Re: Serial record: our catalog versus the OCLC record Kevin M Randall 26 Oct 2012 15:09 UTC
I seriously doubt that #1782411 was successive entry at any time in the recent past (meaning the last 60 years or so). It is an LC CONSER record covering title changes that occurred in the 1940s, and it has an LCCN from 1948. If you look at the 11 institution records linked to this record, you will see that all of them but one are also coded as latest entry. The lone IR coded as successive entry (#145756567) is actually miscoded, since it has a "title varies" note giving the history of titles that the publication had.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
> [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Hall, Jack
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 6:58 AM
> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Serial record: our catalog versus the OCLC record
> Thanks, Steve. I truly do not believe anybody here used the latest entry
> record and changed it into successive entry. I have been here longer than
> we have had the record (dating back to before OCLC even had a format
> for serials). Only professional catalogers have ever cataloged serials here
> and we have never used latest entry. . I think the fact that hundreds of
> libraries have their holdings on the record strongly implies this as well. So
> many libraries would not have used a latest entry record. I'm convinced
> the successive entry record in OCLC got changed to latest entry after we
> used it.