[78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo

[David Lennick]

Now boys, play nice! And here's what Geoffrey Wheeler, who still can't post 
(reminds me of the Neil Simon-inspired character in My Favorite Year), passes 
this along about the Scranton Button Works which became the ARC and then the 
Capitol Scranton plant:

On 12/21/2011 7:07 PM, dialjazz at frontier.com wrote:
> Yes. It became part of American Record Corp. in 1929 as ARC’s pressing plant. When CBS purchased ARC in 1938, it soon discontinued using Scranton and instead used the Columbia Phonograph pressing plant in Bridgeport, Conn. Scranton was left in the lurch and had serious financial troubles, compounded by the dishonesty of Eli Oberstein, who used Scranton for pressing his Royale and Varsity records and then failed to pay them. It was only by luck that Scranton was able to avoid bankruptcy. Because of its ability to get shellac during the War years, a number of small labels used Scranton for their pressing. This included Keynote and Disc, which contracted with Signature to do its pressing. Capitol then became Scranton’s largest customer and then its only customer until it bought the plant in 1946.
> Geoffrey


On 12/21/2011 7:35 PM, Taylor Bowie wrote:
> I don't have my copy handy of the Thesaurus Dictionary of Phrases,  but are
> "needless fuss" and "conversation"  actually synonymous?
>
> :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Biel"<mbiel at mbiel.com>
> To: "78-L Mail List"<78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo
>
>
>> With all this needless fuss, did any of you record experts notice that
>> the phonograph's photo was reversed in mirror image?
>>
>> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [78-L] American Record Corp. staff photo
>> From: bruce78rpm at comcast.net
>> Date: Wed, December 21, 2011 1:47 pm
>> To: 78-L Mail List<78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>