[78-L] Did The English Take Better Care Of Their Records? [FWD]

[Steven C. Barr]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Harkin" <xxm.harkin at yahoo.com>
> And classical was an even larger percentage.  A Gramophone reader in 1936 
> mentioned that he got 50 shillings for going down a mine six days a week. 
> 12" red label HMV's were
> 6/- or 6/6, which meant a 4 disc set cost half aweek's wages.  Don't 
> recall what aveerage wage was in the US around then, or when the Biggies 
> reduced their 12" classical from $2
> to $1, but I'm sure you got more shellac for your buck on the west side of 
> the pond than the east....
>
The interesting thing here is this! In the first years of the 20th century, 
the
typical wage was around $1 a DAY! Records (usually single-sided) typically
cost 60 cents each...or over half of a day's wage. AND...Victor still sold
Caruso Red Seals for up to $10 EACH!

By the early twenties (I don't have the ambition to look up the average
wage then...?!), one could buy records from Sears for about 20 cents
each; McCrory's sold Oriole records for a quarter (and judging from
how many I have found, they sold well...?!).

Emerson's Regal was the first lower-priced record; they sold for 50
cents each. When Emerson was dissolved c.1922, the Regal label
became the "cornerstone" of what would become the American
Record Corporation. ARC went on to sell a number of cheap
labels (like Jewel), including some pressed for clients (like
Sears' Challenge).  But...the few people still working in the
thirties were NOT earning a lot (between that and the rise of
radio, annual records fell to around two million...?!)

Steven C. Barr