[DCRM-L] Formula for alternating gathering sizes

[Deborah J. Leslie]

FWIW, I have also followed John's practice, of considering every gathering that fits in the alternating pattern to be included in the condensed sequence, regardless of which gathering the sequence ends with. So, A-X⁸.⁴ Y⁶.

Punctuating the alternating sequence, which Steve Young refers to, is problematic in the MARC21 environment since there's no superscript slash in the character set. I use the 'superior dot' (when I remember what it's called--in Connexion special characters appear alphabetically by name, and I sometimes forget that 'superior dot' is at a remove from 'dot below line' and 'dot in center of line'.)

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | 202.675-0369 | djleslie at folger.edu | www.folger.edu
________________________________
From: DCRM-L [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] on behalf of Young, Stephen [stephen.young at yale.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 14:49
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Formula for alternating gathering sizes

John,

I don't have access to official documentation for this, but I've always separated them with a slash:  A-D8/4.

Stephen R. Young
Rare Book Catalog Librarian
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:41 PM
To: DCRM Revision List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Formula for alternating gathering sizes

I’d be grateful for information on any published discussion of the notation for gatherings that alternate sizes in a regular pattern, recorded as “[superscript]x.y” (e.g. ⁸.⁴; sorry, I don’t find a superscript dot).

I’ve looked quickly at Bowers and Gaskell, but found nothing.

The inquiry that spurred this question has to do with a particular work, variously described as:

A-X⁸.⁴ Y⁶

and

A-V⁸.⁴ X⁸ Y⁶.

where X falls within the sequence, but one bibliographer wants to reserve the “8.4” designation for complete groups of two, while the other believes the “8.4” designation should include all gatherings that fit the pattern.  (I was taught, and continue to agree with, the latter approach.)

Thanks for any citations, as well as any opinions from those who’ve considered the issue.

John Lancaster