2 messages, 52 lines:
-------------------------

Date:         Thu, 13 May 1993 16:15:48 MDT
From:         Grace Gonzales-Small <ggs@LIB.NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Popular Photography

Martin Helgesen wrote:

>Popular photography (0032-4582) (OCLC #1762661 has done something
>strange with its numbering.  The January - April 1993 issues are
>v. 100: no. 1-4, which is consistent with previous years.  May 1993
>is marked v. 57: no. 1 and June 1993 is marked v.57: no.2.  Does
>anyone on the list know what is going on?

Martin,
I spoke to our acct. rep. from faxon today, she informed me that the
volume & number has indeed changed with the May 1993 issue.  She had
called the pub. to verify this.

Grace
---------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 13 May 1993 15:59:18 CDT
From:         Kevin M Randall <KRANDAL@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Popular Photography

Martin:  Funny thing, I just received the latest issue of Popular Photography
in the mail last night, and they have an "explanation" for this strange
volume numbering situation.  (Their notice referred to the "concerned
librarians" who had inquired about it.)

A long time ago, the magazine had been published in two volumes per year; some
time later it changed to one volume per year, and that explains why the volume
numbering had been higher than the number of years the magazine had been in
existence.  Apparently, the editors wanted the volume number to reflect the
number of years of publication, thus the sudden change.  They make some
allusion to legal counsel advising them to do this, but I can't make my
imagination stretch enough to figure out WHY such advice would ever be given!

Upon reading their notice, I felt like responding to them as another
"concerned librarian", asking how this was supposed to help the situation
any.  So now libraries--if holdings are extensive enough--have to figure out
how to deal with two different volumes called "v. 57" (or whatever number
it is; I don't have the issue with me), and decades more duplicate volume
numbers to come.

This is an instance of trying to correct a (supposed) mistake only to make the
situation worse.

Kevin M. Randall
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Northwestern University Library