Either is correct except that the copyright date is entered in $c in the 264 4 (Option 1), not $a. Option 2 is preferred by LC internally (probably only to save time). Logic suggests that Option 1 is only necessary if the copyright date differs from the date in the 264 1. PCC??? John G. Marr DACS Zimmerman Library University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87010 [log in to unmask] **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"** Martha Watson Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted. From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:23 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [PCCLIST] Copyright, RDA, MARC 264: both second indicator 1 and 4 or 1 only? This is a current topic on RDA-L, which I would really like to have confirmed by PCC: Regarding the proper PCC endorsed way to record date of publication in MARC when the _only_ date available is copyright, which option is correct and where is it documented? (example below cribbed and modified from the one posted at RDA-L) Option 1 DtSt: t Dates: 2014,2014 264 _1 $a Eugene, Oregon : $b Pickwick Publications, $c [2014] 264 _4 $a (c)2014 Or Option 2 DtSt: s Dates: 2014 264 _1 $a Eugene, Oregon : $b Pickwick Publications, $c [2014] I have a 2013 AUTOCAT email from an LC employee claiming that the Option 2 is preferred and 2013 personal emails from catalogers at a PCC level former RDA-test institution strongly claiming that Option 1 is preferred. And I now see a recent email at RDA-L also advocating Option 2. But I would still like PCC confirmation. Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> CRL website: www.crl.edu<http://www.crl.edu>