Thanks, Robert, and Amy, Benjamin, John and Jennifer. I sent a separate response to Jennifer.
As I said in that response to Jennifer, my instinct suggests that the Haymarket editions of the books are in a separate series that needs its own authority record, but I believe I’m a little behind on my seriesology, and I’m disinclined to go against majority wisdom. I do see the practical benefit to proceedings as if there is just one series, shared between two publishers. For the moment at least I’m going to follow your advice.
The existing authority record already treats the series as numbered/unnumbered. Doesn’t it need a 643 for Haymarket? How might we need to qualify that 643 in a $d subfield? I suppose a 667 might also be helpful.
John Marr, you suggested treating the series statement in the Haymarket books to be merely a reprinting of Brill’s series statement. I don’t think that would be precisely accurate. Haymarket’s website has a section for their “HM series” (as the website calls it), as if the series belongs to Haymarket as much as it does Brill. It feels like a case of parallel publication in different countries, with the added complication of the numbers dropping off the Haymarket editions.
I agree with Amy. Also the current policy is that change in numbering (numbered or unnumbered) does not create a new series work. And series can change (or share) publishers without becoming a new series. Catalogers still need to make a judgment whether two collections with the same series name are the same series or not, but we need to use other criteria to make that judgment. In this case since the series have the same title, they contain the same monographs, I’d say they’re the same series, and as Amy says it would be useful to supply the numbering if one of the publishers omits it.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
I am going to answer from a practical viewpoint, without digging around in the rules. I believe that it would be most useful to users to supply the numbering in the cases that Haymarket omits it, and to use one authority record for both publishers. This would allow a user looking for number x of the series to find either edition quickly.
Hello wise ones,
I am going to ask people on this list a question that I would previously have addressed to my great Vanderbilt colleague Ann Ercelawn, who has, sadly (for me), retired. She knew more about series than me and when she didn’t know the answer she knew the right people to ask.
Brill publishes a series called Historical materialism book series, for which authority record n 2002096283 was made. It is a numbered series. However, Haymarket Books in Chicago has republished many books in this series in paperback, using the same series statement. The Haymarket editions do not always have numbering, however—my first impression is that early on they may have used the same number as Brill at least sometimes, but that the volumes have been unnumbered for quite some time. There are a couple of PCC records for Haymarket editions in which the cataloger bracketed in a series number taken from the Brill website (there is an explicit note to that effect).
Haymarket has been doing this since 2005. Shouldn’t there be a separate authority record for the Haymarket series? There is not; nor is there an additional 643 on the Brill authority record for Chicago and Haymarket. The numbering fixed field is set at “c” on the Brill authority, however, perhaps because of the lack of numbering on Haymarket editions.
Thanks for any help you can give!