Thank you all for your input.  My original description was based on my 
first short visit to the storage unit where the collection is currently 
maintained and the information given to me by the director of the 
foundation who owns the collection.  Yesterday, I spent a little more 
time going through the boxes and discovered that there are only about 
half as many as I originally thought because they are stored sideways in 
2' long boxes. They are indeed glass and maybe some aluminum too.  The 
light in the storage unit is so poor that I'm unable to see the blue or 
red color that a contributor mentioned, but I did notice that a couple 
of records had a bright blue edge.  Most appeared to be in good 
condition, one was flaking. Within the collection of glass records, I 
noticed 78's, 45's and 331/3's. I took a few photos that I'll try to 
post later today. Sorry for not speaking the proper language - I'm a 
newly minted MLS/MA and have only worked with documents.
By the way, we're located in Indianapolis.
Thanks,
Lisa


Steven C. Barr wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Malcolm Rockwell" <[log in to unmask]>
>> The one thing that's always puzzled me about both aluminum and glass 
>> bases, but especially glass. Why didn't the manufacturers put a light 
>> knurling or a fine sand-blasting etch on the side the lacquer adhered 
>> to? That would have given something for the flowed or sprayed lacquer 
>> to adhere to and we wouldn't be having the problems with flaking and 
>> peeling that we have now.
>> Yeah, I know, that's all well and good in retrospect!
>>
> Actually, you just nailed the problem in your closing comment...! With
> the exception of a few home-recorded copies of hit 78's, these discs
> weren't expected to have a long lifespan; often they were just "step 1"
> in mastering a commercial record...or were intended for a single use
> on radio...?!
>
> In fact, the creators of commercial 78's didn't expect them to survive
> the century-plus which they now have (or be worth the hundreds or
> thousands of dollars that a few now bring...?!). An instantaneous-
> recording copy of something was only (originally and in theory)
> expected to last a single play; even the shellac record from which
> it may have been copied was assumed to last not much more than
> did its "hit" (if it WAS one?) status...?!
>
> In fact, I can't help but wonder what would have been the reaction
> of Robert Johnson, had he somehow learned that his recordings
> would someday be worth several thousand dollars (probably more
> money than he had ever seen in his entire life...?!)?
>
> Steven C. Barr