--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:06:40 -0600
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Cataloging: 007 & 534 with manuscript reproductions? (fw
 
 
     I haven't been using a 510 when what would be in there actually
     refers to what is in the 534 for mechanical reproductions. I didn't
     think we were supposed to. I didn't take the time to look up where
     I got that idea, except that I didn't write it into my maps format
     book.
 
 
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
>Subject: Cataloging: 007 & 534 with manuscript reproductions? (fwd)
>Author:  Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]> at
>sos08410
>Date:    9/24/98 9:49 AM
 
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:03:04
>From: John Buelow <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Cataloging: 007 & 534 with manuscript reproductions?
 
[this message is being cross-posted on AUTOCAT]
 
 
When a manuscript map explicitly states that it is a copy or a tracing of
an earlier map--or when an extremly close ressemblance is obvious--it seems
useful to give particulars of the original in a 534.  May I do so, or is
that field reserved for the originals of exact mechanical reproductions?
And how shall I complete the final three boxes on the Map format 007?
 
The cases in hand concern copies of the Visscher map or its analogues, all
well illustrated in Tooley 1980, The Mapping of America, which I'd like to
cite in a 510.  May I get away with using the 510 for citations which
actually refer to the 534?
 
 
John Buelow
New York Historical Society
[log in to unmask]
 
--- End Forwarded Message ---