The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Starkton wrote:Thank you very much for clarification. I didn't know how to properly assess these cylinders.

Is it possible to narrow down the date of recording of this unnumbered U.S. Marine Band title? It should appear in early (Columbia Phonograph Co.) catalogues.

You're very welcome, Stephan.

As for more precise dating, I noticed it was unnumbered - - that seems unusual. Also, the fact that the U.S. Marine Band was recording exclusively for Columbia at this time suggests some possible pirating or clandestine recording of the Band. Beginning on page 87 of Feaster's American "Exhibition" Recordings and the Dawn of the Recording Industry, duplication is discussed. On pages 94 and 95, the secret duplication of some Columbia records is described, including the fact that 18 U.S. Marine Band selections were included in an Edison Phonograph Works catalog of available duplicate cylinders. This may be the origin of the cylinder record you pictured.

George P.

phonogfp wrote:On pages 94 and 95, the secret duplication of some Columbia records is described, including the fact that 18 U.S. Marine Band selections were included in an Edison Phonograph Works catalog of available duplicate cylinders. This may be the origin of the cylinder record you pictured.

Did this catalogue (from 1892 ?) ever show up? Once Columbia heard about it, the company must have accused the Edison Phonograph Works for unfair behavior. Too bad, that the original announcement of my cylinder was shaved also.

Starkton wrote: Did this catalogue (from 1892 ?) ever show up? Once Columbia heard about it, the company must have accused the Edison Phonograph Works for unfair behavior. Too bad, that the original announcement of my cylinder was shaved also.

I recall reading about a suit brought by Columbia against one of the sub-companies for bringing recording machines to Washington DC and recording the Marine Band. Offhand, I don't know where I have that filed. As for the catalog, you'd need to ask Patrick Feaster about that.

George P.

It would make Columbia be in a very poor condition to go against Edison. Columbia did NOT make there own standard size blanks until summer of 1895. If Columbia went against Edison at this time, they would have no source of blanks, and would have been forced to make records on the ozo Graphophone tablets. I have no judging on how the Bell Tainter cylinders sounded, I have never heard one?? Does anyone have a recording of one that they can share??? From the fact that they were abandoned I would say that if Columbia went against Edison then they would of been out of business, as they were not capable of manufacturing there own blanks. At the time the record concern was the Columbia Phonograph Company, of Washington DC, and at the time shared patents with Edison, both concerns owned by The North American Phonograph Company, which everything was cross licensed, the machines were Phonograph-Graphophones.

Yes I agree. A very great and important recording. I think it may be a mandolin or banjo at the beginning as well. Great find!

edisonphonoworks wrote:It would make Columbia be in a very poor condition to go against Edison.

On the other hand, Columbia was Edison's most important customer. According to its statement on June 14, 1892 at the Third Annual Convention of the National Phonograph Association, Columbia sold (and bought) more cylinders than all the other phonograph companies combined. Business was quite large at the time. Between 1889 and 1892 the Edison Phonograph Works sold half a million records and blanks.

phonogfp wrote:I recall reading about a suit brought by Columbia against one of the sub-companies for bringing recording machines to Washington DC and recording the Marine Band. Offhand, I don't know where I have that filed. As for the catalog, you'd need to ask Patrick Feaster about that.

I just asked Patrick through mail

Concerning the law suit, I found the following in my files:
"A Phonograph Fight in Court. – Washington, March 13. – George Tewksbury of Topeka, Kan., recently came here with phonographs and appliances to make records of the Marine band music. The Columbia phonograph company, which claims exclusive right to the use of instruments in this district, enjoined him, and he locked himself up in his room, but the marshal served the papers yesterday by climbing over the transom. The whole matter goes into the court and pending a decision the Marine band continues to play into Tewksbury’s phonographs.” (The Emporia Daily Gazette, 13. March 1893, front page)

It is true that Columbia was indeed a big customer, the total blanks sold to Columbia for recording was over 70,000.

Starkton wrote:

edisonphonoworks wrote:It would make Columbia be in a very poor condition to go against Edison.

On the other hand, Columbia was Edison's most important customer. According to its statement on June 14, 1892 at the Third Annual Convention of the National Phonograph Association, Columbia sold (and bought) more cylinders than all the other phonograph companies combined. Business was quite large at the time. Between 1889 and 1892 the Edison Phonograph Works sold half a million records and blanks.

Thank you very much, George, for pointing me to Patrick's article which is a perfect match. It turned out that the master cylinder of "Mikado Medley" by the U.S. Marine Band was indeed among those purchased secretly from the Columbia Phonograph Co. in late October 1891. The proof for a "Musical Records Catalogue" by the Edison Phonograph Works was ready two weeks later, see below.

As I assumed the Columbia Phonograph Co. protested immediately, but was rebuffed with the notification that "the manufacture of musical and other records, both originals and duplicates, is secured to the Edison Phonograph Works under its contracts with the North American Company."

Here is the relevant catalogue page. Source: http://edison.rutgers.edu/NamesSearch/S ... hDoc=Enter
I note that "Mikado Medley" is number "8" on the list, but I guess there is no contradiction that the paper label on my cylinder wasn't numbered in this way.

Wow... just wow! Love it!

Tod