The printers Clays Ltd has the following variations:

http://www.biblio.gs/credit/19568-Clays-Ltd - 38 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26996-Clays-Limited - 3 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/27995-Clays-Ltd - 9 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/20576-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives - 1 entry
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26032-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc - 32 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/37570-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-Plc - 1 entry
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/37803-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc - 2 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/39047-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc - 1 entry
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26859-Clays - 3 entries

website here: http://www.clays.co.uk/

Any preference for the main profile name? I'd personally go for:
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26032-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc
as its popular and also clearly defines the location (St Ives). Opinions?

"Any preference for the main profile name? I'd personally go for:
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26032-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc
as its popular and also clearly defines the location (St Ives). Opinions?" -wespier

I agree with this.

It's unfortunate that so many books are being uploaded without images of the title page and colophon. Without images, it's hard to see how it's normally displayed.

If this measure is approved, then we need to update all the other profiles with some kind of DO NOT USE warning and a caution image like we used to at Discogs.

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately I'm one of the guilty party in missing out the colophon, especially with my earlier submissions. Magazines are easy but I was more worried about damaging the spine on some books.

I think the sooner we sort out some of these variations the better. Will save a mass edit at a later date. A 'DO NOT USE' would be good.

"Magazines are easy but I was more worried about damaging the spine on some books. "

I hear that. I should probably start a 'best practices' thread in terms of imaging and scanning so that we can all share our experiences.

"I think the sooner we sort out some of these variations the better. Will save a mass edit at a later date. A 'DO NOT USE' would be good."

Absolutely. And since there are so few of us that are active, getting majority approval shouldn't take too long. Perhaps 3 or 4 votes in unison should do the trick?

I think a lot more research might need to be done before a mass merge like this, as with discogs it is probably best to have different profiles for company name changes or different locations which some of these might be.

Obviously some are the same but maybe the one with St Ives is a different location or a name change after merging with another company? I vote to proceed with caution before making any assumptions.

I see what you're saying Matador. Maybe we need to come up with strong evidence for a merge before proceeding.

Tricky indeed. Just this morning, I was submitting two different editions of The Little Prince.

The copyright of this one states Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
http://www.biblio.gs/book/45793-The-Little-Prince

The copyright of this one states Harcourt, Inc.
http://www.biblio.gs/book/45808-The-Little-Prince

Not impossible, but it's going to be difficult to sort these types of variations out.

I'm bumping this, as I have no clue which profile to use... Update:

http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26859-Clays - 4 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26996-Clays-Limited - 3 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/27995-Clays-Ltd - 10 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/19568-Clays-Ltd - 48 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/20576-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives - 1 entry
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/26032-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc - 58 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/37570-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-Plc - 1 entry
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/37803-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc - 2 entries
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/39047-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc - 1 entry

My preference would be on http://www.biblio.gs/credit/19568-Clays-Ltd just because:

but maybe the one with St Ives is a different location or a name change after merging with another company?

St Ives Group is the parent company, they have owned the company since 1985 - which was prior to the name change from Richard Clay Ltd to Clays Ltd (which happened in 1989)

I entered:
https://www.biblio.gs/book/67742-Malory-Complete-Works
https://www.biblio.gs/book/74336-Not-Exactly-Ghosts
https://www.biblio.gs/book/74340-Night-Shivers-The-Ghost-Stories-of-Mrs-J-H-Riddell

They all say:
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc

So that seems to be what they're using.

St Ives Group is the parent company, they have owned the company since 1985 - which was prior to the name change from Richard Clay Ltd to Clays Ltd (which happened in 1989)
Doesn't that make it clear it's the same company/ownership? If it says Clays Ltd, it's the company owned by St. Ives. I'd keep them under one profile. If St. Ives sells Clays, create a new profile then.
Not impossible, but it's going to be difficult to sort these types of variations out.
Re: Harcourt,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harcourt_(publisher)#Harcourt_General_and_Harcourt.2C_Inc.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (1970-1993)
Harcourt Brace & Company (1921-1931; reintroduced 1993-1999)
Harcourt, Inc. (First used 1999)
I'd keep these separate, because there was a string of ownership changes and/or mergers.

By the way, I moved slight punctuation variations of Clays Ltd, St Ives plc to the most common profile. I didn't touch Clays, Clays Ltd., or Clays Limited.

I though carrots gave you a quote? Doesn't seem to work anymore?

They all say: Clays Ltd, St Ives plc. So that seems to be what they're using.

They don't all say that. There are books that say "Clays Ltd" or just "Clays", that's why all those pages exist.

Their website uses "Clays" and "Clays Ltd":
https://www.clays.co.uk/
https://www.clays.co.uk/about-clays/contact-us/

The company name registered in Companies House is "Clays Ltd."

And yeah, it seems the quote thingie is not working at the moment/any more.

By "They all say" I was merely referencing the items I'd entered.

And their website may say Clays or Clays Ltd, but at the same time:

"For all sales and general enquiries – please contact Rebecca Souster at:
[email protected] [dot] uk"

And:

"[email protected]
© 2016 St Ives plc"

So their website repeatedly references the St Ives connection.

So their website repeatedly references the St Ives connection.

Of course, because St Ives owns the company, but IMO it's something that belongs to the profile, not the primary name. I mean if the books had "Clays Ltd, a division of St Ives plc" we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

right, i've contacted Clays Ltd about this. let's hope we get a response!

Did you get a response?

nothing worth mentioning.

I think that Clays Ltd should be the credit, with Clays Ltd, St Ives plc or Clays as an ANV.

I agree that Clays Ltd makes sense as the credit.

I've merged the "Clays Ltd, St Ives plc" credits.

Do we have a consensus that all the profiles below should be merged into the main one? (https://www.biblio.gs/credit/26032-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc/)

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/19568-Clays-Ltd
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/26996-Clays-Limited
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/27995-Clays-Ltd

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/26859-Clays

Do we have a consensus...

Based on the comments above, I don't think so. :(

Ah well, let's leave it for now then I guess. I might merge the Ltd/Limited profiles later.

I like how people are merging all these entries without an agreement... ;-)

I think at the moment it's more important to have everything under one entry. We can always rename the entry if the majority thinks that Clays Ltd should be the credit.

I don't feel a discussion or agreement is really necessary in cases where it's obviously the same company name with a variation in abbreviation or punction (such as: x Ltd -- x Ltd. -- x, Ltd -- x Limited).

I agree, we should just put everything in one profile. I'm pretty sure most of the submission under Clays Ltd actually have Clays Ltd, St Ives plc printed on the release anyway.

I'm gonna wait with merging Clays Ltd entries until we have a decision here.
I suggest we wait a few more days and then do a tally of people's opinions.

I would suggest we are guided by what the legal entity is. For UK businesses, Companies House website may be helpful. (There is a charge for some types of information, but checks of basic details are free). https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company

In the specific case of Clays Ltd, it tells us the company number (00342498) registered office (One Tudor Street, London, EC4Y 0AH), date of incorporation (14 July 1938) previous names (RICHARD CLAY LTD 14 Jul 1938 - 01 Dec 1989 ) and details of directors. It has some information about dissolved companies, but these seem to be purged after a while. Sites such as this may be useful for long-dissolved businesses https://companycheck.co.uk/ .

“Clays Ltd, St Ives plc” is not a single legal entity, but two. I tend to go along with mirva’s comment that this is actually a short form of “Clays Ltd, a division of St Ives plc” and information about the parent company is best recorded in the profile, rather than part of the primary name. Subsidiary companies can and do change hands and it is always possible that Clays Ltd one day gets sold on. And let’s not make things unnecessarily complicated; how often are we going to have instances where two books are identical except for the parent company of the printer?

seems sensible.

I see that Clays Ltd https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19568-Clays-Ltd and Clays Ltd, St Ives plc https://www.bookogs.com/credit/26032-Clays-Ltd-St-Ives-plc still exist as individual credits in the database and both are attracting new books each day.

If I am not mistaken, there appears to have been agreement in this thread that Clays Ltd should be the primary name and anything similar recorded as a CNV (ANV).

Clays Ltd, St Ives plc currently has 421 books credited and counting.

I am quite happy to make the transfers with CNVs and mark Clays Ltd, St Ives plc as a duplicate, if the consensus is to use Clays Ltd as the primary name of this company.

I think this sounds a like a very sensible and good idea.

i agree :)

Thanks for the replies.

I have carefully read this thread and the only dissenter I can find to consolidating the various Clays' credits to Clays Ltd was tompowers64 (no longer active), who made the observation that if Clays Ltd was sold by St Ives plc at some stage, then all of the entries that include 'St Ives plc' could be used as a point of difference for a new form of the name.

I can see the reasoning, but I don't think this is necessary. The database currently contains vast numbers of imprints that began their life as publishers and these are not differentiated. If Clays was sold by St Ives plc and the name contained some form of Clays Ltd, then I would think it reasonable to continue using the Clays Ltd credit.

Obviously, if the name Clays Ltd was dropped but continued as a printing firm, then a new credit would be required and a note added to the profile of each credit outlining the history of the company.

Not all contributors will have read this thread. At times it seems that as fast as we eliminate duplicates, they spring up again. I think that the Discogs ethos of 'exactly as on release' is strong and contributors faithfully transcribe what is in their books, without seeing the bigger picture.

sonnyboythethird be rest assured that I am not about to carry out any editing just yet. I realize that this is an old thread and in the last year the site has been rapidly evolving.

The Discogs ethos of 'exactly on release' is not quite correct. Name variations in the 'Credits' category can be dealt with using the ANV facility. Name variations in 'Labels' are slightly different: the guidelines covering this are:

4.2.1.a. which states "For smaller 'independent' labels and companies, such a variation is usually unintentional, so you can normally adjust the label name to match the existing Discogs entry. Please make a note of any adjustments in the release notes and the submission notes."

4.2.1.b. which states "For larger 'major' labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in terms of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These should be entered as on the release, unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company."

I know most users on this site are probably familiar with Discogs, but I have a feeling that we're not on Discogs anymore. Listing books on Bookogs has its own set of unique challenges and I am not sure that the Discogs paradigm is totally appropriate here.

Unfortunately, the longer this question stays unresolved (i.e. name variations) the more unwieldy the solution becomes. Therefore, I think it is important that a policy be formulated and implemented on Bookogs as soon as possible. This question has been raised in similar threads: Cox & Wyman Ltd and W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. and no doubt there are numerous other examples.

Personally, I don't see any point in differentiating slight name variations, but that is my opinion. If there is a majority decision to credit each name variation, then I will abide by that outcome.

I should add that I think it is important to include name variations of companies such as publishers using their legal titles, which does assist in identifying their location and markets, but I really can't see any benefit in having a company like a printing firm spread over umpteen credits.

FYI, St Ives no longer owns Clays:
https://www.printweek.com/print-week/news/1164292/end-of-printing-era-for-st-ives-as-clays-is-sold

who made the observation that if Clays Ltd was sold by St Ives plc at some stage, then all of the entries that include 'St Ives plc' could be used as a point of difference for a new form of the name

Well that came true, and in the meantime I have completely changed my stance on naming. Glad I didn't carry out a mass edit at the time.

Thanks for the news flash.

I still hold my opinion as the company name was never "Clays Ltd, St Ives plc". And they were never consistent with this credit, some books from their era still state just "Clays Ltd" or "Clays".

I mean if the books had "Clays Ltd, a division of St Ives plc" we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

In that case you have my vote to conduct a mass edit to all of the books listed in Clays Ltd, St Ives plc. I see there is only 780 attributions, you should have done in an hour or two.

Luckily I don't have to do anything. We can ask the staff to do it, I know they can merge entries. Thanks for the support! ;-)

Better still! Why work when you can wave a wand.

i just added Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. as listed (Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.) on John Grisham - The Reckoning

Was this correct or should the Clays Ltd-profile be used for these new (2018->) printings after Clays Ltd was sold to Elcograf

I would keep Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. as a separate entry, so leave as is.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.