[DCRM-L] Subject: Inferred [par.] in signature statement -- double square brackets or no?

Thu Feb 27 08:48:09 MST 2025

Hi Noah. The general guidance is exactly that. Adaptations can (and should) be made to account to increase clarity in unusual circumstances. That said, ¶ is a symbol, not a letter, for which the cataloger is instructed to use a descriptive term in square brackets (DCRM(B) 7B9.2; DCRMR 6.215.44.2<https://bsc.rbms.info/DCRMR/phys-desc/Note-on-extent-of-manifestation/#621544-signatures>). Stefan's solution is exactly right on both counts.

As for the advice to include an example in DCRMR, it's a good one. In fact, I'd like to suggest to the DCRMR editors to review that section as a whole. For instance, calling that symbol a 'pilcrow' might be preferable; even if not, the description should be spelled out as 'paragraph'.
______________________

Deborah J Leslie [cid:337aa8ba-253a-45b9-9852-10ed69a60293] , M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | Opinions her own

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Noah Sheola via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 10:02
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Noah Sheola <sheola at bc.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Subject: Inferred [par.] in signature statement -- double square brackets or no?

I understand the appeal of differentiating between the two styles of ¶ (also called the pilcrow), but, if I may offer a contrary view, does this not run afoul of the general guidance to not distinguish between typefaces, for instance italic, blackletter, small capitals, etc.?

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM Jennifer Dunlap via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>> wrote:
Thank you Stefan and Deborah for weighing in. I like the idea of differentiating the style of the two pars. within the square brackets and using pi for the first gathering renders the need for a note moot. I wonder if it might be worth adding some best practices/examples to DCRM(R) for situations where a clear distinction is made in the signing by deliberate use of a different type. Thanks again for the assist!

Best,
Jennifer

Jennifer Dunlap
Rare Materials Cataloguer
John Carter Brown Library
Providence, Rhode Island
jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu<mailto:jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu>

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 5:54 PM Deborah J. Leslie via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>> wrote:
I like Stefan's suggestion, with one quibble—the fact that there's an pi4 in the signature statement means that there's an initial unsigned gathering of four leaves, making the explanation redundant.

______________________

Deborah J Leslie [cid:ii_19547df392ac21df29f1] , M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | Opinions her own

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> on behalf of Duhr, Stefan via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 03:20
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Duhr, Stefan <Stefan.Duhr at sbb.spk-berlin.de<mailto:Stefan.Duhr at sbb.spk-berlin.de>>; jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu<mailto:jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu> <jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu<mailto:jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] [EXT] Subject: Inferred [par.] in signature statement -- double square brackets or no?

Hello Jennifer,

As a newcomer to this list and from my own experience with this topic (https://verbundwiki.gbv.de/x/HYD_Cw), I would make a distinction in the designation between the second and third gathering and label the first gathering as unsigned.

The formula would look like this:

pi⁴ 2[par. curled]⁴ 2[par. straight]⁴ A-2I⁴; first gathering unsigned.

So far, I have only treated this case hypothetically (https://verbundwiki.gbv.de/download/attachments/201228317/Lagensignaturen_Vertiefung.pdf). Do you have exact title details, or a link to an existing digital copy?

Best,

Stefan

___________________________________________________

Stefan Duhr, M.A.
Abteilung Handschriften und Historische Drucke | Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz | Berlin State Library - Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation
Unter den Linden 8
10117 Berlin

+49 30 266-43 6688
stefan.duhr at sbb.spk-berlin.de<mailto:stefan.duhr at sbb.spk-berlin.de>
https://staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/die-staatsbibliothek/abteilungen/handschriften-und-historische-drucke

Im Rahmen der E-Mail-Kommunikation werden gegebenenfalls personenbezogene Daten verarbeitet. Hinweise zum Datenschutz: http://sbb.berlin/datenschutz

“There is no bounds to be set upon human stupidity, where books are concerned.”

James Duff Brown, Scottish bibliographer and librarian (A manual of practical bibliography. London 1906, p. 92)

Von: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> Im Auftrag von Jennifer Dunlap via DCRM-L
Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Februar 2025 18:09
An: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Jennifer Dunlap <jrdunlap7 at gmail.com<mailto:jrdunlap7 at gmail.com>>; jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu<mailto:jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu>
Betreff: [EXT] [DCRM-L] Subject: Inferred [par.] in signature statement -- double square brackets or no?

EXTERNE E-MAIL - SEIEN SIE ACHTSAM BEIM ÖFFNEN VON LINKS UND ANHÄNGEN

Hello,

I'm hoping the collective wisdom of the list can point me in the right direction of how best to render the signatures for the preliminary gatherings of the item I'm cataloging. The first gathering is unsigned; gathering 2 signed  ❡ ❡ (paragraph mark with curled tail) and gathering 3, with ¶ ¶ (paragraph mark with straight tail). I'm inclined to render the inferred par. as [[par.]], with a note that it is unsigned for clarity, and the third gathering as ²2[par.]:

Signatures: [[par.]]⁴ 2[par.]⁴ ²2[par.]⁴ A-2I⁴; first gathering unsigned.

Alternatively, I could simply omit the second set of brackets and retain the unsigned note.

Signatures: [par.]⁴ 2[par.]⁴ ²2[par.]⁴ A-2I⁴; first gathering unsigned.

Since the type used for the [par.] signs for the second and third gathering are different I don't feel comfortable rendering the third gathering as 3[par.] with a missigned note. How have others dealt with similar situations?

Thanks in advance!

Best,

Jennifer

Jennifer Dunlap

Rare Materials Cataloguer

John Carter Brown Library

Providence, Rhode Island

jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu<mailto:jennifer_dunlap at brown.edu>

--------------------
You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the DCRM-L discussion list.

You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method that you receive DCRM-L posts, unsubscribe, and other settings by logging into your subscription at https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l.

Alternately, to unsubscribe from this list send a message to dcrm-l-leave at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-leave at lib.byu.edu>. You will receive an email requesting confirmation of your request.
--------------------
You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the DCRM-L discussion list.

You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method that you receive DCRM-L posts, unsubscribe, and other settings by logging into your subscription at https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l.

Alternately, to unsubscribe from this list send a message to dcrm-l-leave at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-leave at lib.byu.edu>. You will receive an email requesting confirmation of your request.

--
Noah Sheola
Senior Special Collections Metadata Librarian
John J. Burns Library
Boston College

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20250227/c45d6cb1/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-4f3smez4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: Outlook-4f3smez4.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20250227/c45d6cb1/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-yj4f0ewq.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: Outlook-yj4f0ewq.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20250227/c45d6cb1/attachment-0003.png>