| Welcome to Beatles Collecting. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| With The Beatles Matrices; Why so many matrix numbers? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 4 2010, 12:30 PM (3,293 Views) | |
| servi | Aug 13 2013, 07:54 PM Post #46 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Aurelian (Quote "So why make the 83rd stamper from a master that was probably faulty"). - was the master faulty or was the first mother of the first master faulty (as Frank postulates earlier in the thread) ? I think the latter. The number 50,000 is thus explained by one digit stampers (~5000 x 9), all from one master (-1N). - Yes, it's my understanding that a stamper number is unique, regardless of master or mother from a given master, but anyone correct me if I am wrong. New numbering of stampers when a new master was prepared was way too confusing and also would imply an unrealistic number of stampers produced (and probably imply more of LPs pressed in the '60s than there were people in the UK). I don't think sequential numbering of stampers is complicated in practice as you wrote. At least not as complicated as having several stampers GRG and having to combine that information with mother, submaster and master to unequivocally identify a stamper. It's easier to say: "stamper 51 for side needs to be replaced because it is worn out". And if the testing dept. identifies a faulty record, then they can say: "recycle all vinyl pressed with stamper 131". - IMO stamper numbers are not very much correlated to date of production. With a pre-order of several hundred thousands for most Beatles LPs, the initial task was to produce a huge amount of stampers (at least 50 or more), simultaneously from different mothers (and masters in the case of WTB ?). - submasters may have been made from good mothers, possibly to elongate the life of the master, but that's speculation. Any info on the reason why they were made is welcome. For SPLHCB side 1 mono, they dominate for higher stamper numbers and for copies without ADITL, possibly indicating later pressings, where the master was not good enough anymore therefore requiring a submaster from a good mother ? Again speculation ! - the number of stampers per mother could be around 10 but may also be as high as 30 (e.g. XEX-637-1 first mother produced at least 30 stampers, ranging from stamper number 1G to 1MRT). In th, with stampers from other mothers used in between of course). In theory 30 stampers is enough to make 150,000 records. But could they tell on forehand how long it took before the mother wore out. Probably not, so multiple mothers were needed initially in order to be able to produce the number of stampers required to guarantee pressing capacity of the pre-ordered copies. - muffmaster notices that despite strict quality testing these faulty pressings came out. But don't forget these were busy times at Hayes (although I don't believe it was "chaos", unlike some other factories in the world Hayes had a very precise registration system for stampers). Frank, please give your input here !! Do you have more info than what is in your book ? Below a nice diagram, posted earlier on this forum but I forgot by whom (sorry, take the spotlight if it's yours !). Posted Image |
![]() |
|
| AurelianDE | Aug 14 2013, 01:32 AM Post #47 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, it would be great if Frank could give his opinion. I conclude from several posts of his (in various threads) that he thinks stampers were counted by master, but maybe that's a misunderstanding. In the meantime, just a few comments:
Agree. That's why I felt uncomfortable with the notion that stampers were counted per mother or per master in the first place. No idea where I got that notion from, but probably from this forum. May be my misunderstanding. However:
The Admiral and warmbuddy mentioned a -4N/3/O (=5) and -4N/2/O (also stamper 5) above (immediately before Frank's post of Jan 12). Second side: -3N/1/T both. Either same stamper number off two different mothers, which would blow up your understanding of unique stamper numbers, or (more likely) a reading mistake. Mothers are sometimes hard to read. -- Admiral and warmbuddy: could you please check again? And kindly put your glasses on, a complete philosophy depends on your eyesight ;) !--
Agree. Certainly also masters in the case of WTB, as stamper numbers were all over the place between -1 and -7. But why stamper 83 from -1, and stamper 5 from -4 and even stamper 15 from -7, as on my copy? Basically agree with everything else you say, but disagree with the following:
I'm afraid I simply don't understand the last sentence. Which number of 50,000? But apart from that, I must stress again the fact that the problem of record players jumping on 'one track' (reported in 1963, identified as ROB later and corroborated in this thread) and the possibility of a faulty mother (suggested in this thread) are totally unrelated. Of course there can have been a faulty mother which had to be withdrawn. It would have been faulty in a technical sense, due to problems during the copying process or due to material (metal) shortcomings. The 'bass problem', as your diagram clearly demonstrates, would have been a problem of the cutting process (the lacquer or soft master). Between metal master (or hard master, as I believe it is called in the UK, designated as 'matrix' in the diagram -- thanks for finding that!) and stampers there is no way that the sound of the record can be influenced. It is technically not possible that the master has correct bass amplitudes and a specific mother has excessive bass. Vice versa, any excessive bass amplitude in the lacquer will be present in all mothers made from that master, not in only one of them. Maybe the ROB problem (the 'loud cut') is a red herring and in fact they let that pass (all of the -1 mothers) but in fact had to withdraw records made from a particular mother for some other and undisclosed reason? Just speculating, of course. |
![]() |
|
| servi | Aug 14 2013, 07:10 AM Post #48 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, I was probably confusing 2 things. The 50,000 was mentioned by Frank was in relation to early, single digit stampers, so forget the last calculation. Indeed the info by warmbuddy and admiral halsey is interetting, please re-check that ! Maybe my understanding of stamper numbering being sequential regardless of the master version is simply incorrect, but it seems quite complicated to keep the number per master, with several masters in use at the same time. I am not convinced of a unique stamper number for a mother. That would mean that from certain mother there were over 400 stampers (because stamper numbers can go that high). Also for SPLHCB I have never seen the same stamper numbers for 2 different mothers, but that is assuming the numbering system remained unchanged and was similar for releases with multiple masters and releases with only 1 master (like SPLHCB). Also it is fun to keep a list of stampers, mothers and masters of copies listed on Ebay, but try to do that for more than one LP and you will have almost a daytime job. Plus mothers are sometimes hard to read as you say, while higher stamper numbers are occasionally stamped from top to bottom or backwards if you read from left to right. |
![]() |
|
| warmbuddy | Aug 14 2013, 03:18 PM Post #49 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi guys...I pulled out my magnifying glass to confirm my numbers for you and again, they are as reported earlier... XEX 447-4N 2 O XEX 448-3N 1 T A good discussion here. From similar past discussions on the forum, it has been accepted that more than one master and mother are simultaneously involved in the pre-release production process for the obvious reasons. I think we all agree on that point. I also tend to believe that the case of multiple mothers stamped on the vinyl does indicate the creation of a new mother from the earlier mother in an effort to extend the life of the master. I've learned that this process wasn't such an uncommon practice. As far as the stamper confusion, without giving it any thought or inspection, I have always assumed that stampers produced from each mother would begin again at G. My 2 O mother/stamper combination and AH's reported combination of 3 O would seem to confirm that. However, there are obviously inconsistencies (scan our archives for many other examples beyond the current discussion). I have come to accept the fact that we may never fully reconcile the production process as it actually unfolded at the production plant(s) and the consequent record keeping as we have determined it should be. I look forward to reading fresh thought on the subject...Cheers! |
![]() |
|
| servi | Aug 14 2013, 04:59 PM Post #50 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for checking !!! But there are stampers numbers over 500 for some LPs, they can't have been made from the same mother can they ? Below is the list compiled from Ebay listings for side 1 of XEX637-1 (i.e. SPLHCB side 1 mono) from low to high stamper number (duplicates indicate different copies sold). never is a stamper number re-used for a different mother. Also mothers were used random it seems. Note submasters seem to appear more frequently with higher stamper numbers. Of course some numbers may have been misread. This release had only one master (-1) so this may make a difference compared to WTB ? Sorry for the long post ;) 1 G 3 R 3 R 1 M 1 H 1 H 1 L 1 L 1 T 1 GD 3 GG 3 GA 3 GA 1 GP 1 RM 1 RP 1 RP 3 RT 3 AA 3 AA 3 AA 3 AO 2 AP 2 AP 2 AP 2 AP 2 AP 2 AP 2 AP 2 MG 2 MG 3 MR 2 MP 3 MT 4 PM 4 PL 4 PL 4 PL 4 PL 2 HO 3 HP 3 HT 3 HT 3 LD 3 LD 3 LD 4 DLG 1 LO 1 LO 4 GDP 3 GDL 2 GGA 5 GGP 1 GAA 1 GAP 1 GAT 1 GAT 1 GMD 3_7 GMO 3 GML 2 GOR 1 GPG 1 GPG 1 GPG 1 GPG 1 GPT 1 GLM 3 GLH 2 RDR 2 RDR 7 RDO 1 RGG 2 RGG 2 RRL 3 RAO 2 RAL 5 RMA 4 RMO 4 RMO 3 ROA 6 RPO 1 RPP 1 RPP 4 RPL 1 RLD 4 RLG 4 RTG 4 RTG 4 RTP 3_7 ARM 1 ARO 3 AAM 7 AAL 1 AML 1 AOP 2 AOL 2 AOL 2 AOT 1 APG 1 APG 6 APA 6 APA 2 APH 4 AHA 4 AHA 3 AHP 3_7 AHL 1 ALR 4 ALH 1 ALH 3 ATR 3 ATA 2 MDL 3_7 MDT 3_7 MGO 3_7 MGO 3 MRD 6 MRG 6 MRG 3_7 MRR 6 MRM 6 MRM 3_7 MRH 3_7 MRH 1 MRT 1 MRT 1 MAM 2 MAO 30 MAH 6 MMO 2 MMP 2 MMP 3_5 MMH 3_8 MMH 2 MOG 1 MRT |
![]() |
|
| servi | Aug 14 2013, 05:05 PM Post #51 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And side 2, in order that corresponds to side 1. 0 G 1 G 3 MP 2 DG 1 T 1 T 1 A 1 A 1 P 2 GG 1 L 2 RG 3 RG 1 GO 2 GAO 5 OO 5_9 MA 3_5 AG 3_5 AA 3_5 AA 3_5 AA 4 PP 2 DG 2 DG 2 DG 2 DG 2 DG 2 DG 2 DG 1 T 2 AH 3 O 3_5 MD 4 AM 3 LR 3 PD 3 PD 3 PD 4 PD 4 OL 2 PM 1 A 1 A 3 GGP 4 HR 4 HR 10 MAH 3_3 PG 2 OP 7 ADT 3_5 GRD 3 GDD 8 GMD 3 LL 1 GLG 2 AT 2 GDG 2 GAD 3_5 GMA 4 GMG 4 GAP 0 GPH 0 GPH 0 GPH 3 GTH 3 GPL 3 GGM 7 GOD 4 GHT 4 GHT 3 AOG 1 RGM 3 RGM 2 PM 4 RAL 8 GLO 2 RLO 0 RMR 4 RMD 4 RAL 4 TDR 8 POR 8 POR 0 RMR 3 ROT 10 MAH 2 RPM 2 RPM 2 RAM 9 RHR 7 RLP 3 AMM 8 ATO 3 ADA 3 ADA 3 AAL 9 AAL 2 ARR 0 AGH 0 AGH 7 ARL 7 ARL 2 AHD 7 ARL 7_10 ARL 8 AMT 9 AOO 7 ARL 0 MGM 10 MMO 0 APR 7 MRT 7 MOD 2 ALL 8 AHP 8 AHP 6_10 MAA 10 MAA 10 MAA 2 DRM 7 MDH 7 MDH 2 MMP 9 MRH 8 MRL 8 MRL 8 MDP 9 MMT 2 MAL 7 MAT 0 MMH 8 DMM 3 MMM 3 MMM 7 MOM 6 MAO |
![]() |
|
| warmbuddy | Aug 14 2013, 07:14 PM Post #52 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi servi...checking your list and my Excel spreadsheet of all the Beatles UK pressings that I own, I have to agree with your observation...the first time I've compared them all that closely! I have no answer for you regarding the number of stampers produced from each mother. Over the years, I've seen various estimates stated, as well as for how many records are actually produced from each stamper under normal conditions, some more reasonable than others. It may well be that the stamper numbers continued in a more or less steady numeric fashion despite a change in a mother plate? Plant production data would certainly be beneficial...interviews with past employees are not definitive IMO as long-term memories are not that reliable. |
![]() |
|
| jimboo | Aug 14 2013, 08:14 PM Post #53 |
|
Level 3
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have a single with 6 stamper letters, will have to dig it out, can't even remember which record. |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 14 2013, 11:59 PM Post #54 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
there were screw ups, letters or numbers crossed out, makes it look like there are a shed load of letters sometimes.... |
![]() |
|
| TheItalianFab4 | Aug 18 2013, 10:49 AM Post #55 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My copy of WTB with correct credits and -1N matrices has the following infos. Side 1: 1 GNO Side 2: 2 GHM |
![]() |
|
| admiral halsey | Aug 20 2013, 06:47 AM Post #56 |
![]()
Level 4
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have a few:- 4N 2 O - 3N 1 T 1N 3 RAH - 1N 1 RRD 5N 1 L - 5N 2 A 5N 3 LL - 5N 3 HA 7N 4 ML - 7N 3 HM 6N 4 PM - 6N 2 GG 6N 4 LG - 6N 1 HO 1N 5 GP - 1N 5 RD (Jobete) 7N 1 TP - 7N 26 GDA 5N 3 TL - 6N 1 TG 1N 3 MR - 1N 16 OP (Jobete) 1N 16 GDL - 1N 1L (Jobete) 5N 1 GL - 5N 1 GP 7N 10 - 7N 3 No letters discernable (Decca) That's all my copies of WTB! AH |
![]() |
|
| servi | Aug 20 2013, 07:03 AM Post #57 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks admiral, great ! So warmbuddy and you have a copy of the same stamper XEX 447-4N 2 O ! That's the one we were interested in, to see if the O stamper was associated with 2 different mothers (which now it isn't). I'm a bit puzzled by stampers starting with T (TP, TL), what would be the number of those ? |
![]() |
|
| warmbuddy | Aug 20 2013, 03:55 PM Post #58 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
GRAMOPHLTD = 1234567890 From that... TP = 96 TL = 98 |
![]() |
|
| AurelianDE | Aug 20 2013, 09:13 PM Post #59 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks, admiral! That would have been the first example of the same stamper number used for different mothers, and one instance would have been enough to kill a nice theory (of course, the absence of counter-evidence is not enough to prove it!). It's very easy to misread mothers, especially to mistake a 3 for a 2 and vice versa (if the lower part is faint) or a 5 (if the upper part is faint). Servi, you can add another -1 4 PM/ 3 LR to your looooong list of SPLHCB monos (35th from the top of your list). I actually read the second side mother as 5 but checked more carefully after finding it in your list. From what we got so far, it seems likely that stampers were consecutively numbered, irrespective of mother. If that is the case, the inevitable conclusion is that -1N through -7N masters were all used as early as 1963, because three-digit stampers appear on -1N (see, for instance, TheItalianfab's example) and 2-digit stampers on -7N and 1-digit numbers on -4N (warmbuddy and admiral's copy). The case of Decca contracts (admiral's last entry) being different does not mean anything. Maybe they didn't count stampers at all or had a separate count. Here are some additional thoughts about numbering. (Sorry if there is something about that in the archive, it's very hard to search).
There is a technical reason for that. If mothers were plated from any master, they would automatically contain the number that had been stencilled or stamped into the lacquer. Likewise, a stamper copied from a mother would have the number of the master as well as the number of the mother. But how did the mother get its number? Electroplating is a chemico-physical process, not a mechanical one. You can't add the 9 o'clock number during the process, only after it. Therefore, there must have been a separate, mechanical process during which the mothers, after having been rinsed etc., were numbered. As the mothers were playable copies of the record, the number could be stamped or stencilled into them. Stampers were electroplated from the (newly numbered) mothers and also could not be numbered during the process. The number had to be punched into them from the rear when they were ready. As the stamper is a negative image of the record, all numbers are raised, or embossed, while on lacquer or mother they were cut into the material. I have no idea if the number was added (say, by a counter-operated punching device) in the pressing machine or separately before the stampers were used. Not all stampers went into the pressing machines immediately and some were even kept to make sub-mothers from, and at least those should not have been numbered, otherwise the new sub-mothers would already have had a stamper number at the 3 o'clock position. The number of the original mother, however, was duplicated, and that would explain why sub-mothers have a double count ('1 over 5' etc.) -- one from the mother that was already there in the stamper and one added as a new count. Now imagine Hayes having to produce multiple stampers from multiple mothers within a very short time in order to get multiple pressing machines going at the same time. Electroplating was carried out simultaneously in an array of baths, each one containing one individually numbered mother. Stampers came out of the electroplating baths unnumbered as soon as they were ready and had to be physically moved to a facility where they could be cleaned. If they were then to be numbered by mother, there would either have to be somebody who observed which bath they had come from and sort them accordingly, or there would have to be a punching device for each bath separately. That latter possibility seems especially impractical (and costly). It's much more likely that they were numbered one after the other irrespective of which bath (and therefore which mother) they came from. Hope I got the logic right. It's speculation, mind, and maybe somebody who has actually seen the Hayes facilities can improve on it. |
![]() |
|
| JWL | Apr 3 2017, 09:04 AM Post #60 |
|
Level 1
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry to lift up dead tred - my WTB -1N Jobete jump on ROB has 3PM/4GRH |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Albums · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




6:57 PM Jul 11