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.

Richard

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?
>
>Steve Smolian
>
>----- 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
>
>
>>Hi Steve,
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Best, Richard
>>
>>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?
>>>
>>>Steve Smolian