Thank you, Ron.  What I was trying to provoke was a realisation that, 
     when changes are made to a zinc transfer or electrotype derived from a 
     copper plate, they may result in new issues of the map or chart, but 
     they don't affect the state of the source copper.  I have seen too many 
     cases where a publisher has reverted to the unamended copper, after a 
     series of issues from successive states of a zinc transfer, but has not 
     re-incorporated all the revisions from the zinc before re-issuing 
     direct from the copper.  So it may look earlier when in fact it is 
     later than the derived zinc it replaces.  
     
     One probably shouldn't describe a map or chart as being in a 
     particular state, but as having been printed from a particular state 
     of a certain printing surfaces, whether that is copper or derived 
     zinc or electrotype.  So while it can be useful to derive data from 
     an impression in cataloguing a copper plate, it's important to 
     recognise that copper plates and other printing surfaces derived from 
     them can have different and separate histories.
     
     I try to refer to states of plates by their dates, or by essaying 
     their likely dates, or by other features, rather than by ordinal 
     numbers, so as to avoid the awkwardness of having to propose 
     re-numbering states when I find an new intermediate one.  I learnt 
     this from reading the cartobibliographies in the Harry Margary OS 
     facsimile atlases.
     
     Andrew
     
     Dr Andrew S Cook
     Map Archivist
     India Office Records
     The British Library
     96 Euston Road              Telephone +44 20 7412 7828
     London NW1 2DB               Fax +44 20 7412 7641/7858
     United Kingdom               E-mail: [log in to unmask]

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________ Subject: Re: Copper plates: latest states
Author:  "Ronald Whistance-Smith" <[log in to unmask]> at Internet 
Date:    18/09/2000 11:28 AM

Obviously the copper plate in hand, is in it's latest state.  However, in 
cataloguing, would we not want to say, for example, "6th state"?  In order 
to make such a statement, one would require copies of all the states of that 
particular map.  We've all seen maps printed from copper plates which were 
in a state which we knew did not agree with the date given in the printed 
version.  Still, we would record the engraved date and edition as given on 
the map, or, in this case, on the plate.  Isn't that one of the nightmares 
of the cartobibliographer?  Early O.S. maps are the most frequently 
encountered examples.  Other examples however, are less likely to produce a 
definitive statement regarding state as the cataloguer is even less likely 
to be sure of having consulted all states printed from a given plate.  Thus 
we frequently encounter "7th state?"
     
I think Andrew has asked a question not raised by Velma's statement 
regarding cataloguing of copper plates.
     
Ron Whistance-Smith
Not a cataloguer, but interested.
     


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%