Are some records more brittle than others?

[jboger]

A couple of months ago I bought 200+ records at an auction. I have been sorting through them, culling out the cracked and broken records, and cleaning them before putting them in new envelopes. I dropped one, and it broke into several pieces. This morning I lifted a small stack of records and heard and unpleasant crack!. It was a Mercury record, and as far as these records go, not nearly as old as some of my other records. So, are some labels more brittle than others? I rather thought the compostion of these 78s was more or less the same. Now I wonder.

[Player-Tone]

I would imagine some are more brittle than others. The overall record ingredients may have been the same but the mix ratio was probably different among companies.

[Wolfe]

Absolutely. Some can be very fragile and some are very durable.

Identifying by label isn't always so simple as shellac formulations could / would change during a labels history.
And there is the rub - it's about the shellac formulation of a particular disc at the time it was made.

[Springmotor70]

As earlier mentioned even when the same company that might of had a set "recipe" for a standard during a certain period it could be subjected to the pureness of the ingredients coming from India that could change from time to time. I have also been told that the United Kingdom kept the highest quality of shellac from India for their own use and exported the rest to other countries. Companies also changed the "recipe" from time to time to improve wear, playback, durability, cost, etc. For an example Edison was constantly tinkering with formulas for cylinders and somewhat for diamond discs as well. Edison Needle Types were only offered for 3 months but I have found quite a difference in thickness in that short period of time, some being as thin as modern day vinyl pressings and others looking as crude as dime store labels. I assume there though that they were also contracting the pressing out to different parties.

There were also slightly different pressing techniques. Columbia used laminated pressings for quite a long time - starting with acoustic recordings through the popular 1940s and 50s microphone label but none of these seem to have held up as well as the first 10 years of Viva Tonal pressings from 1925 - 35. These Laminated discs also seem to be a tiny bit stronger with less chance of breakage but that doesn't mean that your Bessie Smith viva tonal wont arrive snapped in two from bad packing by an ebay seller ). Depending on aging these same pressings can develop laminate cracks or "Lams" which is caused when the recording layer moving differently than the core and cracks form only on one side. Amazingly enough though the majority of lams can not be heard on the majority of equipment both historic and modern.

So yes there can be quite a few differences in thickness and structural integrity. Also records that have been weathered in extreme conditions or stored somewhere very damp for a great length of time can get brittle and even crack all by themselves by shrinking and opening up a crack that you can see through.

[jboger]

Once again the expertise of the Forum comes to the rescue! That Mercury record broke as easy as the flying young man flew, you know, with the greatest of ease. It was on the bottom of a short stack that I lifted, as I had done with other short stacks, but this one gave. Will need to be extra careful. By the way, I've discovered I have a few Al Jolson recordings, including Swanee.

[CarlosV]

In general all discs made from the 40s onwards are more fragile than their predecessors, with exception of the laminates (Columbia and associated labels), that are quite resistant to shock, but as mentioned above, are susceptible to delamination due to exposure to humidity or thermal cycles. Just compare the Victors and Deccas from the 40s with the 30s production: not only the discs are thinner but the composition of the material is different. Part of the causes could be the effects of the war on the availability of materials, but also the change to the lighter tonearms of the electronic radiophones eliminated the need for the disc material to be so abrasive, which probably had an effect on its brittleness.

As to the story that English records were made with the best shellac, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The reality is that English discs of all brands from the mid-thirties onwards have substantially higher level of crackling than any other production, including those made in the US, in France and in Germany. This low quality went more or less constant throughout the fifties until 78s became obsolete. Articles in the Gramohone magazine point out to what they called "the HMV crackle" as early as in the end of the 20s.

[tinovanderzwan]

In general all discs made from the 40s onwards are more fragile than their predecessors, with exception of the laminates (Columbia and associated labels), that are quite resistant to shock, but as mentioned above, are susceptible to delamination due to exposure to humidity or thermal cycles. Just compare the Victors and Deccas from the 40s with the 30s production: not only the discs are thinner but the composition of the material is different. Part of the causes could be the effects of the war on the availability of materials, but also the change to the lighter tonearms of the electronic radiophones eliminated the need for the disc material to be so abrasive, which probably had an effect on its brittleness.

As to the story that English records were made with the best shellac, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The reality is that English discs of all brands from the mid-thirties onwards have substantially higher level of crackling than any other production, including those made in the US, in France and in Germany. This low quality went more or less constant throughout the fifties until 78s became obsolete. Articles in the Gramohone magazine point out to what they called "the HMV crackle" as early as in the end of the 20s.

early 78s comprised of a mixture of multiple substances of witch shellac was only one others where gum arabe, bitumen (a sort of tar)pine resin, chalk, mica, cotton fluff, charcoal and many more in some cases strange ingredients where used some german homochord records (1910-20) clearly have camphor added i broke one and it stank

the post war 78s clearly have less of the glue/resin like materials like shellac, bitumen, pine resin and gum arabe making them brittle and also much softer an pron to wear

after ww2 the more foreighn materials like shellac and gum arabe and bitumen where harder to come by they where more expensive than before the war and since the colonial world was in a state of ruin much less was produced

as to the best compount for 78s that price must go to the victor records of pre ww1 mint 1912 victors are the most quiet recordings i know as far as surface noise goes even dough the recordings themselves are softer than, and may have recording noise than recordings from the late 40s and 50s but these where simply much louder so the sound would tower above all the surface noise

tino

[victorIIvictor]

To the OP, the other reason your Mercury disc may have cracked is that stresses may have been caused by the other disks being stacked on top of it for many years. You will find, by contrast, that discs of the late 1940s through the 1950s that included some sort of synthetic in the plastic (such as Merc-O-Plastic) are some of the most durable 78s ever made. Mercury even pressed their 78s on vinyl for a while, and one of these in great condition is not only durable, but also a pleasure to hear.

As noted, probably the most brittle records are those made during World War II, but just as brittle are those made by most post-war independent labels. Perhaps the most fragile are the regular release Capitol and Decca 78s through the 1950s. These two major labels never added any synthetic plastics to their product, aside from certain special product lines like children's records (Capitol Superflex and Deccalite, respectively, indicate durable exceptions.)

I am of course speaking about record labels from the USA in the above notes.

best wishes, Mark

[Wolfe]

Yes. Whenever this subject of the more fragile 78's comes up, WWII era records and especially Capitol are what I think of first. I think I once had a big chunk come out of an earlier (black label) Capitol just by picking it up - it came apart like hardened sand. Those Commodore Music Shop records seem pretty fragile, too.

[Marco Gilardetti]

My opinion is that some compounds somewhat "dry up" over decades to the extent that internal forces grow inside the record until it cracks by itself, even if left untouched. The crack rims look apart by 1-2 millimeters and impossible to realign, which clearly shows - in my opinion - that there is indeed a tension inside the material with which the record is made.

An acoustic Zonophone is a record with which I clearly remember that this happened.