Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle

[Richard Warren <richard.warren@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

Here's some more information on Yale's copy, inserted in your comments.

Best, Richard


At 12:03 PM 1/19/2008, you wrote:
> 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."


>  ****Yale's copy has this notice.
>
> 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.

****Both sides of Yale's copy have matrix number without parentheses 
at 6 o'clock on 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.

****Yale's copy seems to me to be post WW 2, as well (relatively thin 
pressing and general "appearance").




> 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.

****Yale's copy has W in circle before each mx. no. and has no R on 
either label -- to me the "no R" suggests late pressing.


> 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.

> **** Yale's copy has the same numbers in the same postions. I very 
> much doubt that these recordings were ever issued single-sided, so 
> we might want to consider these numbers as side numbers.
>
> 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