I found the following “recipe” for Shellac Liqueur on a news group the other week and thought I’d share it with others but please be aware that this has been untested and I do not recommend trying it. In no way do I endorse the recipe below.

1. Take a stack of old 78 rpm records – to avoid toxins found in label ink, use only etched label Pathes and Edisons.
2. Crumble into dice-size pieces, cover with gallons of water, and boil until the shellac is softened and shiny.
3. Periodically skim off the scum that floats on top.
4. Remove shellac and put through a ricer, returning the squeezed juices to the pot and reserving the shellac for later use.
5. Cool.
6. Strain through several layers of cheese cloth.
7. Measure the amount of remaining liquid, and add an equal amount of grain alcohol.
8. Pour cooled liquor into tin cans or other handy drinking vessels and enjoy!

NOTE: Be aware that early Edison Diamond Discs, altho they had an etched label, were also made of wheat in the core. That is they should not be washed with water. If you are sensitive to wheat, you may want to exercise cation.

Yes, I know, this photo shows a man cleaning a vinyl LP not a 78!

Okay, here goes one of those discussions where there is no right answer but everyone with an opinion thinks they’re right.

Cleaning of 78 rpm records. I know from my own personal experience that I have been cleaning 78s in the kitchen sink using a mild detergent and fairly hot water. I use a smooth cloth to wash both sides of the record – once they have been “dipped” into the hot water – cleaning in the direction of the grooves (i.e.. circular motion) and then rinsed clean in hot running water.

Why hot? Removes dirt and grim quickly from records and then the record dries quicker than cold water through evaporation. After doing this for over two decades – I have not lost one record to water damage or deterioration due to the detergent.

The important point here is that cleaning and drying of record must occur quickly and the record must be left vertical for drying so that the air can circulate around the record.

Strangely enough, I offered the above information to the 78 list some years back when a similar discussion arose. At the time I can remember being derided for my obvious lack of carefulness and stupidity for doing the above. Interestingly, however, the suggestions below somewhat mirror my process some five years later and seem to well accepted now…

My, how things change!

Other suggestions from the 78-L list include:

For me it used to be the kitchen sink, some dish soap, warm water and a small paint brush plus a towel. However now I use the Keith Monks record cleaning machine with excellent results.

What I learned was DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CLEAN IT WITH ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL! Everywhere the alcohol touched left a dull rough surface. This lovely record now has about 1 square inch of damaged surface. Should have done a test patch on the blank backside first. Rats!

And another suggestion:

For over 18 years, following 10 years of development and evaluation, we have offered applicators, fluid and a suggested procedure that can safely and thoroughly clean shellac, lacquer, acetate, Diamond Disc and vinyl disc recordings. This process can be used with either manual or vacuum-assisted removal of fluids; used as directed the result is the same regardless of how the fluids are removed. Common household soaps and detergents leave residues that simple rinsing does not thoroughly remove. These residuals can affect playback, support the growth of mold and mildew and contrary to the view of many are simply not thorough.

The integrity of the record surface is obviously of concern but this approach has never been shown to harm intact laminated surfaces.

The following suggestion talks about using dish-racks to dry records. I personally use the same system for drying as the air circulates around the record and helps to dry it out quickly…

This is why God invented Dish Racks! You older guyz, like ME remember hand washing dishes (Gasp!) and setting them in the rack. They can be had at Wal*Mart and other cheapo, Chinezy stuff stores everywhere. Set it in the sun, or warm place and your records will dry, just fine! Ya MIGHT need several for a wash session? They nest nicely for storage. too.Because they hold the records apart the label gets to dry, too.

A drying cloth is also important - preferably cotton based!

I used my drying cloth from washing other records so it’s only mildly damp. I slowly go over the record avoiding any splits or edges and gently wipe off dirt. Takes a few minutes per record. There’s no residual drops of water so little chance it will get soaked into the record. I then let them sit in racks to completely air dry or lie flat on table. Never had an issue with them getting ruined, more warped, etc.

DO NOT use alcohol of ANY variety to “clean” shellacd-based 78’s! The shellaccompound is soluble in ANY alcohol!

Long-term exposure to water can damage a record. Normal cleaning involved very short-term exposure, and will do no damage at all.

I’ve cleaned my records for decades with Dawn. After putting the disc to be cleaned on a paper towel on a large bread board on my kitchen counter, I apply a few drops of Dawn to an old dish sponge and lightly wet it. Once the record surface is evenly soaped, I then use a soft toothbrush to clean the grooves. Starting at the outer edge, I work my way in and repeat this going counter clockwise, turning the record as I go so I clean the entire playing surface. In doing so, I apply very little pressure and control the amount of soap used so there is no slick or film. I then dry my hands so as not to get any wet on the label and rinse the record with luke-warm sink water. I then dry it with two soft towels: one to get off the water; the second to make sure the surfaces are absolutely dry. It’s simple and it works: By cleaning each and every record I intend to collect, I improve the appearance and upgrade the playability by at least a half-step (for example, from E to E+).

And…

Years ago, I used to use a product called something like Antique Toy Cleaner. It was formulated for use on pre-War model trains and other toys. I met the guy who formulated it at a trade show. I asked if the solution worked on old 78s. He said he had never tried it. He gave me a few bottles to use as tests. I did, and found it worked beautifully. The ingredients were entirely organic: no alcohol, no oils, no nothing harmful. Another big plus: A full bottle seemed to last forever, making it quite economical for record cleaning. I told him in detail what I had done and how it worked. He then began to market the same product as a record cleaner. I would still be using it to this day if he hadn’t gone out of business. I clean every record before playing it for the first time, and make sure my hands are washed to minimize any oils being transferred from my hands to the record surfaces. When I have told some collectors I clean every record, they look at me incredulously and ask “Why do you do that?” When I provided Jack Towers with vintage 78s for dubbing, he usually commented that mine were always the cleanest records he worked with, and the results were in the playback.

For LPs, both Capitol and Columbia recommended using a damp cloth.. and we all know the results of records “cleaned” that way. No permanent damage, just visible mud tracks.

Also…

I use Ajax dish soap, close to the same thing. I mix about 1 teaspoon if dish soap in a small can, or cup. Add 1 or 2 ounces. Warm water, not too warm. I use tap water because it has chlorine in it. I dip a fine bristle tooth brush in this solution and work it around the record, first one direction then the other. If the record has a fiber core I do not wash it. I rinse and pat them dry with paper towels, and stack them with paper towels between them. I take and assemble 2 USPS large flat rate boxes. I place a quarter inch (.25 inch) metal rod between them. A stainless steel rod would be best, but I have handy a .25 inch brass brazing rod. Make sure the rod does not have a coating, or threads on it. I place the records about one inch apart, so the grooves don’t touch during drying. I can get 20 records on the rod before it bends too much.

I tested a few 78s before doing this. It reduced the hiss. In all cases. I also plowed a couple of 78s after cleaning with a .7 mill (33 RPM) Needle. The needle after the play was clean, and there was no improvement in noise. Also washing a record does not seem to improve pops, and clicks.

And a suggestion from the esteemed David Hall…

I just looked through David Hall’s 1941 “Record Book” to find out what cleaning procedures he’d suggest. I couldn’t find any reference to cleaning records beyond using a record brush. He writes more about how to handle records so that they don’t get dirty in the first place, (handle them by their edges, keep them in their sleeves, etc). Of course, when he wrote that book, you’d have a hard time finding a record which was over 40 years old, today you’d have just as hard a time finding a 78 which is under 50 years old.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t a clearly organised discussion – as most discussions on the list unfortunately are – due to its email format -but after many emails, the truth of the matter seemed to suggest that stylus size is important for various types of recording playback.

Personally, I have always relied on the esoteric sound website for advice on stylus use which I have reproduced and accredited below:

• 2.0 mil – worn LPs, some AFRS transcriptions
• 2.5 – 2.5 mil – many 78’s, transcriptions
• 3 – 3.0 mil – most 30’s-50’s slightly worn 78s & transcriptions, Edison discs
• 3.5 – 3.5 mil – old or worn 78s, transcriptions
• 4.0 mil – very old or worn discs, raw aluminium, RCA home

[From: http://www.esotericsound.com/CartStyli.htm]

One member of the list questioned whether the use of a 3.0 mil standard stylus was appropriate for general use on all 78s. The member also added that they used a slightly smaller size, 2.7 mil stylus on another headshell set up for vertical discs.

For the most part the 3.0 mil stylus worked fine for their daily needs.

However, the member recently acquired the recording: Gennett 6006, “Big Boy” George Owens. While the disc was a bit worn the member had discs look a lot worse than this and play much better.

So I was wondering if it’s a groove size/stylus size mismatch. I changed my 2.7 mil stylus back to play lateral and it sounds markedly better, but now wondering how much better could it get? This is my first Gennett Electrobeam record. Any advice on stylus size which works best for these? It’s time I started to expand my range of available styli anyway.

Another member of the list suggested:

Your 2.7 mil stylus may be hitting a less worn part of the groove. And a larger tip might be a lot of help. I had to use a 4-mil stylus to play several mid 30s Deccas not long ago. Nothing to do with wear, they just wouldn’t track properly with anything smaller including my trusty 2.0 mil TE.

The original poster responded:

So is it possible that it could sound better both above and below 3 mils? I was thinking that since it sounded better on 2.7 it would be in that direction.

The 2.5 is still the best thing for playing transcription discs and it works fine on Edisons. The Stanton 2.0 Truncated Elliptical is a great one as well. Their 2.8 is good on more difficult discs.

And another poster suggested some great advice with:

I lucked out on getting some of the Expert (Stanton fitting) custom styli in a collection I bought last Spring. There was a 3.8 which is wonderful for both 1920s Victor electrics and almost and UK pressing famous for “crackle”. It’s also very useful for lots of earlier acoustics (Grand Prizes, Monarchs, some Columbias, etc.) The 2.5 is great for transcriptions and most Edisons. Sometimes a 1.0 mil works even better on them, though, and others even do well with the 3.8. I’ve always said you really roll the dice when you lay an Edison on the turntable for a transfer.

Another member posted some fantastic information regarding playback stylus size with record makes – and I am reproducing this information in the hope it will help novices who are just starting out with collecting 78 rpm records. I have also posted the contact information of the company that supplied the information below:

LABEL TYPES AND/PERIODS

00.18″
Useful for some acoustic Richmond Gennett recordings: Some early aluminium and acetate transcription discs.
0.0020″
Extremely useful for the majority of acoustic Richmond Gennetts. Strangely, the Wolverine Orchestra’s Fidgety Feet/Jazz Me Blues like a whopping 0.0035″ Also a number of acoustic OKeh ‘field’ recordings (e.g. the 1923 King Oliver OKehs) like this size.
0.0024/5″
Very useful for acoustic, ‘Truetone’ and some electric OKehs, pre-1920 Victors, most post-war records. Many Paramount 12700 series. English Columbias 1925-26 mainly prefer this size.
0.0028″
Post 1922 acoustic and electric Columbias, most electric OKehs, acoustic and early electric Paramounts, Gennett (acoustic and electric New York recordings and electric Richmond recordings), Brunswick/ARC (acoustic and electrical), US Decca, Victor 1921-25, most Plaza group acoustics, pre-1931 Parlophone, Black Swan, Cameo, Pathé/Perfect lateral recordings. A good starting size to work up or down from.
0.0032″
Useful for some Brunswick/Vocalion electrics, post-EMI merger English Columbia/HMV/Parlophones, Columbia acoustics to 1922, some early US
Columbia electrics, also some later Columbia electrics where the master has been heavily polished or high numbered stampers have been used. Autograph, some Paramount 12800s (though these vary enormously – up to 0.004″!)
0.0035″
Most Victor Electrics post 1926, some very early Victors (1901-06), Acoustic Vocalion, HMV/Zonophone 1925-31, most QRS, Plaza group electrics, Edison Diamond Discs, most Electrobeam Gennett post-6400 issues.
0.004″
Early electric Victors (1925/6). One notable anomaly is the October 1927 Brunswick session by Johnny Dodds’ Black Bottom Stompers, where the cutter was particularly blunt and all the sides from the session need a 0.004″ stylus.

POMEROY AUDIO - Audio Restoration & Mastering Services

Transfers of metal masters, lacquers, shellac and vinyl discs & tapes.

193 Baltic St, Brooklyn, NY 11201-6173 (718) 855-2650

One member of the list provided the following, informative step-by-step guide:

I have a thick marble plate, about 1 inch (2.5cm). It’s a marble plate for serving cheese, actually. I put it in my oven at about 80 degrees Celsius (has to be controlled by thermometer!), and I leave it there for half an hour to gather up heat. (Don’t trust the temperature setting for your oven!)

Then I take the record out, put it on the marble and wait a couple of minutes. Next I turn the record around and wait again until I can feel that it has softened a bit. This is the moment when you have to watch the record closely. Because it should not get too soft, and it should also get perfectly flat. So I take the record off the marble plate and put it on the work surface in the kitchen, which is cold, of course. There, the disc can harden slowly.

You may put something on the disc to assure that it stays flat until hardened, because some dished records have the tendency to ‘warp’ back into the original state while cooling down! Works perfectly, also for aligning the hair line cracks of 78s so as to eliminate the ticks!

Another suggestion related how glass plates were better at conducting heat to help flatten 78 rpm shellac records:

I have two pieces of plate glass both 12 inches square and a quarter inch thick. I put the 78 records between the two pieces of glass and place it near or over a stove about six inches from the heat source.

During summer, some people put them on the dash of a parked car with the windows up. Do not add weight, just use the glass only.

It can take two to four days depending on how warm your house is. But I must stress – Do not add weight!

Using an oven is often suggested for de-warping 78s. essentially, heat is the only thing that can soften the shellac in order to reshape it – but often, there is contention over what is a suitable heat source and at what temperature should a record be set at.

Another reader offered the following description using an oven:

I put the oven at 200 degrees and place a record on a flat cookie sheet. Depending on record type, 3 to 4 minutes later the record is soft enough to relax to be flat on the cookie sheet. Then slide the record off onto the counter to cool. I always put something on top of it so the edges don’t bow back up. The temperature differences of the counter and air side will make the record want to bow a little during cooling and this stops it.

This method comes with a major warning. Every oven is different. I have never actually put a thermometer in the oven to see what the temp actually is. The 200 setting is higher and the time longer than I’ve read elsewhere but that’s what works for me. So you’ll need to do some test cases on some less expensive records. The record will go from not soft yet to stuck on the cookie sheet in short order if you aren’t paying attention. This method is also a lot faster if you have many records to de-warp.

Of course, the dooms-dayers have their day – and some members of the list are prone to express their fears with de-warping 78s thus:

THERE IS GREAT POTENTIAL FOR DISASTER WHEN YOU PLACE RECORDS IN AN OVEN OR OUT IN THE SUN…

But one suggestion was very informative:

1. Make a wooden frame 14 inches square, using wood 8-inches thick
2. Get a simple light socket with a mounting flange to hold a 25 watt light bulb in a vertical position. Place the frame over this
3. Get two squares of plate glass. making sure they are completely clean
4. Put the first piece over the frame and place the warped record on it. (This glass should be a least 2 or 3 inches above the light bulb)
5. Put the second piece of glass on top of the record
6. On top of this use just a little weight (A stack of 10 78s worked well for me)
7. When adding the weight, introduce it gently to avoid the possibility of snapping the warped record
8. Now turn on your 25 watt light bulb and the process begins
9. Allow several hours for the gentle heat to do its work (I usually set it up and let it go all night)

IMPORTANT: When you turn off the light, DO NOT try to see what’s happened until the record has had an hour or so to cool and regain hardness. This procedure always gave wonderful results with the record coming out straight as a die.

It wasn’t until I was cleaning out my email box that I read them more carefully, and discovered they contained a wealth of information relating to the early history of electrical recording.

And with this, it’s worth pointing out that this very situation clearly illustrates what I think is fundamentally wrong with the 78-L list in its present email form.

So many excellent emails are sent out each day from the list – that many members often express a high level of frustration in reading and processing them. Sometimes I receive up to 100 emails from the 78-L list a day on a variety of interesting topics. When this happens, things are sometimes missed – including whole topics. Was I asleep for this interesting topic??

With this discussion on the history of early electrical recording; I’ve had to condense and re-organise the original emails so that they may make sense to the researcher and the blog reader alike…

The discussion started when a member of the list asked the following questions…

I have a dumb question that’s been bugging me for a while now. Everyone knows that electrical recording arrived in 1925.

• How sudden was the change?
• Did everybody change at once?
• Did some labels continue to record acoustically for some time afterwards?
• What happened to all the acoustical gear — did they just throw it out, or did they pass it on to some other use, perhaps a cheaper auxiliary studio, or a budget label or something?
• What’s the last known acoustical recording?

The responses to these questions were interesting and varied. Essentially 1925 was noted as the beginning of electrical recording – however the real answer isn’t so simple or clear. For example, I’ve read that some transcription and early experimental electric recordings go as far back as the mid teens of the 1900’s!

For commercial labels, the general consensus is 1925.

One member of the 78-L list noted:

Pre-1925, electric recording had been done experimentally, although Marsh Laboratories had their own homebrew electrical recording gear they used for their Autograph records, and for items released on other labels including Paramount.

Western Electric refused to lease their recording gear to any other labels, so everyone else (including Edison) had to ‘roll their own’, cobbling things together from manufacturers like GE and RCA.

Brunswick began electric recording early in 1925 around the same time as Victor and Columbia, but with their vastly inferior ‘Light-Ray’ method (quickly improved by resorting to a proper microphone). Pathé and Plaza (Banner etc) began circa 1926. Edison began electric recording around September 1927.

Many of the larger companies got going with electrical recording really quickly in the first half of 1925 like Victor in the USA and HMV in the UK, for example. They re-recorded various works, especially classical, with electrical equipment and usually the acoustic equivalent records were removed from the catalogue soon after although shops would have still stocked the earlier discs in many cases.

Several of the cheaper labels (especially in the UK) continued to issue acoustic items. One good example of this is IMPERIAL. Owned by Vocalion and later Crystallate they issued a lot of european classical music and US jazz and dance band items that were recorded electrically but many of their own recordings were acoustic into late 1927/early 1928.

One member also added that the last acoustic recordings were anywhere from 1925 up to late 1930!

Victor’s last acoustics were some west coast recordings in the summer of 1925. After that, all Victors were electrical recordings.

Columbia ‘went electric’ in similar fashion, but continued using their 1923-upgraded acoustic gear for their budget labels for some time afterward. The last known Columbia acoustic matrix is 150528-1, ‘There’s a wah-wah gal in Agua Caliente’ by the Golden Gate Orchestra (the California Ramblers….labels state vocal by Jim Andrews, it’s actually Arthur Fields) recorded 23 May 1930.

In relation to what happened to the equipment – the verdict is still out. One member suggested:

Maybe some of it ended up in schools, sold off for spare parts or in music stores that made personal records??

Other suggestions include:

I also wonder if some of this stuff ended up in places like Africa, Asia, or South America for recording there?

I imagine some of the acoustical components could have been adapted to the electrical process. If they had an electrically powered cutting lathe, all one would need to do would be to put on the electrical cutting head in place of the acoustic one, right?

Non-electrical lathes were probably in use longer than you’d expect. English Columbia preferred them right through the 40s, I believe, probably because of unreliable power. I’ve heard that Decca’s field recordings couldn’t run longer than 3 minutes because that was the limit on their portable units.

I have a feeling that early on, the acoustic horn and sound box apparatus was removed from the lathe, replaced with an electrical cutting head, as many early Victor electricals look like they were done on the same machines (even down to playing at about the same speed).

In my previous post, I listed a few examples of labels and recordings which featured color shellac or vinyl. Other examples of colored vinyl include:

• ‘The Dave Brubeck Trio’ (Fantasy 3-2) on green vinyl and “Jazz Interwoven” (Fantasy 3-20) is on purple vinyl.
• CBS Records of Canada issued an LP by Andrew Davis and the Toronto Symphony Orchestra on orange vinyl (Janacek’s ”Cunning Little Vixen” Suite).
• Peter and the Wolf featuring David Bowie. Green vinyl with a red label.

Some examples of colored 45 rpms include:

• Desmond Child and Rouge: Our Love is Insane (Capitol P4669, DJ) mauve splash
• Dominic Troiano: Savour the Flavour (Capitol P72792, DJ) white, bit of splash
• E. Dee Gold, Canadian pianist: Hustle and Bustle (RCA PB 50511) gold, transparent
• Bob Welch: Sentimental Lady (Capitol 4479, promo) cherry red, transparent
• Lisa dal Bello: Pretty Girls (Talisman TALI-UF-NV-5, promo) red, transparent
• Bonnie Tyler: If I Sing You a Love Song (RCA 11349, picture sleeve) gold,
• Space Project: Conquest of the Stars (RCA JB 50418, promo) gold, transparent
• Elvis: Teddy Bear/Puppet on a String (RCA 1978 reissue, picture sleeve) dark
• Elvis: My way/America (RCA 11165) red, transparent

When Decca started offering their premium 78s in a CU prefixed series, these vinyl pressings were made in the Vogue picture record plant they had taken over, and these are also very, very, very slightly translucent dark, dark purplish brown.

MacGregor also pressed some blue vinyl (opaque) 16-inch transcriptions. And some Lone Ranger transcriptions are on clear vinyl. Partly opaque and partly transparant.

Got any other examples? Why not discuss this post in the 78rpm Collectors Forum or add your comment below:

It is not a recent invention.

As one member of the 78-L discussion list noted recently:

Throughout the 78, LP, and 45 era, recordings were issued in various colors other than black. Color didn’t affect the sound. Common colors were yellow, blue and red.

As a general rule however, shellac and vinyl in their pure forms are often white/pale yellow and translucent, or semi-transparent. Lampblack was often added to give the traditional black color to vinyl and shellac. Different additive – different color.

However, not only were basic colors used for 78s and vinyl pressings. Multi-colored 78’s were also issued on some vertical-cut Vocalions as early as 1918 and Vogue issued a series of 78 rpm recordings featuring illustrations and photo of performers. [See photo for example]

You can explore this topic further by clicking here to view a coffee table book entitled ‘EXTRAORDNARY RECORDS’ by Giorgio Moroder, Alessandro Benedetti and Peter Bastine features the most remarkable vinyl artefacts ever produced: a connoisseur’s selection of records in a plethora of colors, shapes, and forms.

Colored records other than black go back to some of the FIRST records issued. Beyond the silvery tinfoil, the first wax records were yellow. Then otfen brown. Only after the turn of the 20th century did they become black to match Berliner’s discs. One of Victor and Columbia’s first disc competitors was American, and their discs were blue. The first celluloid cylinders (in the U.S.) were Lamberts and most were pink, but some were white. Of course Vocalion and Perfect records were pressed in red shellac, and in the 30s, there were the Columbia Royal Blues.

RCA Victor’s 45s were often issued in blue vinyl during the 1950’s and some of the first pressings on LP and 45 both were yellow (gold) vinyl.

There were also some 78s that were multi colored – with the wildest swirls imaginable. They are called “splash” records. Aeolian Vocalion put one of them out in red-white-and-blue to commemorate the “end” of of WW I. There was also a short-lived series of Pathes that mixed red and black shellac.

As for vinyl, Flexo; one of the first companies to issued colored vinyl records; issued discs in a whole range of colors, some transparent and some opaque. The 16-inch Flexo Brunswick ETs were transparent blue, and since the plastic was cellulose acetate, the labels told you to only use special acetate needles.

The vinyl that World Broadcasting System used for their non-flex ETs was slightly translucent purple. Victor used black for their Victrolac and vinyl pressings until the mid-40s when they put out the transparent Ruby Red Red Seal DeLuxe 78s and their color-coded 45s.

World Pacific or Pacific Jazz issued recordings on yellow vinyl. According to Goldmine’s book on jazz LP values, Fantasy’s 10″ LPs have been seen on red, blue, green, and purple vinyl. Some were on rainbow-like pressings of different colors. Beginning with their 12″ line in 1955, all new albums were pressed on red vinyl. There was often a mottling effect of the red dye in the vinyl. From 1958 on, pressings were in translucent red until the early ’60s.

In soundtrack collecting, the most famous example of a beautiful multicolor “splash vinyl” LP is the soundtrack on Dot to Jerry Lewis’ “Cinderfella. Actually the second pressing is black, and is probably rarer (thought not as pretty). For awhile in the 70s/80s Columbia issued blue vinyl 45rpm DJ pressings

Other color vinyl soundtracks:

• ‘The Color Purple’ 2LP set -a beautiful lavender.
• The 1978 reissue of “Silent Running” on Varese Sarabande is green vinyl
• ‘Lost Horizon’ on Bell label has a blue vinyl edition
• ‘The Deep’ has a blue vinyl issue

Many budget label studio tracks had color pressings as well, e.g. Royle, Mayfair etc

Discuss this post in the 78rpm Collectors Forum

Many people think that production of 78s stopped in the early 1950’s – but truth is often stranger than fiction.

For example, it was reported on the 78-L Discussion List recently that India pressed 78s into the 1980s due to the prevalence of wind up gramophones still in use.

The Historic Masters society still issue 78 rpms and have been in form or another since the 78 era. The HM latest issue (31 – June 2009) can still be purchased here but copies are limited.

Other recent contemporary 78 rpm issues include:

• A 78 released in the UK in 2006. It was a 10 inch vinyl disk, sadly only one side is at 78 rpm, by the Irish singer/ songwriter Duke Special. Because he incorporates 78 rpms in his stage show, V2 records (a label founded by Richard Branson 5 years after he sold Virgin records), released his third single Last Night I Nearly Died (But I Woke Up Just in Time), at 78 rpm on one side of the 10 inch disk and at 45 rpm (with 2 additional tracks) on the other side.

While they didn’t do a vintage 78 era label like Korova (mimicking the Decca Supreme label) did for Ian McCulloch’s 1989 release of September Song, the pressing is superb.

• Also released in 2006 was Alex Pangman’s 78 ‘Dead Drunk Blues’. Press release info can be found here on this record. [Link opens pdf file]
• Another recent 78 rpm issue came from the folk band – A Hawk and A Hacksaw (From New Mexico). In 2009 they released a single, ‘Foni Tu Argite’ from their album as a 500 copy, limited edition, hand-numbered 10 inch 78 rpm record. It was issued April 28, 2009.
• The London based group ‘KITTY DAISY & LEWIS’ also released a 78 rpm album set during 2008. It was available as an authentic and highly collectable 1940s-style hard-back ‘record album’ featuring five 10 inch records which play at 78 rpm. This also came with a free CD copy of the album. [See image at start of post...]

Read about this interesting release here. The records can still be purchased here.

Taking into account that several record factories still offer 78 rpm cutting and pressing, there are probably other recent 78 rpm issues around.

Know of any other recent contemporary 78 rpm releases? – Add your comments below…

Also, I found this interesting blog post: 78s are Big Business Again… (Worth a read)