Then I found the shellac was also on archive.org, as the label colour looked different, I considered it was another version. But now I’m suddenly not sure…
It could be the colours on archive are just off, after all, both are green labels. Apart from the colour deviation, it looks very much the same. Even the runouts are completely identical (not just the same numbers, but the complete positioning and runout grooves.)
The labels are different, content is the same, but light green is “crisp”, the dark green tends to be blurred or over inked on the edge printing, maybe different printing plates or worn plate. I do not think the color difference is due to fading or enhanced correction, it could be whoever printed the label did it in different batches and maybe they chose the wrong green or ran out of that green, or maybe its two different green paper stock .
I’d go with two releases. I agree with @dashv, this isn’t just fading. The way the ink looks on the text is also different. Different batch of labels made up at a different factory.
It is not as if the release group is overloaded with too many versions. Best to keep the variations.
Yea, but…
The way labels are made allows for variations in position:
I don’t know if it was already the case in the shellac age, but on most vinyl, the content is printed on templates which already have the rim text, label name, layout. On every individual label the release specific content might shift a bit relative to the generic content
Labels are often printed with multiple labels per sheet (for instance 4), every label on one paper can be positioned a bit different, especially in times where this was hand work
the amount of ink (thin, or over inked/blurred) is a question of applying the ink, and also varies per individual label
I’m 100% positive they were printed in the same factory
So slight different position of content towards template & different amount of ink applied are often nothing more than normal manufacturing variations.
The only thing that makes me doubt is the green. The paper colour would never differ within the same badge.
Also, it’s a 1956 shellac, which means there wouldn’t be a long period of represses, if any exist.
Problem is photography. Automatic white balance and poor CMOS in phone cams (compared to pro cams) often have difficulties catching colours. Especially plain colours are a problem, confusing the automatic white balance, especially in interior light.
I tried matching mine as close as possible to the label colour (on my non calibrated screen), but it is different from the real label. Colours can go way off, some label colours (for instance Philips Maroon) are impossible to get right.
I’m still doubting I just didn’t post a duplicate, based purely on photographic errors in colour…
But I’m not sure either. I think the only way to know for sure: did Pathé use different shades of green on shellacs in the perios starting from 1956 until shellac was phased out .
Oh… just checked on Discogs label page for Pathé: filtering on Shellac & France: 1956 is the last year shellacs were actually pressed.
(Which is cool, this is the very first single by Marie-Josée Neuville, and looks like it is the only one ever pressed on shellac)
Also see: https://www.discogs.com/label/70230-Pathé?format=Shellac&country=France (sort by year)
PG → they are all green, and most photos match the colour on archive.org
(PA cat#s have a very dark shade of blue)
Automatic white balance tends to pull or temper any shade to a “middle” shade. Most do not compensate this afterwards.
I tend to lean strongly towards I just posted a duplicate at this point, looking at this again.
I think I’m going to keep it, and next time I’m at the shellac department, I’ll go looking for Pathé PG releases.
It’s the best way to find out whether different shades of green were used.
The two shellacs might’ve been pressed at the same place and time (since it’s unclear what the matrix code signifies), but the font doesn’t have the same weight and size on both copies, meaning that the labels must’ve been printed at different times. This is most noticeable in the “CPT 12.049” code to the left and the “La Collégienne” and “Paroles” texts. Different cover art → different releases.
This doesn’t mean the labels were printed at different times.
Apart from the label colour, all other differences are normal manufacturing variations within the same badge.
Labels are often printed on a sheet containing different labels at once, each of them is prone to slight different positioning.
More or less excessive ink is also normal.
Compare it to a stamp, you push it once in the ink pad for setting 5 stamps, the first will bleed, the fifth will be barely readable.
There are much mistakes about differences in labels. We modern people are too much accustomed to modern printing techniques, enabling almost identical results. This wasn’t always the case.
So this may be a “paper stock” issue, you run out of a color in stock and pick the next closest one available, it did not appear the green was printed. I enjoyed your talk about the older process, I am familiar with “plate print machines”, what printing technology would have been used at that time to print the labels?
So you’re basically saying that you think that the labels were placed horizontally next to each other on the same row and they thus had to replicate the same layout multiple times instead of doing the typesetting just once? Pretty sloppy work if that’s the case, since the points are no way near the same in some places. The “La Collégienne” line is probably off by 1-2 cm, but maybe they ran out of physical types and had to improvise. I imagined that they printed this vertically with only one label per row, but I guess they instead could have printed this on a massive sheet which they then had to cut both vertically and horizontally. Bleed could explain most of the text with heavier weights but not the size differences I mentioned.
The use of different fonts should/can be different releases imo.
The bold text could be written off as being because of the use of too much ink (miraculously, without stuffing up the kerning/spacing between letters too much) but when you look at some of the letterforms it becomes clear that they have used different typefaces:
This takes away all doubt.
Different fonts, different green (mine also doesn’t seem to have any grain).
Thanks a lot for spotting this. I completely missed it.
Yes, I know this happens.
I don’t know where this happens or happened however, or how often.
I don’t think anyone really bothered about exact mm-correct positions, it was just information to identify the record. (La Collégienne isn’t off by a 1-2 cm, it’s more 2-3 mm, the spindle hole is 7mm, it’s not that bad)
The real doubt was the colour, and also the grain on the lighter version, mine are completely smooth labels.
But if the font differs… I’m 100% confident it’s different.
I’d really like to know more about this actually.
The history of this part of the manufacturing process is barely documented, it seems.
