[78-L] Climax record abrupt start

[Royal Pemberton]

Is the first groove somewhat further in from the edge of the record than
Columbias of the period generally are?  If the groove starts 'suddenly'
without the appearance of the groove starting 'gradually' as evidence of the
cutter being slowly lowered onto the spinning wax, it has indeed been
altered.

I have one record with such an alteration:  it's Columbia A 376 'Evenin'
time at Punkin Centre' (mx 1757-2) but as a 'Standard'.  Usually grooves
begin between 5/16" and 3/8" in from the edge; this side starts more like
1/2" in.  I could detect at the point the groove begins that Cal Stewart had
just said something (now I feel sure it was 'Columbia record') just as the
opening sound effect began.  The flip, 'I'se gwine back to Dixie' by 'Male
quartet' (mx 753) starts about 5/16" from the edge, and is not announced,
and is hence unaltered.  (Strangest of all, many years ago, the disc fell
out of my hands and dropped about a foot and a half onto a wooden floor.
The disc snapped almost perfectly in half, revealing its non-laminated
construction.)

If I get a chance, I will take a photo of the disc at the points where the
grooves begin, so you can see the difference.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:19 AM, David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca>wrote:

> I've had the occasional very early Columbia that seemed to start with less
> than
> half a revolution and before the cutter had even determined an even depth.
>
> dl
>
> Bryan Wright wrote:
> > I just picked up a Climax Double Disk record (K412), one side of which
> > uses Columbia matrix 532-2, a xylophone solo by Charles Lowe of
> > "Suwannee River" [sic] recorded January 1902. I was surprised when
> > starting the record to hear that the beginning of the recording is
> > clipped. I place the needle at the very start of the groove, but  the
> > piano introduction is already in progress. I'm wondering if this might
> > have originally been an announced record (mentioning Columbia at the
> > start) and perhaps the Climax "reissue" I have had those first few
> > revolutions of the groove polished away to remove the announcement?
> > The record doesn't show any signs of tampering -- i.e., the outer edge
> > looks like any other Columbia from the period, so any attempt to
> > remove part of the groove must have been *very* well done. Does anyone
> > have the original Columbia issue for comparison? Are clipped openings
> > on Columbia-derived pressings such as this common?
> >
> > Bryan W.
> > ____________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>