Why Are So Many Records 101

[Prophonics 2029]

https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=280192934008

This is another.

why are so many records 101, I have got and seen loads of them.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Prophonics 2029

[Pete S]

https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=280192934008

This is another.

why are so many records 101, I have got and seen loads of them.

Seems pretty logical to me, first release on the label. They don't just want to put "1" so they use 01 or 101

[Guest]

https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=280192934008

This is another.

why are so many records 101, I have got and seen loads of them.

Cause a lot of labels only had one release maybe. and most start 101.

[Sean Hampsey]

all of the above.

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

Staying within the topic, but making it a bit more interesting, why is it that so many labels do not start with 100/101, 1000/1001 or whatever, but instead kick off with a seemingly randonly selected group of digits?

What, for instance, was wrong with the numbers 1-27 that made the Canyon label start its brief life at # 28?

I do know that some labels used the numeric part of their street address as a starting number, but Canyon didn't.

Any thoughts, anyone?

[boba]

Staying within the topic, but making it a bit more interesting, why is it that so many labels do not start with 100/101, 1000/1001 or whatever, but instead kick off with a seemingly randonly selected group of digits?

What, for instance, was wrong with the numbers 1-27 that made the Canyon label start its brief life at # 28?

I do know that some labels used the numeric part of their street address as a starting number, but Canyon didn't.

Any thoughts, anyone?

I don't know, but it's interesting to find out the reasons behind the specific cases. Someone pointed out here recently that the weird rujac numbers are actually dates. I also recently noticed that all the weird AMG numbers are really just QCA pressing plan numbers. I was scared that there were 1000s of titles on the label because there were so many missing numbers and because the label seems endless! Although now there's no way to know which numbers are actually 'missing'.

[pikeys dog]

To give the impression that they were an established company... that way record pluggers, jocks and distributors might push them above 'new' companies?

[Soul Shrews]

Staying within the topic, but making it a bit more interesting, why is it that so many labels do

not

start with 100/101, 1000/1001 or whatever, but instead kick off with a seemingly randonly selected group of digits?

What, for instance, was wrong with the numbers 1-27 that made the Canyon label start its brief life at # 28?

I do know that some labels used the numeric part of their street address as a starting number, but Canyon didn't.

Any thoughts, anyone?

The number of times they"d been kissed..........................................?

Cheers Paul

[Guest gordon russell]

BIT LIKE HOTEL ROOMS THEY ALWAYS START AT 100...NO MATTER HOW MANY ROOMS THEY HAVE

[45cellar]

Staying within the topic, but making it a bit more interesting, why is it that so many labels do not start with 100/101, 1000/1001 or whatever, but instead kick off with a seemingly randonly selected group of digits?

What, for instance, was wrong with the numbers 1-27 that made the Canyon label start its brief life at # 28?

I do know that some labels used the numeric part of their street address as a starting number, but Canyon didn't.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Many Questions spring to mind.

The Ric-Tic Superstition with 13, RT-113 & RT-126 Yet they had an RT-139

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Label.

Not sure which Numbering System they were following.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another puzzle to me, when a company had a release withdrawn, I could see the reason to number it.

Some were shelved before release yet allocated a Number, can't see the reason why the number couldn't be re-used for the next release.

Edited January 19, 2008 by 45cellar

[Steve G]

I don't know, but it's interesting to find out the reasons behind the specific cases. Someone pointed out here recently that the weird rujac numbers are actually dates. I also recently noticed that all the weird AMG numbers are really just QCA pressing plan numbers. I was scared that there were 1000s of titles on the label because there were so many missing numbers and because the label seems endless! Although now there's no way to know which numbers are actually 'missing'.

Aha another AMG collector - there are quite a few soul ones on the label, and some funny offshoot labels too like Pilot Master.

[Steve G]

Many Questions spring to mind.

Another puzzle to me, when a company had a release withdrawn, I could see the reason to number it.

Some were shelved before release yet allocated a Number, can't see the reason why the number couldn't be re-used for the next release.

Because the nuimbers were allocated before the record was pressed, sometimes two, three or so at the same time. In many cases unreleased but numbered cases were I believe pressed, but then pulled at the last moment - probably due to a contractual fault or some other problem. I think this is what happened with things like Walter Wilson and may even be the case with "Tear stained face" on Veep. Numbers were sometimes allocated so that the record could be advertised and I think this is what happened with things like "Carlena" on Wand - but all this is informed guesswork and no one knows for sure.

[boba]

Aha another AMG collector - there are quite a few soul ones on the label, and some funny offshoot labels too like Pilot Master.

I only knew about the starwind on pilot master, then there was another one on ebay recently, a female artist. I got an audio clip and it ended up being a white artist.

Do you have the destiny title? That's the one I'm really looking for.

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

The other one that's always really puzzled me is Gamble and Huff's Neptune label. Why did that start at # 12? Did they just decide that their first 11 planned releases were crap, and not bother putting them out?

[45cellar]

Because the nuimbers were allocated before the record was pressed, sometimes two, three or so at the same time. In many cases unreleased but numbered cases were I believe pressed, but then pulled at the last moment - probably due to a contractual fault or some other problem. I think this is what happened with things like Walter Wilson and may even be the case with "Tear stained face" on Veep. Numbers were sometimes allocated so that the record could be advertised and I think this is what happened with things like "Carlena" on Wand - but all this is informed guesswork and no one knows for sure.

Thanks Steve

Makes things clearer, I hadn't taken promotion in respect of advertising into account.

[Guest ScooterNik]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Label.

Not sure which Numbering System they were following.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That one's quite clever, they're using binary notation. You have records numbered 1,2,3 and 4 there. None missing!

[45cellar]

That one's quite clever, they're using binary notation. You have records numbered 1,2,3 and 4 there. None missing!

Wow, Thanks Mate.

Never considered that.