Posting this since I hear and read for so long that the Little Herman 45 on Gina 'I'm gonna put the hurt on you' B/W 'gotta keep on walknig' is often supposed  and proposed as the first issue before Arlen.

 

But looking at the evidences it points out the other way. I did check few of the Gina releases and none but the Little Herman bare under the catalogue number an abreviation system of the artist with a "counting" of release on the label. As for examble the Buttons (TH-BUTT-1 & TH-BUTT-2)

 

For instance Little Herman on Arlen 749 shows; LH 1 'it's alright pardner', LH 2 'one out of a hundred'.

 

Little Herman on Arlen 751 has; LH 3 'I'm gonna put the hurt on you' & LH 4 'gotta keep on walking'.

 

Almost all the Arlen (700 series) I've seen are baring the same abreviation numbering thing under the catalogue number as such.

 

So if we can agree that LH 1 & 2 are before LH 3 & 4 then why would a 45 on Gina be prior to a second release on Arlen just  following another Arlen release ?

 

Also, and finally, Little Herman on Gina takes all the infos (even the catalogue numbering system) like the Arlen 751. All the Gina's I've seen are 100 and 1000 numberings ! No 700's. So was there a connection between those two label ? It could be. Some of the Gina 45's were also 'A Zenith production'. I can't find much infos about those record labels to understand better their relation if any.

 

 

 

Any clues anybody ?

I, too,  have always read and heard that the Gina release was first.  But Arlen Records was around from 1962 through 1963, and Gina operated later , starting in late 1963, and going into 1964.  I think that the Gina pressing was a re-release by the same label owner (Harry Finfer) on his own later label, of a production which had previously come out on Arlen, which he had co-owned.  Gina ran from 1963 through part of 1964 (and was owned by Harry Finfer-according to "Soulful Kinda Music's website's list of Soul Music labels).   I know that Harry Finfer was, co-owner owner of Arlen Records, along with Dick Clark.  Gina may have been completely owned by Finfer.  Finfer was probably the executive producer of both records, but he was a businessman.  I'm not positive who actually produced the recordings (e.g. ran the recording sessions), but Ray Rush is listed for A & R, so, I assume that he was the de facto producer running the recording session.

Edited January 4, 201411 yr by RobbK

Cheers for thar Rob, even though I can't finfd those infos on the 'soulfulkindamusic' site, anyway, this just close the subject of my quest. I'll keep on looking at the beauty while playing of both my Arlen's releases without wondering about that Gina release that I don't need to own never more.

My copying the link doesn't produce a live link to place here.  But here are segments of the tables on Soulfulkindamusic's "Label Information" page:

 

Gina - Philadelphia - 1963-1964 - Harry Finfer - Schubert Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

 

There is no entry for Arlen Records.  But, if you Google "Arlen Records - Philadelphia, you'll find out that it operated from 1962 to 1963 and it was owned by Harry Finfer and Dick Clark (who was part owner of a boatload of Philadelphia labels -probably just from offering to play their records on his show ).

 

Finfer was co-owner of Jamie/Guyden Records, as well as the record distributorship that owned them.  He was also owner of several other Philadelphia labels.

Edited January 4, 201411 yr by RobbK

R&B Indies had the Arlen release as 1964 with it being the third from final release.  

Could you be more specific in infos from R&B indies book (I guess) ? Cheers

 

  On 04/01/2014 at 09:27, chalky said:

R&B Indies had the Arlen release as 1964 with it being the third from final release.  

  On 04/01/2014 at 14:52, tlscapital said:

Could you be more specific in infos from R&B indies book (I guess) ? Cheers

 

No, it doesn't go any further than the year and the record details.  It was at the end of the labels life so guess The Gina release not long after the Arlen release.

 

Edited January 4, 201411 yr by chalky

Ah ! so they could classified the Gina release in the discography even though it bears an Arlen number ? Would you know if the Gina uses the Arlen matrix/template too ? I don't owe a Gina so I can't compare with my copy on Arlen. Anyway, I guess this is now sorted. Cheers

  On 04/01/2014 at 15:03, chalky said:

No, it doesn't go any further than the year and the record details.  It was at the end of the labels life so guess The Gina release not long after the Arlen release.

R&B Indies

 

1964

Arlen

751 Little Herman  I'm Gonna Put The Hurt On You  LH-3 b/w Gotta Keep On Walking  LH-4

 

Gina 1963/64 but Little Herman is under 1963.

 

Little Herman is the third release unless some missing and shares the same details as above.

 

R&B Indies although greatly researched isn't always correct.

So going by the above Gina first Arlen second?

I have both the Gina and the Arlen records.  The Gina pressing has "45  LH-3" on the I'm Gonna put the hurt On You" side, and "45  LH-4" on "Gotta keep On Walking", same as exists on the Arlen sides.  The only other markings are the Sheldon stamp.  So, I guess mine was a Chicago pressing.  My Arlen record has exactly the same exact markings, "45 LH-3" and "45 LH-4" and the Sheldon stamp.

 

 

I had always heard that the Gina was first. 

So, it seems that Finfer had it released on his own label, first in mid or late 1963, and then he had his and Dick Clark's Arlen label re-issue it in early 1964.  I had thought that Finfer's Jamie/Guyden distributed the Gina record, but didn't know who distributed Arlen.  Both had pretty good distribution around USA.  Although, I think the Gina record didn't get out to The West Coast or Mountain West, whereas Arlen (at least the tams records) did get to The West Coast.  I don't, however,  remember ever seeing Little Herman in L.A. or The SF Bay Area, or remember seeing a West Coast Arlen pressing of it.

Edited January 4, 201411 yr by RobbK

...So, it seems that Finfer had it released on his own label, first in mid or late 1963, and then he had his and Dick Clark's Arlen label re-issue it in early 1964...

 

OK Rob, but then why would the Gina be prior to the Arlen while borrowing the Arlen numbering system and the so specific artist's abreviations and "order of sides" ? Even more now since I understand better the relation between Gina and Arlen through H Finfer. It does make sense for the factual label infos that Arlen was first and that it was given another lease under agreement (H. Finfer & D. Clarck) to Gina records. More so if Arlen was at an end and Little Herman second 45 was still getting some action and could use another round of pressings to meet the demand. Only not through a dying Arlen company but still through a related label = Gina ! This is all hypothetical but it's a theory that holds on and matches the labels infos at least.

 

  On 04/01/2014 at 17:56, RobbK said:

I have both the Gina and the Arlen records.  The Gina pressing has "45  LH-3" on the I'm Gonna put the hurt On You" side, and "45  LH-4" on "Gotta keep On Walking", same as exists on the Arlen sides.  The only other markings are the Sheldon stamp.  So, I guess mine was a Chicago pressing.  My Arlen record has exactly the same exact markings, "45 LH-3" and "45 LH-4" and the Sheldon stamp.

 

 

I had always heard that the Gina was first. 

So, it seems that Finfer had it released on his own label, first in mid or late 1963, and then he had his and Dick Clark's Arlen label re-issue it in early 1964.  I had thought that Finfer's Jamie/Guyden distributed the Gina record, but didn't know who distributed Arlen.  Both had pretty good distribution around USA.  Although, I think the Gina record didn't get out to The West Coast or Mountain West, whereas Arlen (at least the tams records) did get to The West Coast.  I don't, however,  remember ever seeing Little Herman in L.A. or The SF Bay Area, or remember seeing a West Coast Arlen pressing of it.

just tagged this thread with the artist name

 

if you look at bottom of the thread you can see how tags canassist

also if hit the tageed link can see further 

link

 

if people in future when posting about little herman di dthe same you can see how it can build up to a useful tool.. in theory 

  On 05/01/2014 at 12:42, tlscapital said:

...So, it seems that Finfer had it released on his own label, first in mid or late 1963, and then he had his and Dick Clark's Arlen label re-issue it in early 1964...

 

OK Rob, but then why would the Gina be prior to the Arlen while borrowing the Arlen numbering system and the so specific artist's abreviations and "order of sides" ? Even more now since I understand better the relation between Gina and Arlen through H Finfer. It does make sense for the factual label infos that Arlen was first and that it was given another lease under agreement (H. Finfer & D. Clarck) to Gina records. More so if Arlen was at an end and Little Herman second 45 was still getting some action and could use another round of pressings to meet the demand. Only not through a dying Arlen company but still through a related label = Gina ! This is all hypothetical but it's a theory that holds on and matches the labels infos at least.

Your theory sounds plausible.  The dates listed for Gina's run were 1963 -1964.  So both the Arlen and Gina pressings could have been done in early 1964.  But why would the Gina issue be stated as having been out in 1963?  Someone reporting the release dates of the Arlen or the Gina release is wrong.  From my memory, the sound of the song and recording,  and the style of the labels, etc.  I'd be more inclined to believe that BOTH were pressed up and first issued in late 1963, and the sales run may have trickled into early 1964.  I have no prejudice towards which was issued first.  The fact that Arlen's numbering system was used for the Gina release makes it appear that Arlen was first.  But do we know what numbering system was used on the other Gina releases?

  On 05/01/2014 at 12:42, tlscapital said:

...So, it seems that Finfer had it released on his own label, first in mid or late 1963, and then he had his and Dick Clark's Arlen label re-issue it in early 1964...

 

OK Rob, but then why would the Gina be prior to the Arlen while borrowing the Arlen numbering system and the so specific artist's abreviations and "order of sides" ? Even more now since I understand better the relation between Gina and Arlen through H Finfer. It does make sense for the factual label infos that Arlen was first and that it was given another lease under agreement (H. Finfer & D. Clarck) to Gina records. More so if Arlen was at an end and Little Herman second 45 was still getting some action and could use another round of pressings to meet the demand. Only not through a dying Arlen company but still through a related label = Gina ! This is all hypothetical but it's a theory that holds on and matches the labels infos at least.

All the Gina records I've seen (6 or 7), so not so much or enough to set it right but showed two runs of numbering 100's and 1000's. But not this one ?! I totally agree with you that it sounds rather 63ish than 1964. But an Arlen discography (globaldogproductions) that seems credible somehow and alost complete date 1964 for Arlen 741. So untill then...

Aren't LH2 / LH3 the "Master" numbers?

 

The Arlen releases are 749 / 751

 

This just means they were recorded at the same session, meaning that the Gina release could still be the first issue.

 

 

(i.e. I could release these records on a label later this year and the Masters supplied would be LH2 and LH3, but I could call the releases #1 and #2 on the Pikeys Dog label)

The master number at General American, Arlen and Gina often begins with the initials of the act.  "LH" Little Herman, "TH-COM" The Companions etc.

Harry Finfer started Arlen records in 1962 with a hit record by the Tams ("Untie Me").

 

Q1 Why would he choose to start a new label only to re-release half its output later on his already established Arlen label ?

Q2 If Gina records was to be the first label for Little Herman why did it not also host his first and other release "One Out Of  A Hundered" ?

 

Its quite obvious to me that ARLEN is the original first label.

 

Why Harry Finfer started to operate another so short lived label (Gina) in 1964 next to his reasonably succesfull General American and Arlen efforts I dont know, it may have had contract, tax or royalties reasons..

OK, see the thing as such; Arlen 749 is Litlle Herman 'one out of a hundred' (LH-2) flip is (LH-1) and Arlen 751 is Little Herman 'gotta keep on walking' (LH-4) flip is (LH-3), so why the release on Gina would be first baring the usual Arlen numbering system while the other Gina's just don't as such (artists abreviation with songs 1,2,3...) ? And so where do you put in the discography of Gina records 751 while all the other Gina's bare 110's and 1110's numbers ? Actually, it's no such of a big deal all that, but just to put the clock right and stop the infatuation even on small things, let's straighten it out: 'it's those little things that count'.

  On 05/01/2014 at 17:58, pikeys dog said:

Aren't LH2 / LH3 the "Master" numbers?

 

The Arlen releases are 749 / 751

 

This just means they were recorded at the same session, meaning that the Gina release could still be the first issue.

 

 

(i.e. I could release these records on a label later this year and the Masters supplied would be LH2 and LH3, but I could call the releases #1 and #2 on the Pikeys Dog label)

  On 05/01/2014 at 19:00, Marc Forrest said:

Harry Finfer started Arlen records in 1962 with a hit record by the Tams ("Untie Me").

 

Q1 Why would he choose to start a new label only to re-release half its output later on his already established Arlen label ?

Q2 If Gina records was to be the first label for Little Herman why did it not also host his first and other release "One Out Of  A Hundered" ?

 

Its quite obvious to me that ARLEN is the original first label.

 

Why Harry Finfer started to operate another so short lived label (Gina) in 1964 next to his reasonably successfull General American and Arlen efforts I dont know, it may have had contract, tax or royalties reasons..

Finfer was a partner in Jamie/Guyden records, as well.