APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101952518


From: "Elissa Scalise Powell, CGRS" <>
Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: [APG] Original sources
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:55:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200412012258.iB1MwAJJ010950@mail.rootsweb.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mills [mailto:]
>
> 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?

No. I actually do try to use Allegheny County, Pennsylvania microfilm
anywhere else but in Allegheny County since our library's copy of the film
is so scratched it is almost unreadable in places. Frequent usage has broken
off the front leader and sometimes the first few pages. This is the same
edition as many other libraries' film but has peculiarities of the physical
film due to where it is located, ie the repository. So citing the repository
may be important. No?

-- Elissa



This thread: