[78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo

[bruce78rpm at comcast.net]

I was not talking about a more "Fancy" presentation, but a more "Historically Accurate" one. Of course the item speaks for itself, and really did not need the cheap little 60's suitcase phono as an enhancement. But if you are going to include something with it, why not make if from the same era in question, including some nice representative labels that were issued by ARC during the same time period ? It certainly would have made for a better presentation. 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Taylor Bowie" <bowiebks at isomedia.com> 
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:29:59 PM 
Subject: Re: [78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo 

The seller may or may not be a history buff, but he is a seller, and 
offers a wide variety (currently hundreds of lots) of printed material for 
sale, with no records listed. For him, it's just another item to move 
along. 

I'm not sure what benefit he would receive from making a more fancy 
presentation of the photo...the item pretty well speaks for itself and I 
don't think whoever buys it will much care about the window dressing or 
that it would make for higher bidding in the end. 

Taylor 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bruce78rpm at comcast.net> 
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo 


> The Seller, is obviously not a history buff, and his knowledge obviously 
> ends with the photo. Why in the world would you display a 1960's-70's 
> cheap little suitcase electric phonograph with a 45 rpm setting, next to 
> American Record Co. Employees photo from 1931 ? A nice collage of some of 
> ARC's many Record labels from the 1920's and early 30's would have been 
> much more appropriate, and historically correct. I just cringed when I saw 
> that little portable there with the photo, it just looks plain silly. 
> Unless you happen to be historically out of touch, like the seller. No big 
> deal I guess. 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Lennick" <dlennick at sympatico.ca> 
> To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:57:33 AM 
> Subject: Re: [78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo 
> 
> I thought Capitol bought the Scranton plant. 
> 
> dl 
> 
> On 12/21/2011 1:35 AM, Cary Ginell wrote: 
>> 
>> I don't know the connection between ARC and Capitol (misspelled "Capital" 
>> here) - they had nothing to do with each other. Still, a nice historical 
>> piece, if anyone can identify any of the folks in the picture. I sure 
>> can't. 
>> 
>> Cary Ginell 
>> 
>>> From: soundthink at live.com 
>>> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com 
>>> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:31:40 -0800 
>>> Subject: [78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/1931-AMERICAN-RECORD-CORP-SCRANTON-PA-EMPLOYEE-PHOTO-CAPITAL-PREDECESSOR-/270816639601?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f0dedfa71 
>>> 
>>> It's too rich for my blood, but I'd sure love to see a closeup and try 
>>> and identify Art Satherley and Don Law in the photo. 
>>> 
>>> Cary Ginell 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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