 |
 |
Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > If memory serves, the smaller 1930s diameter was > > required to clear the jukebox mechanisms. From: David Breneman <[log in to unmask]> > The only major prewar mechanism for which the record > diameter was a major consideration was AMI's which > used a gripper-arm to transfer the record from the > magazine to the turntable (this record changer was > intoduced in 1927 and this same type of transfer > arm is still used on Rowe/AMI's CD jukeboxes to this > day). The transfer arm will clear a nominal 10-1/4" > in its fully open position, C'mon David, you know better than that. WHAT 10-1/4-INCH DISCS??????????????????????????????????? The first point I made in this thread was to debunk Steve Barr's contention that Columbia/OKeh pressings from the late 20s were 10-1/4-inches. THEY WEREN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They were 10.00000000000000-inches. Victors and most other 78s were 9-7/8-inches going way back to at least the era of Victor double-sided records. They were called 10-inches but they were not. Get out a ruler and check for yourself. There were some 10-1/2 inch Pathes and Phonotipias (I don't have any handy to check whether those are really exactly 10-1/2 inches, so I might be guilty of that generalization in this case) but those were not what Steve Barr was talking about. The discussion began with the red label Columbia jazz reissues of late 20s early 30s Columbia/OKehs, with Steve saying they could not have been master pressings, yet many were. Let's bury this misconception once and for all. Most 10-inch records are under 10-inches, and the "oversize" Columbias were actually 10-inches, NOT 10-1/4-inches. Actually, in the late gold band era into the early flag label time in the 20s, some Columbia pressings had a deep groove near the edge of the label. I have several of them right here, and these happen to be 9-7/8-inches, and are records that also came out on ungrooved pressings that were 10.0-inches, and BOTH types had enough lead-in area. I have a late-20s HMV and an acoustical Perfect that are 9-13/16-inches, and acoustical Clarion and Meteor (Lyric-looking pressing) that are 10.0-inches. I have a single-sided Victor with a 1904 rear-label and a square-cut edge which is 9-15/16-inches. I don't have any black and silver Columbias of that era immediately at hand, but none of the records I have measured this week were above 10.0-inches. I did mention that Edison Diamond Discs seem to be randomly at a wide range. The first one I came across tonight to measure turns out to be 9-5/8-inches!!! And as for Steve Smolian's mentioning that early Deccas were oversized, I don't have any sundials here at hand to check, but I do have a blue label pressing of 3334 from Album 135 that has evidence that there might have been an optical illusion at work. It is a Jimmy Dorsey compilation, and one side is matrix DLA-423A with the florid script matrix numbering, while the other side is 63689A with plain lettering. The pressing is 9-7/8-inches, but the lead-in area of the earlier matrix is a wide 5/16-inch, while the other side is a more normal 7/32-inch, 3/32-inch less. The grooved area is 9-1/4-inches on the earlier master and almost 9-1/2-inches on the other. If early Deccas were larger than 9-7/8-inches, the lead in area on early masters like DLA-423A would look even HUGER. A long discussion, but once again, it is mainly to convince everyone that "oversized" Columbia pressings were NOT 10-1/4-inches. Mike Biel [log in to unmask] > but of course the design assumes enough clearance for the record magazine to freely move back and forth through the gap of the open arm. The other major manufacturers, Seeburg, Wurlitzer and Rock-Ola, all used horizontally moving record trays to move the record over a rising turntable in their prewar record changers, and in those the center hole was a more immediate limiting factor than the outside diameter.