LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2008

ARSCLIST January 2008

Subject:

Re: Pancake horror story

From:

"Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:28:24 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> The mastering engineer advised the parties to consider the shipment a
"write-off" because the tapes
> were so mangled as to be unfixable.  He said the tapes were packed in this
sloppy manner -- pancakes
> tapes between pieces of cardboard with the edges of the cardboard clamped
tight and taped together
> (which causes edge damage from the get-go). The boxes were so violently
handled in shipping that the
> cardboard worked loose in transit, spilling tapes from the hub in most cases
and mangling edges and
> tape-pack in all cases. Some tapes were packed horizontal, some verticle, none
wrapped in a
> protective bubblewrap, all in a large/heavy box that was obviously dropped
hard or slammed around en
> route overseas and back. The engineer lays blame squarely on the major
copyright holder, saying he
> doubts a box packed that way would make it cross-country intact, much less
overseas and back. The
> engineer states that he can't believe someone would ship master tapes without
boxes and as
> un-flanged pancakes.
>
> I would theorize that ANY tapes packaged this way in too-bulky/too-heavy a box
would suffer the same
> damage just being loaded and unloaded from a ground-shipping truck. I further
theorize the major
> damage came either in a shipping depot or when cargo shifted during a rough
airplane landing on the
> way to or from overseas. The point is, if you pack something too massive,
damage is almost
> inevitable due to simple physics/gravity, which is why I advise clients to
keep boxes small to
> medium and weight per box down and wrap everything in bubble wrap. I forgot to
mention last night
> that I also advise clients to wrap grooved disks and tapes in a plastic bag
during most seasons so
> as to avoid damage if the box is dunked in a puddle or slush in the gutter or
left out in the rain.
> The nesting a box within a box can be very helpful if there is a sea of
packing material to absorb
> blunt force.
>
> If I didn't know and trust the people who told me this story, and if they
weren't directly involved,
> I'd never believe this could have happened with master tapes owned by a major
company. These
> companies have been so cored out by "restructuring" and mega-glomeration that
they no longer have
> any knowledgable folks minding the store! I agree with the engineer, the
ultimate blame in this is
> on the person who chose to pack valuable intellectual property in such a
sloppy manner. I would
> suggest the shipper behaved like a typical shipper -- these guys are not in
the "careful" business.
>
> My takeaway is never ship pancakes, always have reels in boxes, tape boxes
shut and wrap in
> bubble-wrap (none of this taping and wrapping tight enough to squish the reel
or tape-pack, by the
> way), pack tapes either horizontally or vertically but not both, use
medium-sized boxes and nest the
> box within a larger box in a sea of force-absorbing material. Perhaps also
wrap the nested box in
> plastic so it is water-tight. Keep your total weight of tapes vastly
under-spec'd to your boxes, so
> simple physics is your ally instead of your enemy. And ship via the fastest
way you can afford so
> the tapes do not stay long in transit. And insure to full value which might,
just might, catch a
> shipper's attention before they heave your box off a 2-story drop. Oh, and of
course communicate
> clearly enough that you know exactly where to send the tapes!
>
There is, of course, another factor involved here...!

I remain firmly convinced that should one be adventurous enough to elect
to ship a six-inch cube of solid stainless steel via any commercial
enterprise in that line of business...it would arrive at its destination
in effectively unrecognizable condition...!?

Steven C. Barr

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager