Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

On closer examination:

The label designs appear identical.   However, the copyright notices differ:

The one lacking the takes says, "This Record (made by patented process) must 
not be sold below price fixed by patentees"

The other says, "Copyright,patented Record.  Not to be publicly performed 
without license nor sold below price fixed by patentees."

Both Faery Song sides say (A 3551) at the 9 oclock position on the label.

For The Minstrel, the one without the take says (A 3817) there.  The one 
with the take has "speed 80" and the matrix number without parentheses is 
beneath the publisher's logo at the bottom of the label.

So much for them appearing to be identical labels at first glance.

I'm not an expert on the sequence of English Columbia labels, but they seem 
to be from the post WW II era, my guess from having handled many of them 
over the years.



All four sides have the W in a circle in a position different from that 
where the matrix number appers.

The copy without the takes has th R following the number on the label.

A3551, Faery Song, is preceeded by the W in a circle before the mx no as 
well.  On the other side, A3817, there is no W in a circle in that position.

On the copy with the takes, there is an R following the number on the label 
on the Faery Song side but not on The Minstrel.

The circled W preceeds each matrix number in the dead wax.

The old single side number in the dead wax is

Faery    23297
Minstrel    23838

on both.

Physical measuremnts from groove beginning to end is identical on both 
copies.

So it is with variable reluctance that I ask again, "what's going on here?" 
Perhaps there are significant discographic clues that may flow from this 
comparison, but can't figger out what they might be.

Is one a dub?

I recall a similar problem on some post-war English recorded Parlophone 
Tauber discs but don't remember which ones fit into this pattern anymore.

There may be some underlying factory practice at the root of this.

At worst, this should indicate earler or later  pressings or, perhaps, 
different factories.  The sequence of labels should come clear once the 
reason for the change in wording is learned.

Steve Smolian



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Warren" <richard.warren@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle


> 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