Double-Faced Records

[phonogfp]

“On This Day in the History of Recorded Sound…”

January 5, 1904: Ademor Petit was granted a U.S. patent (No.749,092) for a “Double Faced Sound Record.” Although it seems obvious to us now, manufacturers were reluctant to pursue 2-sided records, although 2-sided test pressings of Berliner (1900), Zonophone (1900/01), and Victor (1903) exist. It wasn’t until 1908 that the major companies fully embraced 2-sided records. https://forum.antiquephono.org/topic/33 ... c-records/

#antiquephonographsociety #phonograph #gramophone #antique

[CarlosV]

It is interesting to see such patent. In the same year, 1904, Odeon issued the first two-sided records, and also filed patents in several countries to prevent the competitors from manufacturing such records.

[phonogfp]

The first issued double-faced discs I'm aware of was the 1900 Eldridge Johnson A Record for the Children (A-490/A-491), included with the Johnson/Victor Toy Gramophone/Victor "Toy."

George P.

[Lucius1958]

I would suspect, early resistance to double face records was probably an economic issue.

First, the cost of setting up new presses; second, possible loss of profit per side (Dilemma: sell them at a '2 for 1' price, and cut profits per sale, even if more records are sold; or raise the price, and risk losing sales?)

-Bill

[CarlosV]

The first issued double-faced discs I'm aware of was the 1900 Eldridge Johnson A Record for the Children (A-490/A-491), included with the Johnson/Victor Toy Gramophone/Victor "Toy."

George P.

Just to clarify: I mentioned Odeon as the first company to issue double sided records as a standard product, in the context of the patent you posted. Their advertisements of the period claimed them to be the sole authorized issuers of double-sided records, and that was the case for a number of years, with some smaller labels issuing such records for short periods, like Nicole in England, until they were shot down by Odeon in courts.

[Marco Gilardetti]

I would suspect, early resistance to double face records was probably an economic issue.

First, the cost of setting up new presses; second, possible loss of profit per side (Dilemma: sell them at a '2 for 1' price, and cut profits per sale, even if more records are sold; or raise the price, and risk losing sales?)

-Bill

As far as I have understood by digging into the matter, it happened to be quite the opposite. Single-sided records remained into catalogues as premium products featuring the most preminent singers of the time, for quite a long time even after two-sided records had become the obvious standard. On the other hand, countless advertisements testify that double-sided records were often depicted as a money-saving product, addressed to less wealthy customers, much in a "pay one listen two" fashion.

[epigramophone]

Fonotipia records were premium products, but being associated with Odeon they were double sided almost from the start.
By contrast, many of HMV's celebrity records were not doubled until 1924, and Patti's remained single sided until deleted.

[CarlosV]

As far as I have understood by digging into the matter, it happened to be quite the opposite. Single-sided records remained into catalogues as premium products featuring the most preminent singers of the time, for quite a long time even after two-sided records had become the obvious standard. On the other hand, countless advertisements testify that double-sided records were often depicted as a money-saving product, addressed to less wealthy customers, much in a "pay one listen two" fashion.

I think you're correct, Marco. There was no significant increase in production costs in printing two-sided versus one-sided records, and the their appeal was indeed the take-two-for-the-price-of-one. One century later, our perspective tends to concentrate on famous artists, and filter out what really sold and made money: the waltzes, songs and polkas played by staff bands and singers, and getting two dances per record was a good deal for the consumers.