I'll take a look at Yale's copy, I hope later this week. I don't know
that we'll be able to learn anything we need to know about Columbia's
policies. Probably we'll only be able to learn some of their
practices in processing.
At 09:48 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>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?