Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle

[Richard Warren <richard.warren@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

I've seen that before, too, and would guess that you have copies from two
different stampers, only one of which shows the take number. I suspect that
what that your copies tell us is that practices at the factory or factories
varied about what numbers got onto pressing parts. Perhaps the disc was
popular. Are there any differences in the labels of the two copies ? Any other
differences between the pressings (graininess of shellac ...) ?

Best, Richard

Quoting Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>:

> My point is that of my two copies with thr R suffix, one has take 
> numbers and one doesn't.  So how com?
>
> In the larger sense, does this tell us anything we need to know 
> (discographically speaking) about English Columbia's matrix numbering 
> policies?
>
> Steve Smolian
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Warren" <richard.warren@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle
>
>
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > 3546 [original, no -R] has matrices A 612 and A 1186 for Boughton 
> > and Martin, respectively, published April, 1925 (apparently no logs 
> > survive to tell rec. date)
> >
> > 3546-R [copy also at Yale] is as you list: matrices are as you and 
> > the book about Columbia 10-inch discs agree, Boughton recorded Aug. 
> > 26, 1926, Martin rec. Aug. 31, 1926. Columbias this age do not 
> > usually show take numbers in the dead wax, so you're lucky this one 
> > did on one side. The "R" does normally indicate a remake or 
> > replacement.
> >
> > Best, Richard
> >
> > At 11:04 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
> > > I've two copies of English Columbia 3546 R.  One side is The Faery 
> > > Song from Boughton's "Immortal Hour," matrix A 3551-5.  The reverse 
> > > is Easthope Martin's song, "The Minstrel," matrix A 3817-1.  The 
> > > singer is Philip Heseltine.
> > >
> > > The "R" indicates "remake," as far as I can tell, and replaces an 
> > > earlier, idenical coupling.
> > >
> > > One copy has the take number after the matrix number in the dead 
> > > wax, the other the matrix number only.
> > >
> > > What's going on here?  Is one a dub?  Any idea?
> > >
> > > Steve Smolian