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  April 2010

ARSCLIST April 2010

Subject:

Re: Picture Sleeve variant?

From:

Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:47:11 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

Doug Henkle wrote:
> At 01:01 PM 03-09-2010 -0500, Mike Biel wrote:
>> I would call it an "insert", "insert sheet", "insert booklet" or 
>> "insert card".  Recordings of all types had sheets inserted, even 
>> booklets.  This goes back to cylinders, 78 albums, pre-recorded tape, 
>> and LPs, among others.  You might make a differentiation for 
>> something that acts like a picture cover inside a clear outer cover, 
>> and perhaps call it a "display insert".  If it unfolds, it might even 
>> be an "insert poster".  I've seen these things that are record size 
>> with printing on one side broken into blocks, but when unfolded the 
>> other side is one large poster picture.  But if is part of the inside 
>> of the package, it is an "insert".
>
> http://www.folklib.net/index/discog/labels/wi_labelography_ps.shtml
>
>      I have finished scanning every picture sleeve and related item 
> for all the Wisconsin 45's and 7" EP's in my collection.  I have also 
> changed the designation from "sleeve" to "insert" for all that apply.  
> The back side of most of them is blank.  None of them, when unfolded, 
> show a complete picture, like a poster.  I added a new section to the 
> page with a more complete description of them and included unfolded 
> scans of 11 of them,
>
> http://www.folklib.net/index/discog/labels/wi_labelography_ps.shtml#FoldedCovers 
>
>
>      The generic unsealed plastic sleeve around them seems to me that 
> it was added to the used 45's by the store, because there is no 
> printing, broken seal, or any other indication that the record company 
> released it that way.  With three open sides, it had to be contained 
> in something when originally sold, but I don't know what that 
> "package" looked like.  Has anyone ever seen one of these, unopened, 
> sealed in shrink wrap, or something else, or bought one in person from 
> an artist or a label?

That is how they MUST be packed by the FACTORY if what they are in is 
essentially a folded piece of paper with three open sides.  You cannot 
shrink wrap a record housed only in paper -- the paper will be 
crumpled.  Only a hard cardboard cover can be shrink wrapped.  If you go 
to record stores which stock these 45s new, these open poly sleeves are 
universal.  Even singles in regular paper sleeves -- 45s or 78s -- were 
never sealed.  Never.  Why seal the polybags?  They would get wrecked by 
unsealing, and then the collector would have a cruddy package. 

>      These folded covers serve the same purpose as the front/back of 
> LP jackets and 45 picture sleeves, and CD liner notes booklet front 
> cover and the jewel case tray card under the CD.  Since all LP's had 
> jackets, I don't think anything like this was ever needed for an LP.

Nope, wrong again.  The first Columbia LPs were in paper sleeves, a bit 
heavier than the flimsy generic 78 sleeves, but nothing that could have 
survived shrinkwrapping -- which didn't come along until the 1960s 
anyway.  There were some loose sealed polybags in the 50s, and this 
continued occasionally in Europe in the 60s because European sleeves are 
usually thinner than in the U.S.  Most LPs were not sealed until the 60s. 

>   I find it hard to believe that these folded covers, in a format 
> possibly unique to 45's, exists only from 11 different Wisconsin 
> labels and 9 out-of-state labels and have never been given a universal 
> nomenclature/name by any collector or record company in the past.

You don't get out to record stores much,.do you?  Underground records 
have occasionally been packaged this way worldwide for decades.  And why 
do you think that they have never been given a name before?  And I do 
tend to find that rock collectors and writers -- especially back in the 
70s and 80s -- sometimes unnecessarily re-named things wrong out of 
ignorance of the way things were done before they were born.  At least 
you are going at this the right way by asking the experienced. 

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask] 

>      FYI, after three months work, this went public on April 1st with 
> 523 scans for 253 different record companies,
>
> http://www.folklib.net/index/discog/labels/wi_labelography.shtml
>    FolkLib Index - Wisconsin Labelography
> ____________________________________________________________
> Doug Henkle - mailto:[log in to unmask]
> P.O. Box 1447, Oshkosh, WI 54903-1447
>
>

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

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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