I thought glass was considered superior because it was flatter, did not
warp (break, yes, but not warp)
George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> 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
> armchair advice.
> Kind regards,
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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,
>>> 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
>>>> Lisa Lobdell