Two Records sharing same label cat. number

[Stevie]

Does this often happen?

Two records on same label - same label design and cat number - but different artists and titles.

Billy Washington ‎– What Did You Do (To My Baby)?  D'Oro Records ‎– 1303

Little Mason ‎– Long Loving Daddy D'Oro Records ‎– 1303

I'm aware that there are two D'oro labels, I own Little Mason and have seen scans of Billy Washington  It would appear that only these two share the same label design as per Discogs.

Have posted about this a number of years ago but without asking this question specifically.

[Alan T]

Triad 502 is not always the great Arcades record. I once thought i'd found a few copies of Arcades and i got three copies of an Ella Thomas record. Same Label, logo and number.

[Dylan]

Record labelled as Percy and them on fee but play previous label number bill merriwether.

[Mick Holdsworth]

There's lots of examples of this happening. Philles 123 is one I always remember.

Theres quite a lot of times where numbers get used more than twice, a few examples on Charay

[Nickinstoke]

The Impressions - (Baby) Turn on to me, and Something New - You Babe, both have the catalogue number: Curtom CR1954 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Nickinstoke

[Ficklefingers]

Also the Cedric label.. with Don Gardner and Bobby McClure sharing the same number - that I can't remember at the mo !! 3003-3023 ?? Damn this age thing of not being able to recollect info lol

[The Yank]

22 hours ago, Mick Holdsworth said:

There's lots of examples of this happening. Philles 123 is one I always remember.

 

Philles did it another time but, they put an X after the release # -

 

[Stevie]

Was it just human error then? I guess it probably was - no computers/ spreadsheets - everything probably jotted down in ink on an A4 notebook..

[The Yank]

21 hours ago, Stevie said:

Was it just human error then? I guess it probably was -

It's hard to say what caused the problem- it could have been an error at the pressing plant, a record getting pulled from release and the company using the same # again or human error from someone at the record company.

 Here's another example for the list - 

 

[Zanetti]

On Wendell Parker's SHURFINE

Hannibal And Levi Walker

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Zanetti

[Mick Holdsworth]

One of the rarer releases on red US Mercury shares a cat number with a male group pop song release.  I thought it was Stormie Wynters or Cobblestone, but can't find info right now. I'm thinking it might be something else. Can anyone remember ?

[Robbk]

Here's another example, and it's a label that had very few releases, and these 2 were just a few months from each other, so how did they forget that number was already used????

"Blind Girl" by The Del-Tours, and "Black Girl" by The Desires, on Mel London's Starville Records, from 1967.

There are many, many more that haven't been listed on this thread.  I just can't remember them, offhand.  I only remembered this one because The Del-Tours record was brought up on another thread.

 

[Wheelsville1]

The Appreciations-Its better to cry-Sport 111 and The Four Sonics-Easier Said than done- Sport 111. Chris. 

[The Yank]

Even though the label designs are completely different, both 45's have the same release # 

[Agent45]

On 26/08/2020 at 13:15, Zanetti said:

On Wendell Parker's SHURFINE

Hannibal And Levi Walker

 

I can partially explain this. There was a fair amount of time between the Levi Walker and the King Hannibal. Michael Thevis came in to start his Aware and GRC labels, and hired Wendell Parker to work for him since Parker not only ran Shurfine but had previously worked for Capitol Records. So Thevis and Parker released Shurefine 027 and quickly Aware 027 as King Hannibal "The Truth Shall Make You Free". 

Once Parker started to settle into his job and realized what kind of man Thevis really was (look his story up sometime!) Parker quit the business until Thevis went to prison, at which time he released an early electro-rap single and then started Shurfine Gospel. 

[Reforee]

I am going to stick my neck out on this "dual records same nimber"??? 

It could of been a tax dodge or even that they didn't have to pay one of the artistes by claiming it was a pressing plant issue. If said record became a hit then they may of come clean to said artiste. The record business is full of stories of rip offs and skulduggery, so why wouldn't "dual numbers" be seen as another way of "getting away" of not paying out once the money was in. 

Like I said, I'm sticking my neck out on that shout, but it happens. I would love to have them all on a spread sheet and how many duicate numbers were demos? 

[Robbk]

13 minutes ago, Reforee said:

I am going to stick my neck out on this "dual records same nimber"??? 

It could of been a tax dodge or even that they didn't have to pay one of the artistes by claiming it was a pressing plant issue. If said record became a hit then they may of come clean to said artiste. The record business is full of stories of rip offs and skulduggery, so why wouldn't "dual numbers" be seen as another way of "getting away" of not paying out once the money was in. 

Like I said, I'm sticking my neck out on that shout, but it happens. I would love to have them all on a spread sheet and how many duplicate numbers were demos? 

Your theory may be true for some or many of the cases.  But, I can tell you from experience of being inside record companies, and having one of my own, that there often wasn't one, single person in charge of keeping track of assigning and assigned numbers, and even company statistical and non-financial records, and records were kept (or jotted down) on-the-fly, in a rush, and hap-hazardly by several different people, and the right hand didn't know what the left hand had done, and often it became too late to undo the error that finally had come to be discovered.  Remember, that this was before the days of computers.  People were scratching out records of what they did on any piece of paper they could find (sometimes including napkins (serviettes).  Like Murphy's Law, they would almost always find out the error was made, just after the record would go to the pressing plant.  And the people at the plant were busy, so they couldn't be contacted till after the first press run was finished.