Sorting through records this weekend, I noticed that my Grand Prize labels were somewhat thicker than the patent and batwing labels, and even my one Monarch label record, recorded in '03 and probably produced in '04.
I know having just one of these doesn't make it a really reliable comparison, but the patents and batwing are consistently less thick. Was there a difference in composition, or just a change in the amount of material?
Victor Record Thickness
- Victor A
- Victor I
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:45 pm
- Personal Text: "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" - Graham Chapman
Victor Record Thickness
SOUSA, The March King, says:
"Your 'VICTOR' and 'MONARCH' Records are all right."
"Your 'VICTOR' and 'MONARCH' Records are all right."
- Wolfe
- Victor V
- Posts: 2755
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:52 pm
Re: Victor Record Thickness
They probably used whatever amount that was needed to set up properly in the record presses in the pressing plant. Composition of shellac unlikely to be causing the difference.
- Victor A
- Victor I
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:45 pm
- Personal Text: "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" - Graham Chapman
Re: Victor Record Thickness
Ah, I see. Thanks for the information.
SOUSA, The March King, says:
"Your 'VICTOR' and 'MONARCH' Records are all right."
"Your 'VICTOR' and 'MONARCH' Records are all right."
-
- Victor IV
- Posts: 1565
- Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:33 pm
Re: Victor Record Thickness
I found that the pre-Dog Monarchs in the 3000 series are thicker than the later Patents and Wing label Victors.edisonplayer
- Victor A
- Victor I
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:45 pm
- Personal Text: "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" - Graham Chapman
Re: Victor Record Thickness
Mine is in the later 2000 series (2614), so I wonder if that might tell us about when they switched to different pressing machines.
SOUSA, The March King, says:
"Your 'VICTOR' and 'MONARCH' Records are all right."
"Your 'VICTOR' and 'MONARCH' Records are all right."