Hi Robert,I thought they came out in 1906, but from the patent date it would have to have been 1907. I have three, 253, 343, and 244. Do you play yours? I thought they were too fragile to play. How do you keep them from slipping? I am now curious how these sound. Steve> From: esroberto at hotmail.com> To: phono-l at oldcrank.org> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 19:43:49 -0500> Subject: [Phono-L] Marconi Velvet Tone discs> > Is anyone out there an expert on the failed 1907-08 Columbia experiment, the > Marconi Velvet Tone discs? I have some conflicting information and I can't > find any decently extensive information on the things.> > Nauck/Sherman's book, Note The Notes, says Marconi's potrait on the label > started out with a receding hairline, and that later issues show him > sporting a lovely new hairpiece (tongue in cheek, that, as they both appear > to be artist renderings and not portraits). This goes opposite the 6 > Marconi's I possess according to their catalog numbers (which match the > matrices), but it goes with the Grand Prize markings along the bottom of the > label; the one receding hairline Marconi I have lists 1900 and 1904, while > the other 5 hairpiece Marconi's add the 1906 award. (In fact, the picture > they show of the receding hairline label is the same > recording/matrix/release/number as one of my hairpiece labels.)> > Nauck/Sutton's book, American Record Labels and Companies, says the records > started with No. 01 and reached into the low 400's, and that most issues > were pressed from ordinary Columbia masters. Would they have issued the > biggest Columbia sellers first, or was it common to issue records > non-chronologically? I'm just trying to figure out why my (lowest) No. 06 > is on the later label while my (highest) No. 169 is on the earlier label, > and why my No. 32 is on the later label while the one in the book is on the > earlier label.> > I didn't pay attention much to the one Marconi I've had for years, quite > beaten up and greyed-out, but I did remember thinking it sounded pretty > amazing and wondering if it was electric or acoustic. It's a march with > lots of drums, and the bottom end is astounding, worlds ahead of any > acoustic record I'd ever heard (and certainly better than any acoustic > Columbia's), even better than many early electric recordings I have. So all > this time I haven't bothered to find out when they were made. Then I just > grabbed 5 more Marconi's from eBay a week ago, 3 of which are an easy EX, > the other 2 VG+ and VG, and they sound AMAZING. My favorite is No. 169, > Stabat Mater, a cornet solo "with Band Accompaniment" (EX condition), and > it's the warmest, richest pre-1930 band recording I've ever heard. The low > brass sonority is to die for. And at the climax of the piece, no strain, no > stressed grooves, no harsh upper mids. Frankly, that's an accomplishment > for even modern orchestras and engineers. I was astounded to discover they > were 100 years old.> > So is it just me, or are the Marconi Velvet Tone's the most sonically > superior acoustic recordings out there? It was a failed project because > they were standard Columbia issues that needed expensive gold-plated needles > and slipped on the turntable, but I'd venture there was no technological > failure in their manufacture.> > Opinions? Thoughts? Anyone know what order the numbers were released in?> > (By the way, there are apparently a scarce few Fonotipia masters on Marconi > out there. Fonotipias are near the top of my list for sonic pleasure from > acoustic recordings; I bet those on Marconi must've sounded unbelievable > when still fresh.)> > > Thanks in advance for any further information,> Robert > > _______________________________________________> Phono-L mailing list> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org