[DCRM-L] Signature statements and replacing records

[Huber, Seth]

Yes, my copy matches the digitized copies I found through VD.16, including the “Beichlus,” and I believe the final blank leaf is integral due to the presence of visible stitching in the middle of gathering S. I will update the record to match. Thanks for the clarification.

Seth Huber
Technical Services Librarian/Head of Cataloging
University of Missouri—Columbia
huberse at missouri.edu<mailto:huberse at missouri.edu>
573-884-4648



From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Noah Sheola
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:40 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Signature statements and replacing records

WARNING: This message has originated from an External Source. This may be a phishing expedition that can result in unauthorized access to our IT System. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20220818/129ba2ed/attachment-0001.htm>