Tag: reprint

Categories
Uncategorized

Observations on the influence of religion upon the health and physical welfare of mankind. (OCLC #632285)

This piece is a 1973 reprint of an 1835 title. Difference in printing date is not usually sufficient to input a new record (so we might have used copy for the original) but this piece includes both the original title page and a new title page indicating the new publisher and the new series information, and we found popular copy that reflected that:

260 __ ǂa New York, ǂb Arno Press, ǂc 1973 [©1835]
490 1_ ǂa Mental illness and social policy: the American experience
500 __ ǂa Reprint of the ed. published by Marsh, Capen & Lyon, Boston.
830 _0 ǂa Mental illness and social policy: the American experience.
Categories
Uncategorized

Green woodwork : working with wood the natural way / Mike Abbott ; with a foreword by Richard La Trobe Bateman. (OCLC #27431448)

This volume is a 1991 reprint of a title originally published in 1989. Had I been doing original cataloging for this piece, I would have recorded only the 1989 publication date (like in this record) as printing date does not justify a new record in OCLC. There is a more popular (DLC) record for the reprint itself, indicating a publication with these fields:

DtSt: r      Dates 1991, 1989
260 __ ǂa Lewes, East Sussex : ǂb Guild of Master Craftsman
    Publications ; ǂa New York, N.Y. : ǂb Distributed by
    Sterling Pub., ǂc 1991.
500 __ ǂa Reprint. Originally published: 1989.

The Date: search box only searches the Date1 index (yr:) but not the Date2 index (yy:), so restricting the search to 1989 did not find the DLC record. When I’m not sure how a title has been cataloged but still wish to restrict by date, I use a range:

Date: 1989-1991
Categories
Uncategorized

Walt Whitman and 19th-century women reformers / Sherry Ceniza. (OCLC #37155132)

Though the copy in hand has a new ISBN, it is really just a reprint of the original 1998 edition, with that same copyright date and no new content. The title page verso has some new metadata giving the 2013 date to the “paperback edition” and the “eBook edition”, but this is not enough to justify a new record, as 2013 is more of a manufacture date.

Though there wasn’t when we received the book, there is now an OCLC record for the paperback edition with a few holdings, but I am still using the more popular ©1998 record and have added the new ISBN locally. The two records may eventually get merged, and having the primary OCLC number locally avoids some discovery problems.