The crappy ones hold up well, as well. Like Grey Gull products.
Paramount and Gennett changed their formulations at different times. 
Some were better than others but all shellacs, regardless of their 
fillers and noise levels initially, still hold up as well as when they 
were made. Mostly.
Malcolm

*******

On 2/3/2016 7:55 AM, Chris Bishop wrote:
> 78s weren't ever pure shellac, which is too brittle, there were all kinds
> of fillers in them, like later vinyl records. Many post-war 78s were made
> with vinyl compounds. But I'm sure the best shellac discs hold up very
> well.
>
> Properly-produced vinyl is a very stable medium and a cheap material too. I
> don't know how long a record could remain an accurate document sitting on a
> library shelf - a few hundred years, a thousand? Maybe archives should
> purchase some lathes and start training people to master and cut vinyl. It
> may be a better option than digital for long-term preservation - or at
> least the best physical backup available.
>
> Artists who record digitally and upload to bandcamp or soundcloud will more
> likely than not have their music be inaccessible in a hundred years, while
> those who produce vinyl albums or singles, whatever the aural shortcomings,
> will see theirs survive.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Frank Strauss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Diamond Disks!
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Chris Bishop <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Most people don't even want downloads let alone CDs. So in that sense
>> vinyl
>>> is as doomed as every other physical medium.
>>>
>>> But I disagree that vinyl is a dead medium at this time. The DJ scene is
>>> stronger than ever in every genre.
>>>
>>> Records produced 50 or 60 years ago can be pulled off the shelf, cleaned
>>> and played with almost no deterioration from age. What medium is more
>>> stable in average storage conditions?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:28 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's the old question--do you want fame or money?  Many "artists" of
>>> today
>>>> apparently keep their day jobs and go for fame by giving it away,
>>> thinking
>>>> fortune will follow.  Seems like it seldom does, and this has very
>> little
>>>> to do with basic talent.  It's a recipe for a lousy pop music world,
>>> which
>>>> to my ancient ears is just what is happening.  Meanwhile any third-rate
>>> pop
>>>> artist from the past can sell out a hall today.   Thank goodness they
>> are
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> As for vinyl, it's a blip and a fad.  If it gets people listening who
>>>> otherwise wouldn't be, then fine, I like it, but we who ought to know
>>>> better mustn't kid ourselves.  As a format, vinyl is a dead one, and it
>>>> deserves to be.  Of course I'm not tossing out my record collection,
>> but
>>> as
>>>> a person who restores old records in modern formats, I have no
>> nostalgic,
>>>> romantic illusions about vinyl's supposed virtues.  If people are happy
>>>> listening to it, then be happy and go for it. But as "audio people"
>> let's
>>>> not go fooling ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> John Haley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting stats from Nielsen:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/22/10816404/2015-album-sales-trends-vinyl-catalog-streaming
>>>>> Soundscan does not pick up the whole market, but the trends seem
>>>> credible.
>>>>> Interesting that Adele fans are also vinyl fans in such a pronounced
>>>> way. I
>>>>> wonder if the back-catalog trend was just a blip because so much of
>> it
>>> is
>>>>> now in print either as downloads or physical media, just about every
>>>>> "golden age" audiophile favorite is not out in new-remaster vinyl,
>> and
>>>> what
>>>>> CDs are left in the pipeline are heavily discounted. But, that said,
>>> the
>>>>> market to create great new music is not really there -- artists make
>>> more
>>>>> just touring and releasing a song here and there via download or
>> video
>>>>> streams. So why get in a studio and create great art? There was also
>> an
>>>>> interesting interview in the latest issue of TapeOp magazine with the
>>>>> Minneapolis hip-hop collective Doomtree. One thing they said that
>> stuck
>>>> in
>>>>> my mind is that there is a penalty today for taking the time to write
>>>>> great, meaningful lyrics. The music-buying public wants catchy
>> phrases
>>>> and
>>>>> well-worn stereotype statements set to music, they want simple
>> ditties,
>>>> and
>>>>> simple sells.
>>>>>
>>>>> This report looks at unit sales for the first half of 2015:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/us-album-sales-fall-4-in-first-half-of-2015-as-cd-rules-market-just/
>>>>> The problem that isn't documented in unit sales is that copyright
>>> owners,
>>>>> artists and everyone else with a stake in making quality music get
>>>> pennies
>>>>> on the dollar from these streaming services, and that's the main
>> growth
>>>>> area as far as consumer uptake (yes, the vinyl niche is thriving, but
>>>> it's
>>>>> a tiny niche compared to overall music sales, and does not produce
>>> enough
>>>>> revenue to float any artist or major copyright owner). I think it was
>>>> very
>>>>> foolish for the record companies to surrender to streamers on the
>>> cheap.
>>>>> They should be charging royalties like radio, plus a download fee,
>> and
>>>> the
>>>>> streamers should be forced into a model where everyone who streams
>>> pays a
>>>>> monthly fee. Most of the streaming is freebie streaming, and that
>> just
>>>>> doesn't produce enough revenue. If I were an artists, I'd say you get
>>>>> nothing for free streaming, and if I'm a hit-making artist I'd say
>> you
>>>> get
>>>>> nothing without paying me regular download fees.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Frank B Strauss, DMD
>>