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

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Plus, masters WERE cut in wax (thus, "waxed") before the lacquer disc came
along. Here's something you may enjoy:
http://www.intertique.com/OrdealByRecord.htm

dl

steven c wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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.
> >
> Actually, about 99.9% of the general public have never seen one! It's mainly
> a subgroup among collectors of rock'n'roll/rock ephemera, who assume that
> all records were mastered from them and hope to get filthy rich off of some
> new "ultra-collectible" they just found.
>
> As far as shellac being "wax," you can blame several generations of
> disc jockeys for that...they've been "spinnin' the wax" since it
> was common practice to air 78's (in spite of Gennett'd "This
> record is not to be broadcasted" warning...)
>
> ...stevenc
> http://users.interlinks.net/stevenc/