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

To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
From: steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:51:58 -0500
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@loc.gov>
Message-id: <011201c61e46$69496700$6640fea9@interlinks.net>
References: <43D0025E.3040508@cpl.net> <43D02CB1.25830.38BB8F3@localhost>
Reply-to: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
> One of the questions could be "is the record flexible?", and one 
> of the answers could be "no, it was not".
> 
Followed by "but both halves are still in the archive..."

Steven C. Barr

References:
- Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
  - From: Mike Richter
- Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
  - From: George Brock-Nannestad

Prev by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] Brunswick Records rights
Next by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] Vinegar syndrome audio tapes [ARSCLIST] Memorex CDs and more
Previous by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
Next by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Table of Contents]

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

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]