How do you prefer to store your records? Albums or Sleeves? Combo?

[Dischoard]

Generally, I store them alphabetically by artist/band, but that gets screwed up sometimes when there is a different artist on each side of a record (this seems to happen mostly on older discs) or two artists collaborating on a song (such as Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters).

That's a perfect example! Yes, I have that same issue. That's why I put mine by label and then catalog number. I like to see the chronology of recording, how it all fit together. The benefit of putting it all on Discogs is that I can easily do a search of my own collection and, like a library, find the catalog number to produce the record for listening.

[BillH_NJ]

Generally, I store them alphabetically by artist/band, but that gets screwed up sometimes when there is a different artist on each side of a record (this seems to happen mostly on older discs) or two artists collaborating on a song (such as Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters).

That's a perfect example! Yes, I have that same issue. That's why I put mine by label and then catalog number. I like to see the chronology of recording, how it all fit together. The benefit of putting it all on Discogs is that I can easily do a search of my own collection and, like a library, find the catalog number to produce the record for listening.

Same here. There are too many records with multiple artists to file them in that way. A database by catalog number makes it easy to find whatever I want on the shelf.

[Inigo]

What I do was the advice of a book, don't remember if it was Percy Wilson's Gramophones of 1929, or Boris Semeonoff's Record Collecting. When I acquire records, I clean and sleeve them. I add a sequential numbering to the outer corner of the sleeve (plus the label and record number, and a brief note about the artist and titles) , and file it in that order (chronological by purchase and filing order). I note the record, matrix, etc data in an excel file, one row by side, and adding that assigned sequential number to these sides. The excel database allows sorting by filing number, record or matrix numbers, titles or performers, etc.
Some records are filed in albums, and some in thematic groups apart. All these data are registered in the database too, very important, and a code telling where the record is stored (signature).
From time to time I print a complete collection catalogue, just like the Victor catalogue, it is, alphabetically by titles and performers, mixed both in a continuous alphabetical order, a to z. In each catalogue entry I print also all the relevant data of each side, so the catalogue helps locating a record by title or artist, and tells all the data, and the filing number and where the record is stored. This catalogue is automatically generated by the database with a little manipulation. Of course, for this system to work, all the titles of music pieces have to be written in the same way, and also the artists names. I use professional cataloging techniques, and each register in the database, being one side of each record, has no less than 28 fields with the data. Some of them are not printed in the catalogue (bare record and matrix numbers for sorting purposes, or other data about the source of recording dates, notes, etc).
When you want to listen to a given record, you seek into the catalogue, read the filing number and where it's stored, go for it, browse through the sleeve corners until you find the number, extract the sleeve a bit, to mark the position, and extract the record from the sleeve. The record are stored vertically with the sleeve opening facing outside.
This system I've been using for 25 years now, and my collection grew from 1200s 78s when I started this system, up to 5200 now, that I've stopped buying more 78s... only a few more occasionally.
I learned from this book that the system has many advantages. First of all, you don't need to shuffle all the records to make room for new ones, as they go directly to the last positions in the shelves. You can make thematic groups of records or whatever you want, only with the catalogue or the database. Of course some records are stored thematically, those I use to listen to together. But the bulk of the collection is filled in that chronological purchase order.
I found an additional personal charm in this : many times I took a bunch of records directly from the shelves to listen to them, and they are all a mixture of styles, which I enjoy very much for causal listening. I have stored them in the past in other ways (by label and record number, other times by artists) but I find this problematic and boring for my tastes in listening. This later archival organization I've found to be the best for me, so I finally attached to it. The records suffer from less movement and shuffling, etc.
In my system, I store separatedly the 10" from the 12", and also apart the album sets. I also have, as I said before, some records (maybe 1000) in separated thematic groups or made-up albums, like 10" classic music and opera, children's fairytales, spoken word, rare ethnic recordings, thin celluloid or cardboard records.... These are small groups and are well manageable.
The 12" I have are almost all classical music. These are stored differently (don't ask me why! ) by bare numerical record number order, despite the labels being different. I sometime decided that it was better for me, as many classical sets without albums go then all together. But it's also a mixture of styles.

[Frisco The Beagle]

What I do was the advice of a book, don't remember if it was Percy Wilson's Gramophones of 1929, or Boris Semeonoff's Record Collecting. When I acquire records, I clean and sleeve them. I add a correlative numbering to the outer corner of the sleeve, and file it in that order (chronological by purchase and filling order). I note Dien the record, matrix, etc data in an excel file, one row by side, and adding that cirrosis filling number to these sides. The excel database allows sorting by filling number, record or matrix numbers, titles or performers, etc.
Some records are filed in albums, and some in thematic groups apart. All these data are registered in the database too, very important, and a code telling where the record is stored (signature).
From time to time I print a complete collection catalogue, just like the Victor catalogue, it is, alphabetically by titles and performers, mixed both in a continuous alphabetical order, a to z. In each catalogue entry I print also all the data of each side, so the catalogue helps locating a record by title or artist, and tells all the data, and the filing number and where the record is stored. This catalogue is automatically generated by the database with a little manipulation. Of course, for this system to work, all the titles of music pieces have to be written in the same way, and also the artists names. I use professional cataloging techniques, and each register in the database, being one side of each record, has not led than 28 fields with the data. Some of them are not printed in the catalogue (bare record and matrix numbers for sorting purposes, or other data about the source of recording dates, notes, etc).
When you want to listen to a given record, you seek into the catalogue, read the filling number and where it's out stored, go for it, browse through the sleeve corners until you find the number, extract the sleeve a bit, to mark the position, and extract the record from the sleeve.
This system I've been using for 25 years now, and my collection grew from 1900s 78s when I started this system, up to 5200 now, that I've stopped buying more 78s... only a few more occasionally.
I learned from this book that the system has many advantages. First of all, you don't need to shuffle all the records to make room for new ones, as they go directly to the last positions in the shelves. You can masks thematic groups of records or whatever you want, only with the catalogue or the database. Of course some records are stored thematically, those I use to listen to together. But the bulk of the collection is filled in that chronological purchase order.
I found an additional personal charm in this : many times I took a bunch of records directly from the shelves to listen to them, and they are all a mixture of styles, which I enjoy very much for causal listening. I have stored them in the past in other ways (by label and record number, other times by artists) but I find this problematic and boring for my tastes in listening. This later archival organization I've found to be the best for me, so I finally attached to it. The records suffer from less movement and shuffling, etc.
In my system, I store separatedly the 10" from the 12", and also apart the album sets. I also have, as I said before, some records (maybe 300 or 400) in separated thematic groups or made-up albums, like 10" classic music and opera, children's fairytales, spoken word, rare ethnic recordings, thin celluloid or cardboard records.... These are small groups and are well manageable.
The 12" I have are almost all classical music. These are stored differently (don't ask me why! ) by bare numerical record number order, despite the labels being different. I sometime decided that it was better for me, as many classical sets without albums go then all together. But it's also a mixture of styles.

Inigo - this sounds like a system I should start using. Could you post some pictures of pages of your catalog to give an idea of how it is arranged and the data cells you use?

[gramophone-georg]

Generally, I store them alphabetically by artist/band, but that gets screwed up sometimes when there is a different artist on each side of a record (this seems to happen mostly on older discs) or two artists collaborating on a song (such as Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters).

That's a perfect example! Yes, I have that same issue. That's why I put mine by label and then catalog number. I like to see the chronology of recording, how it all fit together. The benefit of putting it all on Discogs is that I can easily do a search of my own collection and, like a library, find the catalog number to produce the record for listening.

Same here. There are too many records with multiple artists to file them in that way. A database by catalog number makes it easy to find whatever I want on the shelf.

See, this is where you get to buy multiple copies and file one away in each pertinent artists' album!
You're welcome.

[drh]

Here's what I do (note that my collection is essentially all classical/operatic):

Edison diamond discs: Mostly stored in numerical order in two office grade four-drawer file cabinets (for letter size, not legal size paper), old ones from when the things were still built sturdily. Discs go "across" the drawers, so one side is face out. Each disc is sleeved, a mix of Edison, other brand, and modern generic sleeves.

Pathé vertical cut discs: 14" size are in numbered 14x14 clamshells sold for photographic portfolios. The opera sets are in 12x12 clamshells, mostly originally for 78s but in one case for LPs. Most of these records are individually sleeved, except for a few for which I lack sleeves of the proper size; those are still OK, as they reside in each case between sleeved records on each side, "borrowing" the benefits of the outside of each adjacent sleeve. Some of the "normal sized" (mostly 11.25") Pathé singles are in similar clamshells, eventually destined to be sequentially numbered, and I want to store all of them so, but I ran out of clamshells and have had no luck finding more. The bulk of the Pathé singles are in an old record cabinet, individually sleeved, or in the cabinet of my Pathé 100 upright, ditto. Getting them in order is on my "to do" list.

78 album sets are stored in the original (or, occasionally, repurposed) albums, grouped by label and shelved in set catalogue number order. I have separate storage for 10" and 12" sets.

78 singles are in generic (or repurposed "set") albums, numbered in sequence. Again, separate sections for 10" and 12" albums, and each size begins with album "1." Records within each album are semi-random, generally grouped by date of acquisition. In other words, if I get a stack of 78 singles, I'll put them in albums starting where I left off last time, and within that lot I'll try to keep, say, piano records together, soprano singers together, then contraltos, etc., but I can easily end up with an album that mixes solo instrumental, orchestral, and vocal depending on what I got that day. I keep a list of sleeves vacated when sifting out dupes, and then later put newly-acquired records there, so things aren't truly chronological, either.

LPs are stored in a separate set of shelves, alphabetically by label and in catalogue number order within those groups.

Cylinders are in various drawers, either designed for the purpose or pressed into service.

To find records, I have everything in a computer catalogue maintained with a program called Personal Knowbase; I started it with a similar DOS program called SquareNote. I stayed with SquareNote for years after Windows started making things awkward for DOS software. Alas, it was orphaned, meaning no updates or extensions of its capabilities, and eventually I hit the limits of what it could do and my ability to keep it running. Happily Personal Knowbase is sufficiently similar that I was able to transport the SquareNote database into it without inordinate retyping or adjustments. It presents what amounts to an index card for each entry, allowing for free form data of any length, accessible by assigned sorting tags. This design allows for easy notes. For example, one entry is as follows:

~~~~~~~~~

Beethoven: Symphony no. 9 in d, op. 125 ("Choral"). In English. Elsie Suddaby, Nellie Walker, Walter Widdop, Stuart Robertson; Or./Coates. (1) VicaO set M-12, 8 12". Exc. LA 5/17/89 (2) HMV set 31, 8 12". Exc. RG 6/6/2001

Both sets are missing music in the slow mvt. beginning with the second half of beat 4, measure 51, and picking up with the second half of beat 4, measure 58. In the Victor set, the record speed changes markedly after this break. It remains the same in the HMV, which uses different takes.

HMV copy: several sides present difficult warps, esp. 2, 7, 8; needed extra tracking force and max antiskate to play. First side of finale is at 81.9 RPM; remainder at 78.26.

~~~~~~~~~

That tells me I have copies on Victrola Orthophonic (RCA Victor Orthophonic would be RVicO or RVicaO) and HMV; the dates include codes for where I bought the records (keyed elsewhere), and some detail modifying the notationj that my HMV copy has excellent surfaces. The notes about the cut and playback speeds are self-explanatory. This card assigns sorting tags Beethoven, Suddaby, Walker, Widdop, Robertson, HMV, Victor, 12, 31, 12", set, 1989, 2001, 78 RPM, and instrumental. I can ask the software to bring up all notes under any of those tags, and this note will appear along with any other records similarly tagged. Doing a search request for "Suddaby," for example, brings up this note and also an English Decca recording of Bach's St. Matthew Passion.

For singles in the generic albums, I assign what amount to nine-digit ZIP codes (because SquareNote could sort by ZIP code, a capability not present in Personal Knowbase). Thus, for example,

~~~~~~~~~

Puccini: Tosca, Act III -- E Lucevan le Stelle (The Stars Were Shining). In Italian. Caruso. (a) w/ piano. HMV V.A.34, 10". Exc. CAr 4/10/2009 (replacing Vica 523-A BB 5/18/90) 10124-0012 (b) w/ or. VicaR 87044, 10". G 10008-0002 (retained in preference to OpD 74526 GSi 1/21/90) (c) w/ piano. Pathé 84004, 11.25". Exc. LH 6/2001 Same number, 14". Exc. RG 5/18/2018 14001 Also Herrold 500A, 10". Exc. CAr 4/10/2009 10125-0011 Also IRCC 3121-B, 10" vinyl. VG CAr 4/10/2009 10134-0009 (d) Victor ARM1-2767, 12" digital mono LP WUOT 8/12/2000

(a) rec. Feb. 1, 1904 Transcribed to server 4/29/2018 Graham Slee Accession flat; Kenwood 1070KE equalizer; 2.8 mil truncated elliptical 78 RPM
(b), (d) rec. Nov. 6, 1909 Transcribed to server 9/3/2016 0 0 500 4.0 mil 75 RPM
(c) rec. ca. 1901; both dubbed from AICC cylinder

~~~~~~~~~

This shows I have Caruso singing the aria on records found at 10" album 124, sleeve 12; 10" album 8, sleeve 2; as a separately sleeved 11.25" Pathé in the record cabinet; as a 14" Pathé in photo folio clamshell 1; in 10" album 125, sleeve 11; 10" album 134 sleeve 9; and on a Victor LP reissue. A 12" Victor would be in a 12-series album; for instance,

~~~~~~~~~

Verdi: Il Trovatore, Act IV -- Ai nostri monti (Home to Our Mountains). In Italian. Homer/Caruso. Vica 89018, 12" (9N stamper). VG MHl 8/25/89 12084-0001

Rec. Dec. 29, 1910 75.00 RPM

Note: Victor issued the same artists in this selection rec. Mar. 17, 1908 under the same catalogue number. In the recording above, Caruso takes the last note up. In the earlier recording, he takes it down.

~~~~~~~~~

Here the record is in 12" album 84, sleeve 1.

OK, you can wake up now!

[Inigo]

drh, a very good system.
Frisco, I'll copy herein a sample explaining the registered data later, from home. The database is there. Nevertheless, I always keep in my mobile phone a pdf copy of the catalogue, to help me when I'm buying records, to avoid buying unwanted duplicates or to help buying records missing from some record sets. At home I keep a printed copy together with the record in the shelf.

[drh]

drh, a very good system.
Frisco, I'll copy herein a sample explaining the registered data later, from home. The database is there. Nevertheless, I always keep in my mobile phone a pdf copy of the catalogue, to help me when I'm buying records, to avoid buying unwanted duplicates or to help buying records missing from some record sets. At home I keep a printed copy together with the record in the shelf.

Thanks, Inigo. Looking at yours, which actually has some things in common with mine, I like the aspect of not needing to shuffle records on shelves. My singles have that virtue, but the sets and LPs, being in label/catalogue number order, do, and that's a *big* job staring me in the face, interleaving a bunch of Victor 78 sets acquired since I shelved the ones that are in order. I did the same thing for my other labels a year or two back; let's just say I got my exercise for the month!

I gave up on printing my catalogue years ago. The thing got big enough that it was just too awkward to carry around and too slow to access, and by now, with nearly 30,000 entries, it would be hopeless; instead, I always consult the catalogue in electronic form. I take my laptop with me on record hunting expeditions, but that's a *great* idea about putting the catalogue on a phone. I'll need to check out if there's any way I can do that with Personal Knowbase. (Alas, I'd be surprised if I could.) I hasten to add, entries do not really correspond to the number of records. Each is for a composition in performance; thus, to go back to the first example I quoted above, the Coates Beethoven's 9th sym. set, with 8 records, generates one entry, which actually is for 16 physical records because I have two copies. Edison 47004, one of the 12" lateral records by Moritz Rosenthal (the single most expensive record I ever bought--don't ask!), generates 6 entries, because he plays three short Chopin works on each side, and each of those performances gets a separate entry. A "recital" LP can spawn a dozen entries or more.

For 78s, I much prefer albums to single sleeves; the latter provide no protection from breakage in handling. I guess I got prejudiced by a series of Victor classical sets that were issued in floppy paper covers, in effect gatefold-style single sleeves; I'd say more than half of those I've encountered have had at least one broken record. The albums, of course, have their own problem: the glue in the sleeves can go with age, letting records roll into the hinge and then snap when one turns the pages. To avoid that problem, whenever I get out an album I always put it on the floor or a table top with the edge opposite the binding down, then give it a couple of gentle "tunks" to make sure the records have all rolled to the outside end of the sleeves before turning any pages. Note that sleeve storage has the virtue of efficiency--a shelf can hold more records in sleeves than in albums.

I should qualify the foregoing: the "record-in-hinge" problem arises with American-style top-loading albums. English-style end-loading albums of the sort HMV provided for its album sets are immune to it, in part because they incorporated grommets to prevent the records from going too far toward the binding and in part because the overall design just isn't prone to it. They also have the virtue of allowing for easier extraction of the records without touching the playing surfaces. Unfortunately, they seem to have been less stoutly built than their American counterparts; at least in this country, the average condition of such albums that I've encountered has been far rattier than that of the American ones.

[AmberolaAndy]

I’m a sleeve man myself. I prefer to not lose half moon pieces of my records.

[Inigo]

Drh,
Actually the chronological order system has a drawback: if you want to see the evolution of a label in time, or to pick several records by an artist, you have to see the filing numbers in the catalogue or database, and go extracting them records from the shelves one by one, etc. Disadvantages of records actually being filed in mixture.
I have 5,200 records so far, so my database has 10,400 entries, one by side. The printed catalogue (Victor style) has 20,800 entries, for each side is entered twice: one by title and another by artist. Anyway, I print it in a4, tiny typos and double column, so it is a 124 page booklet. Thick, but handy. In PDF form it takes 4.3Mb. Herein it's a simple of one page...

cat.jpg

When I use albums, I do like you: I tap the album and force the records towards the sleeves outer edges.

Frisco The Beagle: one sample of my excel database; better than that, here it is complete, whoever wants to browse through it.
It is in constant evolution, for I'm in the eternal task of seeking the recording dates for every side, and classifying the recordings by one way or another. It's my toy.

Please fell free to ask any questions.