[DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

[Lapka, Francis]

Hi all. As my repository considers application of standardized fields for provenance notes (abandoning 590s), I'm pondering the distinction between MARC fields 561 and 562. I wonder if the following summary is correct:


  1.  MARC 561 = RDA and DCRMR's custodial history of item. It does not include reference to markings/evidence. Example, from DCRMR:

     *   Library copy: Part of King George III's Library. Donated to the nation by King George IV (1762-1830)



  1.  MARC 562 = RDA and DCRMR's modification of item. It includes reference to markings/evidence. Example, from DCRMR:

     *   Library copy bears stamps and label of St. Ignatius College; signature on flyleaf of N. Blagdon, dated 1813.

The MARC-RDA pairing is based on RDA's element reference, but I feel uncertainty because I can't remember seeing examples of provenance markings (bookplates, autographs, and so on) in field 562, and the MARC guidance<https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd562.html> isn't as clear as I'd like.

Is this 561 versus 562 distinction correct? If so, is it useful? Do other repositories use the two fields in this manner?

Thanks,
Francis



Francis Lapka
Senior Catalog Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203-432-9672  *  britishart.yale.edu<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbritishart.yale.edu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cfb678f45888e4aae1f5008da31b1564f%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637876934967882020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9eMfY4U2535Butdi00ad6lmf%2FF3nBZt1XmuIHeJPa5w%3D&reserved=0>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20220713/2a17b028/attachment.htm>