[DCRM-L] Signature statements and replacing records

[Noah Sheola]

Hello Seth,
In principle, yes, if the description is based on an imperfect copy, and
your copy is complete, you should update the extent and signature statement
accordingly (and if the previous cataloger knew they were basing their
description on an imperfect copy, this should have been noted). The record
you're using has links to a digitized copy, which I took a look at -- Does
your copy have leaf S2, AND the following it, the one with text beginning
"Beichlus"? And is there perhaps an integral blank leaf after that?

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:35 PM Huber, Seth <huberse at missouri.edu> wrote:

> I’m still new to rare book cataloging and have a question about when to
> replace records. I am looking at OCLC# 4825198, *Agenda, das ist,
> Kyrchenordnung*, printed in Leipzig in 1540. The signature statement in
> the existing record seems to indicate that the description was based on an
> imperfect copy, with leaf S2 lacking, and the physical description
> identifies leaves numbered to LIII. The copy on my desk has leaf S2, and
> the leaves are numbered through LIIII. Since my copy is more complete, is
> it acceptable to update and replace the OCLC record, or should the
> signature statement only be edited locally? Thanks for any guidance,
>
>
>
> Seth Huber
>
> Technical Services Librarian/Head of Cataloging
>
> University of Missouri—Columbia
>
> huberse at missouri.edu
>
> 573-884-4648
>
>
>


-- 
Noah Sheola
Senior Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
John J. Burns Library
Boston College
(he/him)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20220818/d95227c8/attachment.htm>