[DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term

[Jones, Angela]

Hi Leslie,

Thanks so much for the all the wonderful information! It is all helpful. On the last gathering of the book, I think that all the evidence points to it being a 6 leaf gathering. The final gathering is signed on the first three leaves, and I see sewing between the third and fourth leaves. I was not able to find any watermarks on those pages, but from everything you said below I think that I can safely assume it is a 6-leaf gathering, with a missing leaf at the end.

So I think that makes the final signature statement: [supersript pi][sec.]⁶ [sec.]-4[sec.]⁴ A-4E⁴ 4F² 4G-4K⁴ 4L⁶(-4L6).

Thanks also for the suggestion regarding the relator term! After reading what you and others have suggested, I can see that my two best options are either publisher or bookseller.

Thanks again!
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<mailto:arjones at smu.edu>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 11:23 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:arjones at smu.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190708/bcbf0cd4/attachment-0001.html>