[78-L] acoustic recording

[Michael Biel]

Mike Biel wrote:
>> Of course the Pathe records were 75 cents -- but were the exact same
>> recordings as the 35 cent Perfects. I wonder
>> why ANY copies of Pathe Actualles that are duplicated on Perfect ever
>> show up!!
>>
>>     
> A close look at both Pathe (Actuelle) and Perfect records will reveal that
> they show both the PA and Perfect catalog numbers in the "wax." 

Of course, that is why I said that I know that they were on both 
labels.  I'm just amazed that anyone would buy the higher priced Pathe's 
instead of the identical recording on Perfect, especially of marginal 
pop records. 

> Also,
> IIRC, Perfects originally sold for 50 cents; the price changed to 35 cents
> after many labels were merged into ARC 1929-30 (IIRC).
>
> Steven C. Barr 
>
>   
According to Sutton & Nauck's ARLIE the Perfect price was reduced in 
late 1924 to 39 cents or 3/$1.00.  So the large price differential was 
during the era we're discussing, 

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com 


Steven C. Barr wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael Biel" <mbiel at mbiel.com>
>   
>> Mark L. Bardenwerper, Sr. wrote:
>>     
>>> Here is a humorous passage from the bo.
>>> These are Hoolie's words. They refer to his visits to the Pathe and
>>> Perfect studios in New York in early 1927 along with his friend, pianist
>>> Phil Wall. This was while they were working for Paul Specht.
>>> ok, "Sylvester Ahola, the
>>> Gloucester Gabriel" by Dick Hill
>>>  They sold records for 35 cents, whilst the
>>> Columbia, Victors And Brunswick sold for 75 cents. Much cheaper, but a
>>> lot of jazz and other important recordings were made there."
>>>       
>>  In the Syndicate discussion that I
>> videotaped in 1987 between Lenny Kunstadt and Carl Kendzioria they
>> discuss the Chicago Loopers record of which a couple of copies on
>> Perfect are known but had never shown up on Pathe Actualle.