|
Post by neophone on Sept 5, 2008 17:07:51 GMT -5
Matty, I have a couple of the Ariels and a much simpler, two color Beka and I've seen photos of a few of the others, but those are all great submissions thanks! George, Thank you for those great scans. Now just to muddy the waters and be a real stinker (something I'm getting better and better at!) On another board which shall remain nameless (NO, It's not THAT ONE!) I have been having a long time, over a year in fact, go round with someone who claims The Columbia Phonograph Co. Gen'l was initially forced to manufacture vertically recorded records for a period of time at the start of the last century and then later supplied vertical discs to our soldiers in the A.E.F. in France during the World War. Bill has pointed out the Columbia tested vertical recording more than once in the early years of the late lamented century and I know they manufactured a toy phonograph at the end of the nineteenth century which played small thick vertical discs, but I've never read anything supporting this claim and I want to put it to rest once and for all. Every time it's floated on-line it gains legitimacy in the eyes of new collectors. We now return to out regularly scheduled program: "Unusual Labels" starring Roland Young, Fred Allen, Jack Benny, Richard Arlen, Zasu Pitts and Una Merkel!Regards, J.
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Sept 5, 2008 19:06:55 GMT -5
Well Neo, I must take your side on this one. The only vertically-recorded Columbia discs I'm aware of are the small wax "Toy" variety of 1899. Naturally, I'd be obliged to learn of others!
George Paul
|
|
|
Post by neophone on Sept 5, 2008 19:21:38 GMT -5
George,
I wouldn't mind being shown the light on this one either-but I want irrefutable proof at this point Ha Ha Ha!! ;D
Regards, J.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Sept 6, 2008 13:28:04 GMT -5
Here's the very first Climax Record style (Globe Record Co.) as manufactured in August 1901: Here's the second style Climax Record retaining the embossed information, but with Columbia's paper label affixed over it as first manufactured in September (?) 1901: Columbia introduced its Disc Graphophones in October, so my presumption is that this paper label was introduced no later than September in order to have some stock on hand. George Paul In October 1901, Globe began producing 7" and 10" single-sided paper-labeled Climax Records for sale by the Columbia Phonograph Cpmpany. The new black & gold labels bore the imprint "G.R., Mf'd Solely for Columbia Phonograph Co." and were sometimes applied over the earlier raised-letter pressings (like the one you depicted). Bill
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Sept 6, 2008 14:59:45 GMT -5
Bill, Hmmm... Perhaps you didn't see the little captions on my post. In any event, it seems unlikely that Globe "began producing" the paper-labeled Climax discs the same month in which Columbia's Disc Graphophones were introduced. Dealers needed some record stocks to offer with the machines, which is why my second caption offered September as a likely month for production to begin on the paper-labeled Climaxes. If you modify your statement to read, "In October 1901, Globe INTRODUCED 7" and 10" single-sided paper-labeled Climax Records...", I'm in full agreement with you!
George Paul
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Sept 6, 2008 15:13:53 GMT -5
Bill, Hmmm... Perhaps you didn't see the little captions on my post. In any event, it seems unlikely that Globe "began producing" the paper-labeled Climax discs the same month in which Columbia's Disc Graphophones were introduced. Dealers needed some record stocks to offer with the machines, which is why my second caption offered September as a likely month for production to begin on the paper-labeled Climaxes. If you modify your statement to read, "In October 1901, Globe INTRODUCED 7" and 10" single-sided paper-labeled Climax Records...", I'm in full agreement with you! George Paul George, I did in fact see your captions included in your post. Perhaps you would like to continue you arguement with Kurt Nauck and Allan Sutton. The info I quoted was from their book " American Record Labels and Companies (1891-1941)Being a co-author of several books yourself, you realize that knowledge is only as accurate as its source! Bill
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Sept 6, 2008 16:21:25 GMT -5
Bill, Yes, I see on page 44 where Nauck & Sutton used the phrase, "...began producing..." No big deal - - I'd defend my point to them as well, but knowing them, I'm confident that they'd agree with me. If the first Victor "VI" was shipped December 10, 1904, production certainly begin in that month! I made a similar slip in my second caption above when I used the word "introduced" rather than "produced." This really isn't an argument; merely clarification. To compensate you and others for my nit-picking, here's a scan of the more seldom-seen "broken ring" Climax label of 1902 - shortly before Columbia dropped the Climax moniker... George Paul
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Sept 6, 2008 16:46:20 GMT -5
Whatever George, whatever............................
Bill
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Sept 6, 2008 23:33:35 GMT -5
Whatever George, whatever............................ Bill Excuse me? George Paul
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Sept 6, 2008 23:42:35 GMT -5
George,
Knock it off..........................................
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Sept 7, 2008 8:40:25 GMT -5
Bill, I regret if I've said anything to offend you. It was not my intention. I'm genuinely baffled by this exchange, and I trust we can end it like gentlemen. Again, my apologies and best wishes,
George Paul
|
|
|
Post by matty on Sept 8, 2008 4:38:53 GMT -5
Here's a couple scans of a label that is very seldom seen, including here in Australia. Wattle records only ever released 3 disc's, but I'm unsure whether all 3 had different labels, or if they changed the label design during the short lifespan of the company. EDIT: It has just come to my attention via a new member "Kaliban" that Wattle infact made about 18 78rpm records. Hopefully he will be kind enough to inform Adam Miller who has a New Zealand record website about the information he has on the company, so his website can be updated.
|
|
|
Post by rocky on Sept 8, 2008 18:15:01 GMT -5
25 cents?! I know is was 1970, but wouldn't it be nice to find a stash that "cheap" today? Ray Phillips -- who started collecting in 1937 at age 14 -- told me that the Salvation Army in Los Angeles back in the 1930's-1950's had a basement room with wooden barrels full of cylinder records your choice ten cents per dozen! 10ยข per dozen! Ouch!!! Then again, that was a long time ago! I was a kid in the 50s. Cylinder records were simply old records in the 1930s-1950s period. An average Blue Amberol was a 20-year-old record in the late 30s. It's hard to imagine that records we treasure today were considered old junk at one time. Some years ago I read in Hobbies magazine that acoustic records were being steeply discounted within a year of the introduction of electric music. Just take a look at the 1926 Victor catalog--the thinnest Victor catalog of the 1912 thru 1930 period, despite the fact that it listed both black and red label records! Almost the entire acoustic output dumped overnight. How scornful people can be of older technology! Rocky
|
|
|
Post by lenoirstreetguy on Sept 14, 2008 14:15:40 GMT -5
Here's a " just the same only different" label from Canada: it's the Canadian " Curtains" label. It's interesting in that they still call themselves the Victor Talking Machine Company of Canada when on the standard labels they were the RCA Victor Co. Note the big VE which was always featured on the Canadian labels. [ i][/i]
|
|
henry
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by henry on Sept 14, 2008 15:38:53 GMT -5
Do you know whether 7770-A is the same recording as as Victor 88127? I have two pressings of this, one a Grand Prize (the older one, presumably, single-side with a plot synopsis label on the flip side) and the other a batwing (single side, no synopsis); they both have the recitative. Moses' "Collector's Guide" (pp. 38-39) lists 88127 in two date categories, 1906-1908 ("no recitative") and 1912-15 ("with recitative"). The two recordings of 88127 that I have are identical in all particulars. Something seems inconsistent here.
|
|