Sarah,

We had a very similar circumstance with a periodical.  It was their 50th,
also, but their numbering should have been on v.54.  Our cataloging
department ended up changing the way we cataloged the pieces.  Instead of
numbering by volume and number, i.e. 54:1, etc., we numbered it as 1994:1.
This way the duplicated vols. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 were not confusing to
the patron or to us on the Checkman record.

Take care

Dee Shonkwiler
rdshonk@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

On Thu, 29 Jun 1995, Sarah Tusa wrote:

> Thanks to everyone who responded to my query about the duplicate
> volume numbering of Design News.  If anyone else is curious, I
> had two people say that thay had called the publisher and the
> explanation given was that they wanted vol. 50 to coincide with
> the 50th anniversary of publication, but they miscalculated which
> year they would reach that vol. number, so they repeated vol. 49.
>
> ("The publisher is my tormentor,...)
>
> Some people distinguished between 1993 and 1994 by assigning
> vol designations 49A and 49B, or 49 (1993) and 49A (1994)
>
> Thanks!
> Sarah Tusa
> tusa@lub002.lamar.edu
>