Tag: facsimile reprints

Post author By zemkat
Post date December 7, 2016
No Comments on

Ioannis Saresberiensis episcopi Carnotensis Policratici sive De nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum libri VIII / recognovit et prolegomenis, apparatu critico, commentario, indicibus instruxit Clemens C.I. Webb. (OCLC #965502804)

The LC-PCC PS for RDA 1.11 includes specific instructions for RDA cataloging of Print on Demand (POD) Reproductions and Photocopies, which roughly say:

Create one provider-neutral record for all potential print-on-demand copies of the title from any vendor.
Most fields (including publication information) can more or less be cloned from the record for the original.
Fixed field Form should be “r” to indicate print reproduction (but do not code “r” in DtSt).
Include this note: 533 __ ǂa Print reproduction.
Link back to the original manifestation with 775.
If you wish to include information about your specific printing (ISBN, vendor), do so in 020, 037 respectively.

These rules have a fairly narrow scope, and should only be applied to facsimile reprints and reproductions; follow standard RDA rules for other types of reprints and new editions.

Tags cataloging, facsimile reprints, provider-neutral, tumblarians

Uncategorized

Post author By zemkat
Post date December 14, 2015
No Comments on

Nuove curiosità storiche / Benedetto Croce. (OCLC #932131129)

This facsimile reprint has an added title page (for the new publisher), which is fortunate, as the included facsimile of the title page has part of the author’s name erased:

RDA 2.4.1.3 on recording statement of responsibility for facsimiles and reproductions says to record the statement or statements of responsibility relating to the facsimile or reproduction, so I got to use the correct version:

245 10 ǂa Nuove curiosità storiche / ǂc Benedetto Croce.

It also sayes to record any statement of responsibility relating to the original manifestation as a statement of responsibility of a related manifestation. I could have done so as described in RDA 27.1 but decided against it; as it actually is correct on the original piece (which I also have in hand).

Tags cataloging, facsimile reprints, RDA, statement of responsibility, tumblarians

Uncategorized

Post author By zemkat
Post date October 8, 2015
No Comments on

Историко-литературный обзоръ древне-русскихъ полемическихъ сочинений противъ латиниань, XI-XV в. Андрея Попова. (OCLC #923014236)

Under AACR2, facsimile reprints were cataloged with most fields (publisher, date, dimensions, etc) reflecting the original item, with a 533 note providing information about the publisher that created the reprint. Under RDA, the main data reflects the piece in hand, with a link to the data to the original piece (which includes original publisher, date, ec).

For example, in this piece I recorded:

264 _1 ǂa Ann Arbor, Michigan : ǂb University Microfilms, ǂc 1968.
300 __ ǂa vii, 417 pages ; ǂc 22 cm
776 08 ǂi Reproduction of (manifestation): ǂa Popov, Andreĭ Nikolaevich, 1841-1881. ǂt Istoriko-literaturnyĭ obzorʹ drevne-russkikhʹ polemicheskikhʹ sochineniĭ protivʹ latini︠a︡nʹ, XI-XV v. ǂd Moskva : Tipografiia T. Risʹ, 1875. ǂw (DLC)   65083011 ǂw (OCoLC)6365868

RDA does not describe MARC practices, so gives no guidance on Fixed Fields, so I did what seemed most reasonable following BibFormats:

    Form: r   Ctry: miu    DtSt: r  Date1: 1875

The date of the content is also reflected in the call number, followed by a lowercase a to indicate that it is a facsimile.

    BX1763 .P58 1875a

Do you do anything different when you catalog these?

Tags cataloging, facsimile reprints, RDA, tumblarians