I would recommend that, if you are going to splice reels together, someone
who has some bibliographic experience is involved in some way.  It's very
confusing if earlier and later titles are spliced together on the same reel,
even if the volume numbering is continued from one title change to another.

Another factor to consider is the cost of replacement of the microfilm.  If
you splice four reels together and the spliced reel becomes damaged or lost,
you would probably have to purchase all four of the original reels to
replace the one spliced reel that was lost or damaged, assuming that this
was microfilm that was produced commercially.

I also think that the condition of the film would be a factor in considering
whether to splice.  If the film is already cracked or brittle, I'm not sure
that it would be a good candidate for splicing.

These opinions are strictly my own and do not represent an official position
from my library.

Gene Dickerson
Cataloging Unit Head
National Library of Medicine

-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Pope [mailto:bpope@PITTSTATE.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:52 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Ref ?: splicing microfilm

Hi, Mary.  I would not be splicing together different titles, but
different volumes from the same title.  For example, if we had volumes 1
through 4 of a certain title and each was taking up less than 1/4 of the
roll, it would save a lot of space to put them all on the same roll.  I
haven't committed to this yet.  I am just thinking about it.

Barbara

Mary Massey wrote:

>Dan,
>
>When I worked at UF many years ago, the reels of microfilm with
>multiple titles were a "bear" to catalog. Yes, the bound with notes
>were used, but that meant loading all of the titles with that similar
>note so that no matter which title was searched, you knew what other
>titles appeared on the same film. It does save space, but I don't
>recommend it for ease of usage by the patron. It does reflect your
>institution's cataloging prowess though. At University of South
>Carolina, we have been putting in analytics for Early English Books,
>but we are using the reel number and position of the item on the reel
>as indicators of its inclusiveness in a larger range of materials.
>Monographs are easier for these links than serials, take my word for
>it.  Film is still a good product and if kept away from rubber bands,
>will live a long time with decent clarity. Digital relies totally on
>the computers. When the computers go down, you have nothing. Even if
>our electricity goes out, we have magnifying glasses and battery
>powered lights to illuminate the information.
>
>
>
>
>Tinker Massey
>University of South Carolina
>MMassey@gwm.sc.edu
>
>
>
>>>>Dan Lester <dan@riverofdata.com> 8/9/2005 4:47:51 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Tuesday, August 9, 2005, 11:32:28 AM, you wrote:
>
>BP> Hi, everybody.  I was wondering if anyone out there knows anything
>about
>BP> splicing microfilm together.  I have learned that my predecessor
>spliced
>BP> several rolls of a title together in order to save on space.  Are
>there
>BP> any good books or websites out there that will tell me how to do
>this?
>
>Well, look for things on film splicing. It is the same for microfilm as
>35mm movie film, 16mm movie film, etc.  However, I find it amazing that
>someone would be SO desperate for space that it would possibly be worth
>the effort of splicing microfim together.  And, it would undoubtedly
>make an interesting problem for the catalogers.  Would this make it a
>"bound with" note?
>
>dan
>
>
>