To describe Millard F. Rogers Jr.’s related book, Randolph Rogers: American Sculptor in Rome, I decided to copy catalog the MARC record from the Syracuse University Library record.  As I went through each MARC field, I checked them against OCLC’s standards for MARC.  Beginning with the control number, each field created in the original record seemed to match up with what I had located for the MARC standards.  I did run into a discrepancy towards the end of the record in MARC field 350.  The original record used 350 to record the Trade Price of the book.  When I went to check this against the OCLC standards, I couldn’t locate a 350 field.  Judging by the data for that field, I easily surmised that it was a price for the book.  I then looked for another MARC field to describe this field and found 365 for Trade Price.  Correcting the MARC field, I still didn’t quite realize why the original record still contained 350.  After a little digging, I found that this field had been made obsolete in 1983, 12 years after the book had been published.  The original MARC record now made sense, but I still wonder why the record had not been updated to the 365 field.  Is this because the book is from 1971 and it is commonly known that MARC field 350 for books was used prior to 1983?  Are books prior to 1983 required to contain 350?  How would this field crosswalk with other standards?  If my change is correct and the original record should be changed to reflect this, I would advise that in the future, catalogers pay particular attention to this field to correct the data.  That said, the field is required if applicable and primarily used by the book trade to reference a current price of the item.  Therefore, the field is not crucial to understanding the object nor will it decimate a crosswalk.

-Jennifer Ann Peters

Comments are closed.