Don't know if this is on yet, but from this page: The Barbarians (self-titled) - Laurie SLP 2033 (1966) Δ8637 / Δ8637-X
That's interesting about the ISB album. The only confirmed release that I know to be from Monarch and which has no job number is the Dark Horse Radio Special.
Siouxsie And The Banshees / Hyaena Geffen / GHS 24030 1984 Δ6768 / Δ6768-X w/artisan stamp both sides
Siouxsie And The Banshees / Hyaena is not Monarch. The numbers are sequential with time, 1984 would have a 26,000 Rick Wakeman/The Six Wives of Henry VIII is already on the list except Side B is listed 17690-X. I'll confirm later today
I am glad someone is still monitoring this thread. I have several Monarch pressings that I have not yet seen on this thread, but I will need time to compile all the information and submit it.
OK, so before the Δ symbol there is a hand etched SLM on both sides. It has the Δ symbol on both sides and then a job#, so what is it?
OK, I get it, or most of it anyway -so the lacquer was cut by Monarch and then sent to Sheffield where they took it from there? how would that work exactly, parts made by one and shipped to the other in some form obviously. There is also a circle stamp of some type on side one of that lp, if it's etched then it is a very clean and accurate circle with only a faint start and stop point. I think I have seen this circle quite a bit. I have a MO COC 59100 Sticky Fingers with Δ15943 / Δ15943-x and the MR in a circle stamped on both sides, no Artisan and Rockefeller address -this is more in the keeping with the chronological numbers? More likely the 'job' numbers are for SLM and not Monarch then? Or maybe numbers specific to cutting and parts sent to other pressing plants, the Δ before the number indicates___?
SLM has nothing to do w/ Monarch, they did metalwork and used a similar delta-numbering system that has nothing to do with Monarch. Monarch did not cut lacquers, they just pressed records. Frank has an online catalog to view: http://www.friktech.com/monarch/MonarchNumbers.pdf. You can ascertain whether a number makes sense for Monarch or not.
So is the Monarch Numbers PDF something that is being updated as you get more info? I saw a copy of Exile on Main St. (an Atco) with MO labels on disc one and CSM labels on disc two -just curious if that would be considered a switching of discs after the fact or could something like that come out of either plant? I thought it might be possible that the CSM plant supplied a batch of parts to MO, and maybe some already pressed discs for finishing the sets at the MO plant. ?
What's the diameter of the pressing ring in the label area - 2.703125" or 2.875" ? The former indicates a Columbia pressing, the latter a Monarch pressing.
I have some more from recent purchases: The Wailers - 'Walk Thru the People' 1968 Bell 6016 d 11682 Merrilee Rush and The Turnabouts - 'Angel of the Morning / That Kind of Woman' 1968 Bell 6020 d 12307
I got a measurement using a CAD program as I only have pics of this. The pics are pretty clear and straight on, when I made a 4" box and sized the label just inside it and then made a 2.875" box, the CSM label clearly is at about 2.7" and the MO is at the 2.875 mark. I got my label measurement from my Rockefeller addressed copy of Sticky Fingers which is actually 3.9375", the ring on that record is almost a full .0625" shy of 2.875 -is that close enough to what it should be if a MO, or would a 16th of an inch mean anything? It has MO on the label and the proper delta symbol and job# in the deadwax There probably would be no clear reason for either plant to send records that were already pressed to the other for completion of a 2 lp package, The only reason I think this is even remotely possible is that CSM and Monarch are not terribly far from each other, and both did Atlantic records.
You measured a 2.8125"? Monarch pressings tended to cover a relatively wide swath with their pressing rings, unlike Columbia pressings whose rings were neater and more precise. I once saw a Monarch where the ring measured 2.859375". It also seems you had a "mix and match," because I've seen some double-LP sets of that type where you had one record from one plant and the other record from another - and I've usually seen those at record conventions.
Yes, the first thing I noticed visually when comparing the two rings was that the MO was almost a double stamped looking ring, kind of like 2 rings on top of another not so perfect. The CSM ring is a crisp and precise single line.
The previous owner may've had two copies, and put the best of each pressing onto that gatefold jacket.
I suppose as mix and match goes, this one would be palatable, given that both plants made pretty sweet pressings especially in the early run.
