Proof That 1A, 1B and 1C Columbia Records Are All "First Pressings"

I can't say I'm conversant at all at identifying pressings, but I thought people that collect Columbia pressings would find this pretty interesting:

Proof That 1A, 1B and 1C Columbia Records Are All "First Pressings"

Proof That 1A, 1B and 1C Columbia Records Are All "First Pressings"
...

"As you can see, the 1A lacquer went to Columbia's Terre-Haute, Indiana pressing plant, the 1B went to the Pitman, New Jersey plant and the 1C went to Columbia's Santa Maria pressing plant. So, clearly 1A, 1B and 1C are all "first pressings"!

...

 

I wonder what those "spreads" mean.

 

To band aka spread between the songs on the album side. The master tape legend mentions there is no leader spliced in between songs (which is how banding between songs is done automatically in lacquer disc cutting), since this master tape does not have those leaders, the bands between songs must be done manually by the lacquer disc mastering engineer. Hope this explains this.

 

It did explain. Thanks a lot!

 

I've certainly always thought that Columbia's first few lacquers were all first pressings. I know that the cut letters correspond to the cut numbers, so 1A is the first cut, 1B the second.. so on.. then you get into the double letters like 1AA signifying higher cut numbers.

But.. I've got to debate Fremer's 'proof' 1D, 1E and 1F are all 'Second Pressings'.

He's using as his proof a sheet for a mono tape of The Notorious Byrd Brothers. While a great record and a good seller, it didn't push numbers like say.. Blood, Sweat And Tears.. or Chicago Transit Authority.. or Santana.. etc..

I'm of the belief that bigger anticipated titles would have more than 3 lacquers cut in the first run. I've heard talk around here that 1A and 1B would have gone to one plant.. 1C and 1D another.. 1E and 1F another.. sometimes 1A, 1B and 1C would be for one plant.. 1D, 1E, 1F for another.. etc..

So.. I'm not buying his proof that past the 3rd cut was automatically 'Second Pressings'. This is really title dependent. A hugely anticipated record like Santana's debut would have way more original cuts (and therefore 'first pressings) than a mono copy of The Notorious Byrd Brothers.

 

Interesting stuff. I've got a -1C/-1C pressing of Highway 61 Revisited, and sure enough, it's a Santa Maria pressing with the alternate take of From a Buick 6.

 

That's certainly a first pressing. But.. what are the highest letters that have the alt take of From A Buick 6? I don't have any 60s copies of this record.

And.. in the situations where a take or a song would be substituted.. that side at least would now probably be marked as 2A, 2B. This would probably mean second mix or master instead of cut.

I know some Paul Simon LPs start with 4A because he didn't approve of the first 3 masters or mixes. 1A, 2A or 3A just doesn't exist for those.

 

Good question, I'm not sure whether -1 copies beyond C exist with the alternate take (they may).

I agree -2 copies would likely have the corrected take.

Funny, I have a -1B/-1B of Bringing It All Back Home and it's a Pitman pressing, so both records match the scheme on that sheet.

 

Forum member @W.B. might be interested in seeing the sheet posted at the beginning of this thread and have some thoughts.

 

As The Byrds weren't selling much at this point, and especially given that this was mono, naturally each plant would get one set of lacquers for this LP. If an album was anticipated to sell like hotcakes, each plant would get two sets (1A/1B, 1C/1D, 1E/1F) or more (1A-1C, 1D-1F, 1G-1J on up). It was all contingent on a host of factors.

The lacquers were all cut at Columbia's Hollywood studios ('M-3' was the Scully 601 lathe used to cut mono albums and singles in that studio; 'S-1' was the one to cut stereo LP's and 45's - both were designated 'MACH.' on these sheet forms). Can anyone say with certainty who exactly 'PM' was amongst Columbia Hollywood's engineers ('ENG.')? I already know of these names known to cut lacquers there:
- Don Thompson
- Jack Lattig
- Bob DeAvila
- Bill Brittan

"Spreads," incidentally, were the same pitch as what Columbia Hollywood used for lead-in and catch groove - 32.3125 lpi (a.k.a. 32 pitch). Notice two sets of lpi for the main sides - 165/135 for Side 1, 145/115 for Side 2. The lower figures (designated 'EXP.') were the first two turns after either the lead-in or the spread; the higher (designated 'LPI') was for the rest of the "band" (track). The lead-out was 4.165 lpi (4 pitch); 45's used 7.625 lpi (8 pitch) for the lead-in.

And evidently, the lacquers were all cut on Dec. 27, 1967. Almost three weeks before the scheduled Jan. 15, 1968 release date.

 

Your explanation is one which makes sense. Because a big selling title or artist, would likely need to be pressed on more than one press at a time at that plant to meet anticipated demand. To get the quantities of copies needed to the distributors and from there to retail.

 

Forgot one other name who cut lacquers at Columbia Hollywood: Jack Andrews.

 

Very informative as usual, thanks!

 

Would Our Host or Bob Irwin have any idea who 'PM' was among the Columbia Hollywood mastering/cutting engineers? I can certainly tell it wasn't Andrews (JA), Brittan (BB), DeAvila (BD), Lattig (JL) or Thompson (DT).

 

Let's tag him and see if he'll answer. @Steve Hoffman

 

Fremer also wrote a similar article in 2017:

Cracking the Columbia Records Code

 

The two articles contradict each other. He's transposing cuttings with pressings first of all. And then.. he is insinuating in the earlier article that 1A- 1F are all 'first cuttings'.. but in the second article. he says that 1D and higher are 'Second Pressings'

Its a bit nitpicky, but unless Columbia was using master and slave lathes to do simultaneous cuts.... 1A is technically the first cut, 1B is technically the second cut. Now, the same mastering moves were probably done each time in the earliest cuts so there is probably no difference between a 1A and 1B, etc. They are all 'first cuttings' in the sense that they were all done in the same session by the same engineer with the same moves. The tape had to be respooled each time. That puts wear on the tape. That's why I try to find lowest cut letter and try to stay away from 1AJs and stuff like that.

 

There are so many variables as to what a 1F would signify, because of all this. And not necessarily done by the same cutting engineer. One set would be cut by one engineer, the next by another, and so on.

 

There was a general process in place but you'll find like any business process/program where humans are carrying out the tasks there will exist a great deal of examples that don't conform to this approach/naming convention.

People like myself love linear order, but when you're running a process with multiple departments spread across the country back when phone calls were rare and cost real $ there are plenty of examples that will challenge "rules".

Also people like to take the popular Columbia naming convention and apply it to different eras, countries and unrelated labels.

Like anything in this crazy collector's universe if you want the truth you must research each particular release, and even then you may not ever know what the "truth" was.

Lastly it's been discussed before there are plenty of powerful Columbia recording artists who tinkered and didn't release the 1st cut: Dylan, Springsteen, Simon etc.

 

londonjazzcollector spoke about this in a great piece he wrote on Columbia matrix codes in April Columbia Matrix Codes – case study: “Kind of Blue”

 

W.B. You are certainly right. There is no particular rhyme or reason to it. In the example given of The Notorious Byrd Brothers in mono, if there is a 1F cut, then it certainly could have been done at another time by another engineer.

If it is an LP that had a potential to be huge.. then the same engineer could have done the first 6 or more cuts. But, it could have even been somebody different. We'd have to see the sheets on each release to really know for sure.

I just stick to the mantra that the lower the letter, the closer it is to the first cut and the first time the tape is spooled up.

 

That, I ain't arguin' about. Same with 1S dash numbers on classic RCA Victor LP's, for example (as opposed to 2S, 3S etc.)