2 messages, 41 lines:
-------------------------

Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:03:03 CDT
From:         Kathleen L. Wells <NOTKLW@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Same title, repeated numbering, new bib.

I think the only "painfully obvious" thing about serials is that so little is,
in fact, obvious.  In the case of publications that start their numbering
over without changing title or ISSN, I see a choice between confusing
patrons with two bibliographic records, or confusing them (and shelvers)
with two sets of volumes that have the same call number and repeating
numbering schemes.  The addition of a date to the call numbers might or
might not be enough to keep the two vol.1's, etc. from being shelved
together.  I generally opt for the creation of a new record with a
slightly different Cutter number in order to keep the two sets from
getting mixed up on the shelves.

Kathleen L. Wells (notklw@lsuvm.bitnet)
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
LSU Libraries, Baton Rouge

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:11:44 PDT
From:         George Janczyn <janczyn%nowalls.ucsd.edu@SDSC.BITNET>
Subject:      Ms. magazine

Regarding Birdie's question about Ms. magazine and its "title change."

Ultimately, my decision to go with the new record was based on the
fact that not only did they start the numbering all over again, but
the publishers stated that there would be SUBSTANTIVE differences in
the content and format of the magazine.  First, the articles looked
more scholarly, and secondly, they no longer accepted advertising.

It is unfortunate the publishers did not choose to call it a new
series, which it really is, but I believe the rules were applied
correctly in creating the new record.

George J. Janczyn
Acting Head, Serials Cataloging
University of California, San Diego
janczyn@nowalls.ucsd.edu