[78-L] Somebody's color blind..

[Michael Biel]

In the blue label era in the late teens and early 20s I find a lot of 
non-laminated Columbias, and these seem to be the correct size of about 
9 7/8 inches, rather than the oversized 10.0-inches which were 
laminaterd pressings.   As I discussed last year, practically all 
Columbia masters -- and Columbia-style OKehs, for that matter -- CAN be 
pressed in a 9 7/8-inch disc.  Measure the outer sound groove diameter 
and you will see.  that even the oversize pressings usually have groove 
areas no bigger than the average Victor. 

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

David Lennick wrote:
> I don't think they were..anybody?
>
> Even some laminated acousticals and VTs have been pressed on very thin material 
> and can break more easily than Victors of the period. Little Wonders weren't 
> laminated, so we know that Columbia had the capacity to press both types.
>
> dl
>
> neechevoneeznayou at gmail.com wrote:
>   
>> Were the early silver letter black label Columbias laminated?
>>
>> joe salerno
>>
>>
>> David Lennick wrote:
>>     
>>> Robert M. Bratcher Jr. wrote:
>>>       
>>>> At 04:07 PM 3/20/2010, you wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> What can anyone tell me about Columbia's pale green label 
>>>>> "International" series records that were pressed between circa 1915 
>>>>> and 1925?I had a Columbia 78 of  some waltz that was of Serbian or-
>>>>> igin.It was a tough tune to learn in that it had several major key 
>>>>> themes with one minor theme towards
>>>>> the end.Milan brought it to mind after he told me he was emailing me 
>>>>>           
>>>> >from Serbia regarding Al Hend-
>>>>         
>>>>> rickson.I broke the record in the early eighties.It was performed on 
>>>>> violin with what sounded like a g-
>>>>> uitar.Didn't Columbia go back to laminating their pressings in the forties?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I though that US Columbia pressings were always laminated? I haven't 
>>>> seen one that wasn't. Overseas might be a different story though....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca>
>>>>> To: 78L <78-L at 78online.com>
>>>>> Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 10:07:42 PM
>>>>> Subject: [78-L] Somebody's color blind..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cgi.ebay.ca/Columbia-Blue-Wax-Record-Catalog-English-1932_W0QQitemZ300397368168
>>>>>
>>>>> Whaaaaa..!? I have this catalogue and it's not a Blue Wax catalogue at all!
>>>>> It's a standard English Columbia catalogue for 1932. Ironic that it refers to
>>>>> "The Record Without Scratch", since this was when they stopped 
>>>>> laminating them.
>>>>>
>>>>> dl
>>>>>           
>>> I've seen some acousticals that weren't laminated, but I don't know at what 
>>> points these may occur. And Columbias were definitely laminated (with odd 
>>> exceptions such as the one I'm vague about) till the red label was introduced 
>>> in 1939. I believe they went back to laminated pressings in '41. Mid 50s red 
>>> Columbias are shellac..again, I don't know if this applies across the board or 
>>> just at some plants.
>>>
>>> dl
>>>
>>>