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

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

David Lennick wrote:
> 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

Next you'll be trying to tell us there are no precious gems in an Edison 
Diamond Disc.

"Acetate" became a term for the form just as we use peanut for a plant 
which is neither pea nor nut. I am one of the nuts who uses quotation 
marks on "78" as a designation for a recording nominally at that speed, 
but the great, wide world that knows the 78 is unaware that the term is 
imprecise.

Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/