[DCRM-L] Folded tables

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thinking in the bibliographic community has developed and been refined since ABC; not all of our definitions are still the same. I get that some users may not think of folded letterpress leaves as 'plates', which is why I usually like to make a note when any are present. (This may be a more recent development in my cataloging, come to think of it.) Most users (and some catalogers, alas) also don't understand that even a whole leaf consisting entirely of non-letterpress is also not a plate if it's integral with a gathering of letterpress, that is, on a sheet that went through both a common press and a rolling press.

I remember talking at length with Richard Noble and others about the idea of "out-of-formatness" in considering folded letterpress leaves when DCRM(B) was in development. If leaves are folded to make them fit in the text block, they are by necessity a different format. The concept of out-of-formatness may not be helpful, but the DCRM(B) editors wanted to be able to articulate a principle for our practices, even if the practices were already existing—as was the case of considering folded tables as plates).
______________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu> | Opinions her own

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Robert Steele
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 07:33
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folded tables

Thanks, Deborah. That's what I have always done in the past, and it certainly simplifies cataloging. I guess I was overthinking.

Somehow, I have trouble thinking of gatherings printed on each side of each leaf in the normal way as "plates" except by definition, and I wonder if users of our records think of them as "plates." Cf. ABC of Book Collecting: "Properly, plates are whole-sheet illustrations, printed separately from the text ..." On the other hand, I can't think of any other convenient way to treat them.

(Bowers p. 242 ff "Folds inside the gathering" was what I was trying to follow, then I ran up against the problem that the inserted folds were in a different format from the rest of the text...)

Bob

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 4:55 PM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>> wrote:
If the letterpress leaves are folded, they are, by definition, plates. So,

300  62, [2] pages, [2] folded leaves of plates ; ǂc 20 cm (8vo)
500  The folded plates consist of …

*Plate. A leaf that is chiefly or entirely non-letterpress, or a folded leaf of any kind, inserted with letterpress gatherings …
______________________
Deborah J Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | www.folger.edu<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/saNLCERX3ytY6OXhwF2Gb?domain=folger.edu> | Opinions her own

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Robert O. Steele
Sent: Wednesday, 1 December, 2021 15:56
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Folded tables

Or rather 300  62, [2] pages, [4] folded pages ; ǂc 20 cm (8vo)

Bob

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:53 PM Robert O. Steele <rosteele2021 at gmail.com<mailto:rosteele2021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,

I know plates are supposed to be omitted from collation formulas, but what about unsigned letterpress gatherings with a format different from the rest of the work?

I'm cataloging a work consisting of 4 octavo gatherings, with 2 quarto "insertions". I would be tempted to call them "folded plates" except that they are not plates, but rather letterpress tables. Each insertion is a quarto bifolium printed with the same type and on the same paper as the rest, and each consisting of 4 distinct pages (the tables do not run across the fold). Since they are larger than the octavo gatherings, they are also folded up from the bottom.

The quarto bifolia are inserted in reasonable places in my copy, but I'm not sure where they were *intended* to be inserted, possibly inside the last blank leaf (at the end of the final page: "Suit le tableau ... etc.")

The simplest:

62, [2] pages (8vo), [4] pages (4to)

Signatures: [1]⁸ 2-4⁸ (last leaf blank).

With a note explaining the quarto insertions.

But I'm not sure this is accurate.

I'm tempted by something more complicated such as:

Signatures: : [1]⁸ 2-3⁸ 4⁸ (4₇+chi-²chi²); last leaf blank.

Advice?

Robert Steele
GWU Law


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20211206/a3921aec/attachment-0001.htm>