From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Malcolm Rockwell wrote:
> The one thing that's always puzzled me about both aluminum and glass
> bases, but especially glass. Why didn't the manufacturers put a light
> knurling or a fine sand-blasting etch on the side the lacquer adhered
> to? That would have given something for the flowed or sprayed lacquer to
> adhere to and we wouldn't be having the problems with flaking and
> peeling that we have now.
> Yeah, I know, that's all well and good in retrospect!
----- glass was actually preferred over aluminum because of the much greater
smoothness, i.e. less roughness, as the cut was more silent. The lacquer
layer is very thin and it follows every unevenness. Possibly adhesion would
have improved, but the usefulness of the result for sound recording would be
----- I should note that I have only once handled a 16" glass lacquer disc,
and here a 4" pile would be exceedingly heavy. And here you will have a real
quandary, because one disc is fragile when it gets this large, and you really
need to move a small pile at any one time, something like at least 10 if you
intend to carry them by two hands.
----- just for the record I should also mention that there are indeed true
acetates around, but they were designed for the home recording market and
their great selling point was that the thread cut out was not inflammable.
I would chime in on a request for more information before we provide more
> On 5/16/2010 8:54 PM, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > Hi Lisa,
> > something good always comes from asking the list. I shall contribute a
> > bit.
> > Glass discs are always direct-cut and mostly one-offs. They first came
> > during WW2, but surprisingly also about 1951 when there was another
> > shortage, when glass was replacing aluminum as the carrier. The
> > actually considered them to be better lacquer discs, because the surface
> > the glass was much smoother then aluminum.
> > The major problem with lacquer discs is delamination or its precursors,
> > cracks: the outer lacquer layer may separate from the glass base, and
> > makes the record unplayable. It is difficult to see any pattern in the
> > appearance of the defects, because you will find lacquers that are stilll
> > perfect condition and some where certain constituents have crawled from
> > inside to the surface, where they form a soft layer that can be removed.
> > You said that you have ca. 6 cubic feet of them; with a square outline of
> > one square foot this meens ca. 6 linear feet, and that is a lot,
> > more than 600. I would expect them to be stored upright and not at an
> > and not in piles of more than 4 inches. They should be kept dust free.
> > records themselves are surprisingly strong, but obviously the surfaces
> > vulnerable.
> > There are people on this list who are not in Europe and who work with
> > records very frequently, and no doubt they will respond further.
> > Kind regards,
> > George
> > P.S. You did not mean record albums by Philip Glass, I presume?!
> > Lisa Lobdell wrote:
> >> Hi, I'm brand new to this list and was completely ignorant of the
> >> existence of glass albums until last week when I accepted an internship
> >> to inventory the collection of a small foundation. Along with the
> >> written documents and LP's in this collection are approximately 6cft of
> >> glass albums. I have no idea yet what the quality of these albums is,
> >> but I would appreciate it if someone could give me a quick rundown of
> >> what defects to look for and how to preserve them. I've read some of
> >> the threads, but I'm brand new to archiving audio materials so I'm a
> >> confused.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Lisa Lobdell