Record Label Transparencies

[MordEth]

Here are another three labels from Wolfe:

And two labels (seen uncut here) from Henry:

I should also have my first cylinder transparency soon, as well.

Thank you, everyone who has kept me busy with these so far.

— MordEth

[Wolfe]

In case you don't have enough yet. Some more random labels.

[MordEth]

Wolfe,

We can never have too many labels—and certainly there were an amazing number of them. I have a 600 DPI scan of the Velvet Tone (1857-V, “Weary River” by Jack Miller), but I do not currently have scans of any of the other labels you posted.

I’ll probably have these up tonight.

— MordEth

[Wolfe]

[Wolfe]

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6779/wonderey8.jpg

[Wolfe]

Another Canadian Berliner/Victor, only black



Probably you have one of these



I already posted this in another thread, incase you want to use it for the gallery, here it is again.

[Wolfe]

[MordEth]

Wolfe,

Very nice! I think that I have a few of those scanned (but not yet cut), although you have quite a few that I have not seen before—I’ve helped John record “Tiger Rose” and “The Dixie Volunteers” from Little Wonder records, but they were both a different label.

Is that an older label than the Little Wonder that I posted here?

Here’s the Velvet Tone that I mentioned earlier:

Expect more soon!

— MordEth

[Wolfe]

Wolfe,

Very nice! I think that I have a few of those scanned (but not yet cut), although you have quite a few that I have not seen before—I’ve helped John record “Tiger Rose” and “The Dixie Volunteers” from Little Wonder records, but they were both a different label.

Is that an older label than the Little Wonder that I posted here?

Here’s the Velvet Tone that I mentioned earlier:

Expect more soon!

— MordEth

Glad you like the scans, they don't look as nice as others have posted, but I don't have a top notch scanner (or learned to use it optimally.)

Little Wonders are numbered sequentially, so by comparing the numbers, you can place where one was issued in relation to another. I have one with an embossed label that would be difficult to scan, you can barely read it as it is.

Taken over the entire span of the 78 era, you could easily collect thousands of different labels, it's kind of startling, really.

[MordEth]

Glad you like the scans, they don't look as nice as others have posted, but I don't have a top notch scanner (or learned to use it optimally.)

Wolfe,

I think that a lot of it is how you set your scanner, but without knowing what you are using, it’s harder to give an informed opinion as to the level of quality you should be able to coax out of it. As long as you have one that was made in the last few years, you should be able to get 600 DPI out of it, and this is the setting at which I recommend scanning—you can always reduce the image after you have scanned it using free software like GIMP.

Little Wonders are numbered sequentially, so by comparing the numbers, you can place where one was issued in relation to another. I have one with an embossed label that would be difficult to scan, you can barely read it as it is.

That makes sense, as the one that I had previously cut was a much later label of theirs—that was № 926. As I had not seen any of their other labels, I did not realize that they had issued more than one.

Here is your label as a transparency:

Taken over the entire span of the 78 era, you could easily collect thousands of different labels, it's kind of startling, really.

That’s one of the reasons I’ve enjoyed this thread and seeing the scanned and photographed labels that various people have posted—the sheer number of labels is quite impressive.

More soon—I’m still not 100% after being sick over the weekend.

— MordEth