3 messages:
______

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:35:54 +0100 (CET)
From: JHM.Houtkamp@UBVU.VU.NL
Subject: Re: Holdings for Serials Reprints (David Howard)

Hallo, in similar situations we use the record for the original publication,
with holding: Vol. 1 (1955)-... We add a holding-annotation: Vol. 1-4:
Reprint ed. <impressum>

Hope this is of help to you,
Anneke Houtkamp

***************************
  JHM.Houtkamp@ubvu.vu.nl
     tel. 020-4445152
***************************

_____

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 17:10:42 -0500 (EST)
From: CFTREMPE@hawk.syr.edu
Subject: Re: Holdings for Serials Reprints (David Howard)

In order to avoid having 2 bibliographic records in cases when our
run includes both original and reprint vols., we use the record for
the original, assuming most of our vols. are the original, and add a
590-note to the effect that some vols. are the reprint ed.; the note
includes the imprint of the reprint.  In cases where there is a clear
break, we give the precise vols. that are the reprint; if they are
scattered throughout the run, we create a more generic note.  We
create one ldr on the original record for all holdings in the union
list.

Charles Tremper
head, serials unit
Syraucse University Library

_____

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 17:00:39 -0800
From: Mitch Turitz <turitz@SFSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Holdings for Serials Reprints (David Howard)

David:
  this is the classic problem of the rules conflicting with local usage.
Technically, if you follow AACR2R to the letter you should only have the
holdings for the original on the record with the original, and only the
holdings for the reprint on the reprint record.

  HOWEVER, you need to determine how your library and your patrons will
best benefit from the online records.  Although the reprint will have a
note "Reprint of a publication originally issued ... " on it, most
patrons are not going to read that far down into the record to figure out
what is going on with two records for the (apparently) same title.  It is
my non-scientific observation that most patrons will stop when they find
what they (think they) are looking for.

  So I would recommend that you, at a minimum, put ALL of your holdings
into the record for the original, perhaps noting which volumes are for
the reprint.  (I am assuming that they all get the same call number or
are all shelved together).  The reprint could have just the holdings for
the reprint on it and indicate that more complete holdings are listed on
the record for the original title.  You might even consider removing the
record for reprint from you catalog if no one objects (cataloging dept,
reference, etc.).

  I hope that helps.

-- Mitch

  _^_                                                 _^_
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
 |   |                                               |   |
 |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
 |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
 |   |     Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu                 |   |
 |   |                                               |   |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
   V                                                   V

"Before the beginning of great brillance, there must be chaos.
     Before a brilliant person begins something great,
           they must look foolish to the crowd."
                    -- from the I Ching