[DCRM-L] False vs Fictitious imprints...

[Arielle Rambo]

I would love some help answering a question posed to me by one of my catalogers recently:

When should we be defining an imprint as fictitious rather than false? Generally, I have used false imprints to describe those that are purposefully misleading but still attributed to an actual city, such as saying an item was printed in Paris when it was actually printed in London. I've applied fictitious imprints to materials that claim to be printed in a fictitious location, such as Utopia or Arcadia.

But how about ancient cities? One of my catalogers came to me with an item that was printed in Philadelphia, but claims to have been printed in Ephesus. I'm inclined to say this is a fictitious imprint, but keep flip-flopping on my thinking. What do others think, false or fictitious?

Thanks for thinking this through with me!

--Arielle

Arielle Rambo | MSLS | Chief of Cataloging & Digital Outreach Librarian
The Library Company of Philadelphia | 1314 Locust Street | Philadelphia, PA 19107
T: 215-546-3181 x114 | E: arambo at librarycompany.org<mailto:arambo at librarycompany.org> |W: www.librarycompany.org<http://www.librarycompany.org/>
Instagram: www.instagram.com/librarycompany<http://www.instagram.com/librarycompany>
Tumblr: http://librarycompany.tumblr.com<http://librarycompany.tumblr.com/>
Pronouns: she/her/hers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190617/0c5f7114/attachment.html>