APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101941891


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Original sources
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:58:45 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20041201211414.26270109966@ws6-4.us4.outblaze.com>


Chad wrote:
<I do think it is important to cite the repository. For microfilm, this
would be the repository at which you examined the film (since some other
repository could have a better/worse quality print). >


But Chad, if one *repository* has a poor quality film and another
*repository* has a good quality, wouldn't that difference be due to which
film *edition* or *publication* that is being used, rather than the
repository itself?

As a well known example, Library X might have purchased the first NARA
edition of the 1850 census of Rapides Parish, Louisiana (two pages to a
frame), while Library Z might have purchased the newer filming that NARA did
with just one page to a frame (or it might have AGLL's reproduction of
NARA's newer film). By citing the publisher and its edition or filming date,
we identify the difference much more precisely than just citing the library
where we consulted it. No?

Elizabeth


This thread: