[78-L] Original 1926 Columbia Test Pressing - Baby Doll

Wed Apr 28 18:45:06 PDT 2010

You just took the words out of the email I was just composing!

I was also going to add the possibility of it being laminated rather than
vinyl, but by the early 50s, I'd imagine Columbia tests would be vinyl since
all the DJ pressings were.  I know I have a couple of tests with this label
that are laminated and have at least a couple in non-laminated shellac, but
these are 1940s pressings, I think.  The ones I have all seem to play best
with a slightly smaller stylus, like a 2.5 or maybe even a 2.3, especially
if it's a mid 1920s electric Columbia master we're dealing with. 

Sean

-----Original Message-----
From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com
[mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of David Lennick
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:36 PM
To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
Subject: Re: [78-L] Original 1926 Columbia Test Pressing - Baby Doll

Have we determined that this is indeed a shellac or vinyl pressing? It
didn't sound like shellac to me, more like a disc being played with an
improperly matched stylus like the ones typically found in turnover
cartridges. Many vinyls sound that noisy till you try a few different points
on them, and that label looks like what I've seen on many 40s and early 50s
vinyls. A vinyl pressing would have been made at the time Columbia was
issuing its first Bessie Smith LPs in the early 50s, to determine if the
recording was worth reissuing.

dl

> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:26:58 +0000
> From: bruce78rpm at comcast.net
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Original 1926 Columbia Test Pressing - Baby Doll
> 
> Pursing Fiction, Please !! Not having ever owned a Test Pressing record,
and not having the knowledge of one that you experts have I turned to a
trusted friend and called him with information and he concluded based on
what I told him in describing the record that it was in fact an original
test pressing from 1926. Unfortunately I left out one key incrediant in the
analysis and that was the name of the Columbia Recording Company. Having
said that, again thanks to everyone who have come forward with additional
information so I can post an accurate description of this record when it
goes on Ebay this weekend. Not having the knowledge of these Test Pressings
and how they were handled by the record company, I was told that Take 2,
which this is, was the actually take released by Columbia at this Recording
session for mass distribution to the General Public. Given that, why was it
necessary to do another test pressing of Take to in 1939 or thereafter ?
Maybe to determine if the m
 as
> ter was still in suitable condition for mass distribution ? Just a guess,
maybe there is better answer, can anyone help on on this? 
> 
> Bruce 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Shulman" <jshul at comcast.net> 
> To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:47:45 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Original 1926 Columbia Test Pressing - Baby Doll 
> 
> Amazingly, nobody has commented on the video postings that this is a 
> later-than-1926 pressing! 
> He's still pursuing that fiction. 
> 
> That's not to say it's not a fascinating record, and perhaps a pressing of

> an unissued take (a Bessie Smith expert would have to confirm or deny
that.) 
> It's also likely desirable to a collector. However, it sure wasn't pressed

> in '26! 
> 
> If there were a label for custom pressings (or test pressings) in 1926
that 
> identified the company, it would have been called the "Columbia Phonograph

> Company", not the "Columbia Recording Corporation". 
> 
> I've owned some Ellington test pressings from the 1940s with this same 
> label. 
> 
> Jim Shulman 
> Wynnewood, PA 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com 
> [mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of Sean Miller 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:24 PM 
> To: '78-L Mail List' 
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Original 1926 Columbia Test Pressing - Baby Doll 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think this is an "original" 1926

> test by any means. Columbia tests from the 1920s didn't use that label at 
> all, but a much plainer one. I've seen plenty of late 1930s, 1940s and 
> 1950s era tests on the label type of your Smith test, even many of earlier

> material like this, so my guess is that you have a later era (late 1930s
or 
> 1940s) test pressing on shellac from the original master, not a 1920s test

> pressing at all. I'm not saying it isn't a cool piece by any means, just 
> that it's a later test pressing. 
> 
> Sean 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com 
> [mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of 
> bruce78rpm at comcast.net 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:55 AM 
> To: 78-L 
> Subject: [78-L] Original 1926 Columbia Test Pressing - Baby Doll 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLTRUwskzC4 
> 
> Bessie Smith Original Test Pressing from May 4, of 1926. 
> 
> An advance peek at the Actual Record that will be posted for Sale on 
> Saturday. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 78-L mailing list 
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com 
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 78-L mailing list 
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com 
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 78-L mailing list 
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com 
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l 
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l

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