A question for serials catalogers:

I'm looking for more information and some current dialogue on what
the rationale is for creating a new bibliographic record when the
numbering is repeated as a "successive designation" on a serial
that, ostensibly, has not changed its title proper.

The most popular example I can think of is Ms. magazine, which died
in 1989 and was resurrected in 1990 with the same title and same ISSN
(i.e., 0047-8318).  There are 2 records for this in OCLC ... same
title proper (i.e.: Ms.); later title includes 130:
Ms. (New York, N.Y. : 1990)

I've been rummaging around AACR2, LCRI, and CSB's for the last hour
and haven't found much to my satisfaction ... I presume the change
of bib. for repeated numbering designation is to avoid confusion
in the appearance of duplicate holdings information (but couldn't/
wouldn't 5xx notes and chronological designations solve this?).

What I have found, so far, relates to AACR2's 12.3G (successive
designations ... which tells you what to do when the designation
system changes or indicates *new series* ... note the change in
the 362 field and stay on the same record).

CSB 26 (fall 1984), p. 12:  "One Serial or Two?:  In general make separate
records when the numbering system is repeated (e.g. '1' or 'vol. 1' is
used again), and the publisher does not link the old and the new systems
with a designation such as 'new series.'  There are exceptional cases,
of course, when the serial remains essentially the same although the
numbering starts again and there is no linking designation, but normally
a new numbering system suggests that other changes have taken place,
meaning that one is a new serial."

Leong's Serials Cataloging Handbook (1989), p.102-103 more or less
suggests the same as CSB 26.

I'm wondering if folks could elaborate on decisions they've made
in creating a new bib. record ... or modifying the existing record
when encountering repeated numbering schemes.  Is there some other
authoritative source that I have missed (a later CSB, perhaps??)
that might elaborate on what the "exceptional case" might look like
OR, offer some rationale as to why two bib. records are warranted.

I've encountered a couple of state publications within the past
few weeks that have kept their title proper, publisher, and
frequency ... but for some strange reason, they've decided to change
their look or style (just a tad) and repeat their original numbering
scheme.  My inclination is generally to go for creating a new record
... because of the confusing holdings displays and the documentation
I've just cited.  But the 2 index entries are often confusing to
patrons.

Am I missing something painfully obvious in any of this?

Birdie MacLennan
University of Vermont
bmaclenn@uvmvm.bitnet
bmaclenn@uvmvm.uvm.edu