Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steven Smolian wrote:

> I strongly also endorse lacquer.  It's accurate and easy.  Mike Biel has
> been adamant about this for years, and he's correct.
>
> Steve Smolian

Which is still not going to stop the general public from calling them
"acetates", any more than they'll stop referring to "Blue Wax Columbias",
matrix numbers "in the wax" etc.

dl

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Prentice, Will" <Will.Prentice@xxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
>
> Surely it has to be "lacquer" - very few contained any acetate. Have
> there been any instantaneous CUT discs (i.e. not embossed metal discs)
> which didn't have a lacquer surface layer? Just curious.
>
> Will
>
> ...................................................
> Will Prentice
> Technical Services
> British Library Sound Archive          Tel: +44 (0)20-7412-7443
> 96 Euston Road                         Fax: +44 (0)20-7412-7416
> London NW1 2DB                         http://www.bl.uk
> UK                     http://cadensa.bl.uk (online
> catalogue)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Jacobs
> Sent: 18 January 2006 18:48
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
>
> I recently heard a discussion among catalogers on whether to describe an
> item as an "acetate" or a "lacquer".  Said item would be an
> instantaneous
> recording cut into nitrocellulose on an aluminum, glass or other
> substrate.
>
> So which is the more appropriate term for cataloging - acetate or
> lacquer?
>
> Eric Jacobs
> The Audio Archive
> tel: 408.221.2128
> fax: 408.549.9867
> mailto:EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> *****