>
> Dallas, TX 75275-0354
>
> 214-768-1827
>
> arjones at smu.edu
>
>
>

-- 
Randal S. Brandt
The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley
510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190706/59dd6473/attachment.html>