Here's some more information on Yale's copy, inserted in your comments.
At 12:03 PM 1/19/2008, you wrote:
>On closer examination:
>The label designs appear identical. However, the copyright notices differ:
>The one lacking the takes says, "This Record (made by patented
>process) must not be sold below price fixed by patentees"
>The other says, "Copyright,patented Record. Not to be publicly
>performed without license nor sold below price fixed by patentees."
> ****Yale's copy has this notice.
>Both Faery Song sides say (A 3551) at the 9 oclock position on the label.
>For The Minstrel, the one without the take says (A 3817) there. The
>one with the take has "speed 80" and the matrix number without
>parentheses is beneath the publisher's logo at the bottom of the label.
****Both sides of Yale's copy have matrix number without parentheses
at 6 o'clock on the label.
>So much for them appearing to be identical labels at first glance.
>I'm not an expert on the sequence of English Columbia labels, but
>they seem to be from the post WW II era, my guess from having
>handled many of them over the years.
****Yale's copy seems to me to be post WW 2, as well (relatively thin
pressing and general "appearance").
>All four sides have the W in a circle in a position different from
>that where the matrix number appers.
>The copy without the takes has th R following the number on the label.
>A3551, Faery Song, is preceeded by the W in a circle before the mx
>no as well. On the other side, A3817, there is no W in a circle in
****Yale's copy has W in circle before each mx. no. and has no R on
either label -- to me the "no R" suggests late pressing.
>On the copy with the takes, there is an R following the number on
>the label on the Faery Song side but not on The Minstrel.
>The circled W preceeds each matrix number in the dead wax.
>The old single side number in the dead wax is
>**** Yale's copy has the same numbers in the same postions. I very
>much doubt that these recordings were ever issued single-sided, so
>we might want to consider these numbers as side numbers.
>Physical measuremnts from groove beginning to end is identical on both copies.
>So it is with variable reluctance that I ask again, "what's going on
>here?" Perhaps there are significant discographic clues that may
>flow from this comparison, but can't figger out what they might be.
>Is one a dub?
>I recall a similar problem on some post-war English recorded
>Parlophone Tauber discs but don't remember which ones fit into this
>There may be some underlying factory practice at the root of this.
>At worst, this should indicate earler or later pressings or,
>perhaps, different factories. The sequence of labels should come
>clear once the reason for the change in wording is learned.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Warren" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle
>>I've seen that before, too, and would guess that you have copies from two
>>different stampers, only one of which shows the take number. I suspect that
>>what that your copies tell us is that practices at the factory or factories
>>varied about what numbers got onto pressing parts. Perhaps the disc was
>>popular. Are there any differences in the labels of the two copies
>>? Any other
>>differences between the pressings (graininess of shellac ...) ?
>>Quoting Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>My point is that of my two copies with thr R suffix, one has take
>>>numbers and one doesn't. So how com?
>>>In the larger sense, does this tell us anything we need to know
>>>(discographically speaking) about English Columbia's matrix numbering policies?
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Warren"
>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:40 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle
>>>>3546 [original, no -R] has matrices A 612 and A 1186 for Boughton
>>>>and Martin, respectively, published April, 1925 (apparently no
>>>>logs survive to tell rec. date)
>>>>3546-R [copy also at Yale] is as you list: matrices are as you
>>>>and the book about Columbia 10-inch discs agree, Boughton
>>>>recorded Aug. 26, 1926, Martin rec. Aug. 31, 1926. Columbias this
>>>>age do not usually show take numbers in the dead wax, so you're
>>>>lucky this one did on one side. The "R" does normally indicate a
>>>>remake or replacement.
>>>>At 11:04 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>>>>>I've two copies of English Columbia 3546 R. One side is The
>>>>>Faery Song from Boughton's "Immortal Hour," matrix A
>>>>>3551-5. The reverse is Easthope Martin's song, "The Minstrel,"
>>>>>matrix A 3817-1. The singer is Philip Heseltine.
>>>>>The "R" indicates "remake," as far as I can tell, and replaces
>>>>>an earlier, idenical coupling.
>>>>>One copy has the take number after the matrix number in the dead
>>>>>wax, the other the matrix number only.
>>>>>What's going on here? Is one a dub? Any idea?