RDA-L

Dear colleagues,

I have this case two volumes of "Stirring times" which are facsimiles of the edition published in 1878. 

The item in hand has the content exactly the same except the cover, as this item has a new cover includes the publisher (Forgotten books), Series and an ISBN. 

And the volume two is published by a different publisher (Franklin Classics).

The debate is whether to consider this work a reprint or a facsimile.

The definition of facsimile is the following: "A reproduction simulating the physical appearance of the original in addition to reproducing its content exactly."--RDA Glossary. And the item in hand has the exact content except the cover and some preliminaries pages are added.

In this case do we consider this item as a facsimile and we catalogue it according to the title page of the original work:

245 10 $a Stirring times, or, records from Jerusalem consular chronicles of 1853 to 1856 / $c by the late James Finn; edited and compiled by his widow with a preface by the Viscountess Strangford.

264 #1 $a London : $b C. Kegan Paul & Co., $c 1878.

533  $a Facsimile edition. $bLondon : $c Forgotten books, $d ©2018.

OR 

245 10 $a Stirring times, or, records from Jerusalem consular chronicles of 1853 to 1856 / $c by James Finn.

264 #1 $a London : $b Forgotten books, $c [2018]

264 #4 $c ©2018

Note field: Facsimile edition of...

In your opinion what is the best practice in this case?

Bellow are some images about the item that I am cataloging.

Best Regards,

Ghada Dimashk

Librarian 

American University of Beirut

Volume 1: 

 

Volume 2:

 

------------------------------
Ghada Dimashk
American University of Beirut
------------------------------

Ghada

These are facsimiles. Differences such as extra title pages and other manifestation statements are ignored in the assessment of reproductions. Manifestation statements in the original are usually reproduced in the facsimile but treated as notes; see Manifestation statements of facsimiles and reproductions for guidance.

Both volumes appear to be photo-reproductions of specific items, complete with stamps and added annotations. These are modified items, and you should not use the element facsimile of manifestation to link the reproduction to the original; instead, use facsimile of item.

I hope this helps!

------------------------------
Gordon Dunsire
------------------------------

Dear Gordon,

First, sorry for my late reply and thank you for your help...

According to your answer the reproduction will be catalogued separately and we do not consider it an additional copy of the original, and then I link both records (reproduction and the original) using "facsimile of item"

Reproduction record:

245 10 $a Stirring times, or, records from Jerusalem consular chronicles of 1853 to 1856 / $c by James Finn.

264 #1 $a London : $b Forgotten books, $c [2018]

264 #4 $c ©2018

Facsimile of item...

I thought that when we have a facsimile we consider it a copy two and we add the reproduction statement in field 533

533 |a Facsimile |b place of publication (reproduction) : |c publisher (reproduction), |d date (reproduction). |e cm

Or both practices work in this case?

Best Regards,

Ghada

------------------------------
Ghada Dimashk
American University of Beirut
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Jun 30, 2023 11:10 AM
From: Gordon Dunsire
Subject: Facsimiles vs Reprint

Ghada

These are facsimiles. Differences such as extra title pages and other manifestation statements are ignored in the assessment of reproductions. Manifestation statements in the original are usually reproduced in the facsimile but treated as notes; see Manifestation statements of facsimiles and reproductions for guidance.

Both volumes appear to be photo-reproductions of specific items, complete with stamps and added annotations. These are modified items, and you should not use the element facsimile of manifestation to link the reproduction to the original; instead, use facsimile of item.

I hope this helps!

------------------------------
Gordon Dunsire
------------------------------

Ghada

The two approaches you mention are incompatible with each other. With official RDA you describe the reproduction as a distinct manifestation and relate it to the item that is reproduced with a "reproduction of item of" element (domain Manifestation, range Item). I think the "copy two" approach describes the (original) manifestation of the item that is reproduced and uses 533 to give details of the reproduction manifestation, which is the other way round. I'm not sure how the latter approach can accommodate the details of the item that is reproduced, which is clearly modified from its original state.

I'm not a MARC 21 expert, so perhaps colleagues on the listserv can help.

One official RDA workaround is to use a note where the item can be given an unstructured description; e.g. "Facsimile of item modified with library ownership stamps ..."

Sorry I can't be of more help.

------------------------------
Gordon Dunsire
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Jul 04, 2023 06:17 AM
From: Ghada Dimashk
Subject: Facsimiles vs Reprint

Dear Gordon,

First, sorry for my late reply and thank you for your help...

According to your answer the reproduction will be catalogued separately and we do not consider it an additional copy of the original, and then I link both records (reproduction and the original) using "facsimile of item"

Reproduction record:

245 10 $a Stirring times, or, records from Jerusalem consular chronicles of 1853 to 1856 / $c by James Finn.

264 #1 $a London : $b Forgotten books, $c [2018]

264 #4 $c ©2018

Facsimile of item...

I thought that when we have a facsimile we consider it a copy two and we add the reproduction statement in field 533

533 |a Facsimile |b place of publication (reproduction) : |c publisher (reproduction), |d date (reproduction). |e cm

Or both practices work in this case?

Best Regards,

Ghada

------------------------------
Ghada Dimashk
American University of Beirut
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: Jun 30, 2023 11:10 AM
From: Gordon Dunsire
Subject: Facsimiles vs Reprint

Ghada

These are facsimiles. Differences such as extra title pages and other manifestation statements are ignored in the assessment of reproductions. Manifestation statements in the original are usually reproduced in the facsimile but treated as notes; see Manifestation statements of facsimiles and reproductions for guidance.

Both volumes appear to be photo-reproductions of specific items, complete with stamps and added annotations. These are modified items, and you should not use the element facsimile of manifestation to link the reproduction to the original; instead, use facsimile of item.

I hope this helps!

------------------------------
Gordon Dunsire

Original Message:
Sent: 7/11/2023 10:43:00 AM
From: Gordon Dunsire
Subject: RE: Facsimiles vs Reprint

Ghada

The two approaches you mention are incompatible with each other. With official RDA you describe the reproduction as a distinct manifestation and relate it to the item that is reproduced with a "reproduction of item of" element (domain Manifestation, range Item). I think the "copy two" approach describes the (original) manifestation of the item that is reproduced and uses 533 to give details of the reproduction manifestation, which is the other way round. I'm not sure how the latter approach can accommodate the details of the item that is reproduced, which is clearly modified from its original state.

I'm not a MARC 21 expert, so perhaps colleagues on the listserv can help.

One official RDA workaround is to use a note where the item can be given an unstructured description; e.g. "Facsimile of item modified with library ownership stamps ..."

Sorry I can't be of more help.

------------------------------
Gordon Dunsire
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: Jul 04, 2023 06:17 AM
From: Ghada Dimashk
Subject: Facsimiles vs Reprint

Dear Gordon,

First, sorry for my late reply and thank you for your help...

According to your answer the reproduction will be catalogued separately and we do not consider it an additional copy of the original, and then I link both records (reproduction and the original) using "facsimile of item"

Reproduction record:

245 10 $a Stirring times, or, records from Jerusalem consular chronicles of 1853 to 1856 / $c by James Finn.

264 #1 $a London : $b Forgotten books, $c [2018]

264 #4 $c ©2018

Facsimile of item...

I thought that when we have a facsimile we consider it a copy two and we add the reproduction statement in field 533

533 |a Facsimile |b place of publication (reproduction) : |c publisher (reproduction), |d date (reproduction). |e cm

Or both practices work in this case?

Best Regards,

Ghada

------------------------------
Ghada Dimashk
American University of Beirut
------------------------------