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.


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 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).


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?