[78-L] Harvesting the Coral label

[David Lennick]

November 1948, per Gart, for the first issues in the 60000, 64000 and 65000 
series (Popular/Reissue, C&W, R&B respectively). Other series were 65500 
(Silver Star, 45 rpm only) and childrens (69000). Last number in each series: 
62565, 64187, 65102, 65619, 69045.

Coral was being used as a budget reissue line in the seventies in Britain and 
Canada as well..here it replaced the other cheapo LP labels like Carnival and 
Point.

dl

Harold Aherne wrote:
> I have a few questions about this Decca subsidiary, and some of the subject matter
> might veer into the microgroove era, but I suppose there are more off-topic 
> things that have been discussed here.<grin>
>  
> As far as I can tell, there were four label types:
>  
> The first label was quite plain; "Coral" was in a tall sans-serif font and I 
> don’t recall any real decoration. The second label (introduced around 1951?) 
> used a serif font for “Coral” and had a tilted abstract record behind the “R”. 
> The third label (introduced in 1954 or 55, I think) used a thick, wide, serif font 
> arched over a sunrise motif (which was absent on 45s). The last design 
> (used from 1963 or 64 to the label’s retirement) resembled the Decca rainbow 
> pattern used at the same time, although with different colours and a concave 
> shape. The second and fourth designs can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Records. 
>  
> Does anyone know exactly when the first Corals were issued? Some sources
> give 1949 for the year of introduction, but William R. Daniels's dating guide 
> gives November 1948 as the first month of release.
>  
> I've never been quite clear when Coral issues stopped. The GlobalDog listings
> for Coral singles (which are linked at the bottom of the above Wikipedia article)
> end in 1970, by which time there was just of trickle of releases on the label, and it
> was probably a redundancy within the MCA group. Still, MCA sometimes 
> used the Coral name on LPs, usually with vintage material. More than
> that, I don't really know.
>  
> -Harold
> 
>