Page 2 of 2
Re: Can anyone date this Berliner?
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 11:19 am
by fran604g
Menophanes wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 9:06 am
But consider this record of mine (No. 3404,
Jessie the Flower of Dumblane, cornet solo by W. Paris Chambers). It has an additional patent date (29 Oct. 1895 – not clear in the image), but the other features are identical to those under discussion, and the recording date seems to be 24 August 1897; admittedly the 7 is incomplete, but it clearly has a horizontal stroke at the top and I do not see how else it could be read, since it could not possibly be a 5 or a 3.
Why would records made in 1898 omit the latest patent date shown in the previous year?
Oliver Mundy.
berliner_3404_chambers.jpg
The patent wars amongst Eldridge Johnson, Emile Berliner, Columbia (American Graphophone) and Frank Seaman?
Re: Can anyone date this Berliner?
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:03 pm
by phonogfp
Menophanes wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 9:06 am
But consider this record of mine (No. 3404,
Jessie the Flower of Dumblane, cornet solo by W. Paris Chambers). It has an additional patent date (29 Oct. 1895 – not clear in the image), but the other features are identical to those under discussion, and the recording date seems to be 24 August 1897; admittedly the 7 is incomplete, but it clearly has a horizontal stroke at the top and I do not see how else it could be read, since it could not possibly be a 5 or a 3. Why would records made in 1898 omit the latest patent date shown in the previous year?
Oliver Mundy.
Paul Charosh's
Berliner Gramophone Records in America, A Discography confirms that No.3404 was indeed recorded on August 24, 1897.
E. Berliner's Gramophone, Physical Characteristic and Label Iconography of the 7-Inch American Berliner Record, 1892-1900, by Mike Sherman and Dave Giovannoni, has this to say about the use of the earlier typeface:
"This interruption remains one of the most enigmatic aspects of the American Berliner iconography. For reasons unknown, for four months during the spring of 1898 (March-June), most pressings from the New York City studio reverted to the Four Patents header, which did not include the October 29, 1895 patent listing.
One can speculate as to why, but to little avail. Possibly it was simply an error, and a recording engineer just started using an outdated header. It also could simply have been an economic move. The older headers were still available and servicable, so why not use them? (One must remember such details were of little importance to the late 19th century record buyer.) In either event, from late March through the end of May 1898, nearly all New York pressings appeared with the Four Patents header. During June, pressings appeared with both the Header 5 (Four Patents) and Header Six (Five Patents) style. By July 1898, use of the older Four Patents header appears to have ended."
I highly recommend both these books to anyone interested in American Berliner records.
George P.