[78-L] Pressed in WHAT material...

[Matthew Duncan]

>From a UK perspective....
 
We didn't get the vinyl/metrolite and other so called 'unbreakable' 78s that were issued in the USA and elsewhere until about 1956.
 
In 1956/7, the Pye/Nixa/Mercury group of labels issued some (not all) of their 78rpm singles as vinyl issues but all were still given shellac equivalents.
 
I don't know how this system was operated, but I think the vinyl issues came out after the shellac ones and it is also interesting to note that although this group of labels issued vinyl discs on the other speeds (33 and 45) as early as 1954, singles remained at 78rpm only until 1958 bar a few 45rpm juke box only issues in 1957.  Same goes for Philips and Fontana too but they didn't make vinyl 78s.
 
So, the hit records by The Platters like "The Great Pretender" issued by UK Mercury in 1956 never came out on 45 but came out on shellac 78rpm in 1956 and in 1957 or so came out on vinyl 78rpm.
 
It would appear that these labels thought the 78 would last for singles but there was definitely a growing market for LP and EP records (especially in their classical and jazz catalogue) and stuck with the 78 right to 1960 by which time vinyl 78s on the above labels were the norm before 78s were scrapped in 1960 for good.
 
It is interesting that the EMI labels and Decca didn't invest in the vinyl 78 technology but the Mercury/Pye/Nixa labels did.  These vinyl 78s sound excellent even in average shape and mint condition ones sound fantastic.
 
The only other 78rpm records I have come across pressed on vinyl or part plastic material are the early 30s Broadcast label 9" records (series started 1931) pressed by Vocalion.
The material isn't vinyl but it is quite flexible and the discs are thinner than the earlier 8" issues of the late 20s by the company.  Perhaps they found a cheaper material to use for the later issues to cut costs (the last 9" Broadcast discs are late 1933)??
 
And if so what is the material used?? It is increasingly poor as the series went on and the higher catalogue numbers often turn up cracked and/or worn as they are so thin and soft despite appearing to have had little play.
 
So all other British 78s are shellac as far as I know of...
 
Matthew.

--- On Tue, 17/11/09, Steven C. Barr <stevenc at interlinks.net> wrote:


From: Steven C. Barr <stevenc at interlinks.net>
Subject: Re: [78-L] Pressed in WHAT material...
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 4:30


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milan P Milovanovic" <milanpmilovanovic4 at gmail.com>
> Hello list members,
>
> I came across this article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellac
>
> Also this one:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite
>
> Both claimed that "some" records were made from bakelite:
>
> "Until the advent of vinyl around the 1940s, most gramophone records were 
> pressed from shellac compounds (although some were made from bakelite)"
>
> "Recording cylinders produced by the Edison Electric Company (now General 
> Electric) and 78-rpm phonograph records were originally made of Bakelite. 
> "
>
> I would like to know if such statements are close to the truth. I always 
> thought that no bakelite was used in phonograph record production.
>
Virtually ALL "78's" were pressed using shellac-based compounds! This is 
often described by
NON-knowledgeable people (usually eBay sellers!) as "bakelite." A handful of 
78's were
pressed on vinyl-based compounds during the early thirties, due to the 
effect of the war
on shellac production (and as well to provide quieter records for radio 
airplay!)

It is very possible that what the writer here describes as "recording 
cylinders" were, in
fact, the cylinders intended for "Dictaphone" use? OTOH, it seems to me that 
if there
were made of Bakelite, they would have been MUCH harder to record,,,?!

Steven C. Barr 

_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l