2 messages, 48 lines:
-------------------------

Date:         Fri, 14 May 1993 17:26:15 CDT
From:         Kevin M. Randall <KRANDAL@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Popular Photography

Regarding creating a new entry for Popular Photography:

I think the intent of the publisher can be taken into account in this
situation, since they stated it.  Their intent was not really to start
a "new" publication in any way--nothing has changed in regard to the
content of the magazine; they just did it for some strange, unknown "legal"
reason (which I'd still like to more know about).  Thus, I think a new
record would be totally unnecessary.  Perhaps a 362 field could look
something like this:

362:0 :    -v. XXX, no. X (Apr. 1993) ; <new ser.>, v. 51, no. 1 (May 1993)-

The X's are because I'm not sure right now what the numbers were; and I
might have the months wrong, since I'm not looking at any of the pieces;
but you get the general idea.  A 515 note can explain why the volume
numbering changed.

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

-------------------------
Date:         Fri, 14 May 1993 15:10:37 PST
From:         Linda Horiuchi <HORIUCHI@WSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Popular Photography

A couple of suggestions to solve the "Popular photography" dilemma from
a disgruntled staff member and myself:

1) Send claim notices to the publisher for v. 100, no. 5.  If all the
libraries who subscribe to this title keep innundating the publisher
with claim notices, maybe they'll get the picture and go back to the
old volume numbering.

2) Get them to change their title as well; we think "Unpopular
photography" might be apt in this situation.

Linda Horiuchi
Serials Cataloger
Washington State University