It is only redundant if you index your 655s in the same index as the 650.  If you have a separate genre/form index for terms describing what something IS rather than what it's ABOUT, then users would expect to find large type books in the genre/form index when what you have is an exemplar of one.  The LCSH scope note notwithstanding, really the only correct coding for an exemplar of a large type book is 655.  650 really ought to be reserved for terms describing what something is about.

Adam Schiff

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, John Lavalie wrote:

> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:21:49 +0000
> From: John Lavalie <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Large type books as a genre
> 
>
> So, if appropriate, a term such as “Large type books”, which exists in LCSH, can be coded in 655 in a bibliographic record, with second indicator “0” indicating that the term comes from LCSH:
>
> 655 _0 Large type books.
>
> This is true of any form/genre term found in LCSH.
>
> But the authority record for large type books explicity says to use 650 in this case, so 655 0 would be redundant.
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~