-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: Question on cataloging what I think are old blackline prints
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:55 -0400
From:   Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
<[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
References:     <[log in to unmask]>



The current way of descriptively providing this information is to put the type of reproduction method
in the 300$b instead of using "photocopy" there and then adding a 500 notes. Saves on a couple of steps!

So, like this:

007  $a a $b j $d a $e a $f z $g b $h b
300 1 map : $b negative blackline print ; $c 50 x 60 cm.

and thus you never have to use a 500 note to be specific about the
type of reproduction, plus you eliminate the less-than-ideal term
"photocopy" which 99.9% of our patrons automatically think the
original map was put on a photocopier and one or more copies made from it.


Paige

At 12:03 PM 3/30/2010, Angie Cope wrote:
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:        Question on cataloging what I think are old blackline prints
>Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:58:17 -0500
>From:   Angie Cope <[log in to unmask]>
>Organization:   American Geographical Society Library
>To:     Maps-L <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>I don't know what the reproduction method is called but in terms of
>cataloging ... it's an uncolored, negative photocopy (light or white
>lines on dark blue or black background.)
>
>007  $a a $b j $d a $e a $f z $g b $h b
>300 1 map : $b photocopy ; $c 50 x 60 cm.
>500 Negative.
>
>That's from Paige's book on cataloging sheet maps.
>
>Angie
>AGSL
>UW Milwaukee Libraries
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:        Question on cataloging what I think are old blackline prints
>Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:29:51 -0500
>From:   Susan Moore <[log in to unmask]>
>To:     [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>Dear collective wisdom:
>
>I'm cataloging a group of maps from the Iowa State Planning Board from
>the late 1920s to mid 1930s. They look to be blackline prints but there
>are several that look like negatives, though they're on paper. I haven't
>seen anything else like this and was wondering if anyone else has
>encountered something like this.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Susan Moore
>University of Northern Iowa
>Cedar Falls, IA  50613
>[log in to unmask]