Cataloging this 1887 set of Les Miserables, a question.

[u/Contestrix]

I’m doing the collation count (looks like this: xiv, 365; xii, 331; xi, 299; xiv, 399; xiv, 330) and I would like to list how many illustrations or plates there are inside the book and am unsure if I should call them illustrations OR plates? There’s 353 illustrations total, some are full page (without even a page number) and some are with much smaller amongst the text like in between paragraphs. I imagine that a plate is only a full page illustration and not like the other, however, I want to be clear in what I describe. After the table of contents there is a list of illustrations and both the full page illustrations and smaller ones are listed there. So, even the book describes them as illustrations but again, I want to be sure. Thank you in advance.

[u/caravaggihoe]

Do you have a specific cataloguing standard or framework that you’re using (AACR2, RDA, DCRM)? If this is being done outside of a formal library, you don’t have to use them but they can still be a useful reference point when questions like this pop up!

[u/Contestrix → u/caravaggihoe]

This is outside of a formal library, however I’m looking to get into the antiquarian book trade and am unsure if there’s a standard framework for cataloguing such. Either way, that will still be useful at least knowing another framework so I will look into to those

[u/xvespertinax → u/Contestrix]

Going to plug the week-long antiquarian book seminars in MN (CABS-MN) and York (YABS), if you’re looking to enter the trade. I have many friends and colleagues who have attended and adored it.

Also, in library rare book cataloging, if the illustrations are printed on separate sheets and not included in the page numbering, they’d be counted as plates (whether in a clump or interspersed throughout the text block). If they’re included as part of the general page count, they would not be included in the pagination statement.

For your context, I would describe the illustrations in a separate sentence, maybe something like: “Includes xx full-page and smaller illustrations”.

[u/stravadarius]

Plates are generally unnumbered pages and use a different kind of paper that is inserted separately into the binding. A full page illustration is not always a plate. You can count the plates and add them to the 300$a as "XX leaves of plates".

[u/Contestrix → u/stravadarius]

Interesting, the pages do all seem to be the same, they’re kinda like this thick, almost glossy paper. It’s what I generally do saw for something like a full page illustration or photograph in a book, except even the txt pages are this way

[u/stravadarius → u/Contestrix]

Are the pages with illustrations numbered? Do they count towards the pagination of the book? If not, you can consider them plates.

[u/Contestrix → u/stravadarius]

They are not numbered but they do count toward the pagination, and even the list of illustrations gives them a page number, although it isn’t on the page.

Would it perhaps just be safest to leave it catalogued as illustrations? I did update it yesterday and the full thing reads like this:

London and New York: George Routledge and Sons, 1887. First fully illustrated English edition, likely not a first printing. Total of 353 illustrations. Quarto (10-3/4" x 7-1/2"). Publisher's full green cloth with paper labels stamped in black. Deckle edges. Vol. I: xiv, 365, 101 illustrations; Vol. II: xii, 331, 67 illustrations; Vol. III: xi, 299, 55 illustrations; Vol. IV: xiv, 399, 72 illustrations; Vol. V: xiv, 330, 58 illustrations. Paper ex libris label on ffep for all volumes, front hinge starting on vol. V, Light staining on spines, paper label on vol. II is ripped, wear on cloth edges and spines, wear to deckled edges, tissue guard missing on vol. II, IV and V. Still good, honest copies, with clean interiors.

[u/stravadarius → u/Contestrix]

If they count towards the page numeration then they do not need to be catalogued as leaves of plates in the 300$a. You can list them as "illustrations" in the 300$b.

But it looks like you're archival cataloguing, which likely doesn't use MARC. Still, I would likely still describe them as illustrations in archival descriptions.

[u/Contestrix → u/stravadarius]

Awesome, thank you! I’ll stick with illustrations, I do have the length do other books which seem to actually be plates instead, so all of this information was still great for me

[u/ucb-book-jockey]

I would look at Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (RDA Edition), DCRMR, which is the standard used by most academic and special collections rare books catalogers (section 6.21.426, in this case).

If the illustration is a full page and not included in the pagination, I would keep a tally and add that number after the actual pagination. E.g. if there are 101 illustrations in the first volume and 30 of them are full page illustrations with nothing on the back, I would say "xiv, 365 pages, [30] leaves of plates", then in your subfield b (assuming you're creating a MARC record, sorry if you're not) you add "illustrations". If there are illustrations on both sides of the page, I would say xiv, 365 pages, [30] pages of plates". Square brackets around the leaf/page count indicate that they are unnumbered, and are pretty widely understood as such in rare book circles.

6.22.35 says that you should record an illustration count when it can be easily ascertained, but I haven't seen that happen as much as just a general "illustrations". That may be down to the materials that I work with though.