[DCRM-L] MARC 561 and 562

[Maria Oldal]

Francis,

There is merit in keeping all the provenance information in a single field
(561), even if some of it could also be recorded as inscriptions/markings.
It is very useful when you can target a search to a specific field tag. It
also preserves the sequence of the full provenance of an item from earliest
to latest. Example:

*Arms of an early owner on fol. 88v and 92v (quarterly sable and argent?);
P. Aubert (ca. 1500, signature on flyleaf); Pickering; sold to the Earl of
Ashburnham Dec. 18, 1847; Ashburnham Collection (appendix, no. 156); H.
Yates Thompson; his sale (London, May 14, 1902, no. 1 and plate) to
Quaritch, catalogue 235 (Nov. 1904), no. 109; purchased by J. Pierpont
Morgan (1837-1913) from Olschki in 1907; J.P. Morgan (1867-1943).*

If needed, the 562 field can elaborate on these markings, such as exact
transcription, color, and more specific location of markings. 562 can also
include other types of inscriptions and markings that cannot be associated
with a specific former owner or are not related to provenance, such as
pagination/foliation, watermarks, etc.

Maria

--
Maria Oldal
Manager of Collections Information and Library Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-590-0382
Email: oldalm at themorgan.org


On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:15 PM Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> 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/20220713/8a403600/attachment.htm>