Hello,
My library has a lot of microfilm copies of continuing resources that were originally published in print (mostly old newspapers). We've usually cataloged these reproductions according to the guidance in LC-PCC PS 1.11 from the Original Toolkit and the new MGD for "Reproductions--Photocopies" by describing the original work in the body of the record and the microform copy in a 533 Reproduction Note.
Sometimes, a major title change will occur on a volume within a single reel of microfilm so that there are volumes on the same reel that would correspond to records for earlier and later titles for the print version. We've handled this situation at the item level by putting a note in the item record where the change occurs mentioning the change(s) and attaching the item to the bib record for the microfilm version of the earliest title found on the reel.
However, I'm working on a reel of microfilm now that makes me question this approach.
The reel is for a copy of the newspaper "Nashua gazette & Hillsborough County advertiser" from November 15, 1828 to May 3, 1833. The microfilm was produced by Graphic Microfilm of New England. At first glance, this seems like a perfect match for OCLC # 952806976, which describes the print version of the serial in the body of the record and has a 533 field for the microfilm copy. However, there are volumes of two other serials filmed in the middle of the reel that I have ("New Hampshire telegraph" and "Nashua herald"). The 533 note on OCLC # 952806976 doesn't mention these other serials, and I can't find any other records that have all of these titles together. We wouldn't have produced this film ourselves, but I have no way of knowing whether Graphic Microfilm of New England included this extra content only on our copy of this reel or whether it's on other copies of the same reel that they produced for this serial.
I could handle this similarly to the way I've handled reels with title changes in the past: Use OCLC # 952806976 and mention the extra content in a note in the item record for this reel. However, the presence of the extra content might mean that I don't have a match to this record. If this was a print record, this might be a situation that would require a "With note" (501) and OCLC's "When to input a new record" guidelines say, "Absence, presence, or difference in field 501 justifies a new record." So, I could create a new record with a 533 subfield $n that mentions the extra content on our copy of this reel and maybe add a subfield $5 to the field with our OCLC symbol.
However, my main concern is that the presence of the volumes of the two other serials makes this an aggregate, meaning that I can't base the body of my description on the print version because what I have isn't an exact microfilm copy of the print version. For that matter, have I been incorrectly documenting title changes only at the item record for these microfilm copies? In other words, if my microform doesn't match the print version, either because of extra content or a change of title within a reel that reflects multiple print records, should I base my description on the microform reproduction instead and describe the original continuing resource in a 534 note (or multiple 534 notes)?
Zahra Gordon
New Hampshire State Library
------------------------------
Zahra Gordon
Cataloger
New Hampshire State Library
------------------------------