Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

My point is that of my two copies with thr R suffix, one has take numbers 
and one doesn't.  So how com?

In the larger sense, does this tell us anything we need to know 
(discographically speaking) about English Columbia's matrix numbering 
policies?

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Warren" <richard.warren@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle


> Hi Steve,
>
> 3546 [original, no -R] has matrices A 612 and A 1186 for Boughton and 
> Martin, respectively, published April, 1925 (apparently no logs survive to 
> tell rec. date)
>
> 3546-R [copy also at Yale] is as you list: matrices are as you and the 
> book about Columbia 10-inch discs agree, Boughton recorded Aug. 26, 1926, 
> Martin rec. Aug. 31, 1926. Columbias this age do not usually show take 
> numbers in the dead wax, so you're lucky this one did on one side. The "R" 
> does normally indicate a remake or replacement.
>
> Best, Richard
>
> At 11:04 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
> > I've two copies of English Columbia 3546 R.  One side is The Faery Song 
> > from Boughton's "Immortal Hour," matrix A 3551-5.  The reverse is Easthope 
> > Martin's song, "The Minstrel," matrix A 3817-1.  The singer is Philip 
> > Heseltine.
> >
> > The "R" indicates "remake," as far as I can tell, and replaces an earlier, 
> > idenical coupling.
> >
> > One copy has the take number after the matrix number in the dead wax, the 
> > other the matrix number only.
> >
> > What's going on here?  Is one a dub?  Any idea?
> >
> > Steve Smolian