Americ Disc + Americ Disc USA + Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc.

Nice N' Wild* - Ain't No Sunshine / No Brilla El Sol.

Some questions:
1. Are Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. the same thing?
2. Did Debbie Deb.* - Lookout Weekend)

Another question that comes to me is whether those pressing numbers on the ADFL page are really valid for LCCN inclusion...

Myriad
Another question that comes to me is whether those pressing numbers on the ADFL page are really valid for LCCN inclusion...

I'm certainly open to getting into that, however, I think it'd be a good idea to first figure out what these are for, whether there's a dupe, etc. before we get into figuring out if the # field in the LCCN on the release pages need to be fixed too.

Fair enough. So of the 13 releases on Americ Disc U.S.A., all have the entity credited for Pressed By. Funnily enough, almost NONE of these submissions actually list matrix/SID codes in BaOI (big pet peeve of mine when ppl enter the LCCN pressing plant without full matrix info).

Luckily, two of them do have disc scans showing the matrix, both of which show ADFL:
Sandy MC & MC Papo* - The Remix Album

My instinct is that all of the releases on that page are probably the same, but it would be best to submitters for all releases to ask them to provide matrix data for confirmation.

Anyway, this leads me to the conclusion that yes, all these releases are pointing towards ADFL.

The next question would be whether it would be more accurate to current discogs practice if we were to create a new label page called [Invalid Label] or [Invalid Label] for use instead of the two listed above.

Which leads me on to a second digressive point for this company: would it be more accurate to create a Virgin Black - Elegant...And Dying).

berothbr
I'm certainly open to getting into that, however, I think it'd be a good idea to first figure out what these are for, whether there's a dupe, etc. before we get into figuring out if the # field in the LCCN on the release pages need to be fixed too.

Sorry for the slight approrpiate of your thread, hope what I've said above helps out with your point 1 though :)

I would invite mikeyman66 to this thread with regard to the question about vinyl manufacture...I think more explanation and any sources would be helpful for the release linked above.

berothbr
1. Are Americ Disc USA and Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. the same thing?

I believe these are the same companies.

Closely related to the Canadian Americ Disc, but, anyways different companies due to different matrix identifiers: MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC versus ADFL

A closed debate: https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/386858

Myriad
big pet peeve of mine

Ditto

Myriad
Which leads me on to a second digressive point for this company: would it be more accurate to create a DADR label page for releases showing that in the matrix, rather than entering them on the page of Americ Disc or Disc Amerique

I really like this idea because it's consistent with our 'as on release' mantra, however, I have practically zero experience dealing with CD BaOI/pressing info, so I don't know what's the SOP. My only 'concern' is that what do we do if it changed the matrix identifier? Does that mean we would need to create a new profile for those releases? Do we just clarify in the profile? If so, then it might be impractical.

Myriad
Sorry for the slight approrpiate of your thread

Don't worry —appropriation is good, but I just want to make sure we take care of the boring stuff (names/merges/etc.) before the fun stuff (looking for patterns and learning something new).

UriahCego
A closed debate

I saw that one too. I think we first need to figure out what to do with the US pressing plants first. Do you agree with Myriad's idea that we follow 'as on release' for the Florida plant's profile name or should we use one of the existing profiles? Invalidate another? Etc.

Myriad
I would invite mikeyman66 to this thread with regard to the question about vinyl manufacture

Probably a good idea to ping sebfact because this could be runout thread related.

(edited to fix broken quote text formatting)

Ref to Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc.

I was wondering when this will come up again … respectively I wanted to pm Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc..
He has added as well in the profile the unapproved "invitation" to add these non-sequential "Pressing catalog numbers" in LCCN, he also added many of them (unapproved mass edit) – some of them I EI'ed few weeks ago, in some releases I asked him just to remove them again which was ignored.
Sorry, I didn't had the time yet to take care of this … and I also wanted the other unapproved mass edit by him be handled before … as he was asking for.

Edit: This was already brought up here: https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/745664#7396152 … for those who don't were there …

berothbr
2. Did Americ Disc or its subsidiaries press vinyl? (example: Debbie Deb.* - Lookout Weekend)

Commented on that; not really sure without runouts. And even then, I doubt the credit is "Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc." Maybe ADFL? AFAIK, they were CD & Tape & DVD manufacturers only.

Also recommended to read: https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/386858
It was decided NOT to add these numbers for Americ Disc. Nonetheless the addition in the profile of Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. … and the mass edit – without any further discussion and against the latter decision.

@ Community berothbr,

Well I am somewhat confused of this "pinging" for details and comments left on submission threads.

Confused only because you folks; as knowledgeable as you may be; it seems have already decided among yourselves what course of action you want to take either way.

So as my friend djindio said, "ok. if you are intent on mass-removal of this data, who am i to stop you? what could i possibly contribute..." I continue, What detail can I apportion that would be received in a polite & respectful manner. Clearly history has shown the complete opposite.

Seems like a lot less heartburn and stress for me to be a sideline spectator.

~ "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

‘¥’🙏

mikeyman66
Seems like a lot less heartburn and stress for me to be a sideline spectator.

Well, it seems you misunderstand a thing or two.
Whether "player" or "sideline spectator" – we all have to follow certain procedures and rules. We don't add such things to profiles and make mass edits – being either the one or the other – without opening a thread and ask for community approval – especially when about these numbers has already been decided two and then again one year ago.
We present proof and ask for approval – don't "just do things" because we think we are "players" …

And nobody is enjoying this either … opening another thread about just another mass edit without approval is mere following the protocol. Trust me – I also have better things to do.
So … don't blame us for doing what you missed to do – following the protocol.
We wouldn't have to do this if you'd have followed Forum protocol in the first place.

mikeyman66
Well I am somewhat confused of this "pinging" for details and comments left on submission threads.

I did not 'ping' you. I posted the URL of this discussion to the histories of the potentially affected profiles and possibly to a few releases as recommended in RSG §14.1.2. Also, I clearly haven't made up my mind other than that it would be advantageous to figure out Americ Disc's Florida branch.

sebfact
AFAIK, they were CD & Tape & DVD manufacturers only.

Did the Canadian counterpart press vinyl? AFAICT, you're probably right, but if the Canadian sister company pressed vinyl, then it might be a little more plausible that the Florida branch pressed vinyl too.

typoman2
I was wondering when this will come up again

Assuming your answer to question #1 is yes, do you Myriad's 'as on release' idea for the profile name or do you think we should just merge or something else?

berothbr
do you Myriad's 'as on release' idea for the profile name

Yes, I do. Should be named as on release … company names can be mentioned in the profile but shouldn't be PAN if nowhere used on release.
Another +1 for removing these "Pressing catalog numbers" again.
And looking at the releases of Americ Disc USA … again some "insider info for players" it seems, can't find any credit or BAOI to justify the use. If it's in the matrix … well, not added then.

Edit: And whoever does the edits – take care, several with incorrect label instead of Sobe Records … and LCCN with Hot Prod. Inc. instead without Inc. as on release …

typoman2
I haven't a clue why most are Pressed By Americ Disc USA … again some "insider info for players" it seems, can't find any credit or BAOI to justify the use.

I just clicked through the releases:
Roberto Torres - Lo Mejor De Roberto Torres, Vol. 1 has BaOI info:
• Matrix / Runout: 80 CWLHT-TN-0042 W116
• Other (Stamped Inner Circle): C31220QJ27033258LH T
The following Americ Disc USA releases have images of the disc that show "ADFL" in the inner-ring area:
• Sandy MC & MC Papo* - The Remix Album
• Various - Greetings From South Beach: Volume 4
• Various - Greetings From South Beach Volume 3 (I'm not 100% sure — it's hard to make out)

typoman2
Should be named as on release

The one 'problem' is that the name appears differently — some releases just show "ADFL", but others show "AMERIC DISC ADFL", "ADFL/NCD", and possibly a few others. (I'm referring to Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. releases with BaOI info FYI). Would the name be ADFL? America Disc ADFL? Something else? Both?

berothbr
The one 'problem' is that the name appears differently

Yeah, I was pondering about that too … does anybody have an idea what the NCD in ADFL/NCD could mean?
For AMERIC DISC ADFL and ADFL I guess one PAN might be enough …
For ADFL/NCD I'm not sure … not knowing what it means …

Edit: elaborating

berothbr
Roberto Torres - Lo Mejor De Roberto Torres, Vol. 1 has BaOI info:
• Matrix / Runout: 80 CWLHT-TN-0042 W116
• Other (Stamped Inner Circle): C31220QJ27033258LH T

That one I was unsure of since it's apparently a CDr which I believe would mean the matrix is not necessarily indicative of pressing plant like for standard CDs...

mikeyman66
@ Community sebfact, typoman2, Myriad, UriahCego, berothbr,

Well I am somewhat confused of this "pinging" for details and comments left on submission threads.

Confused only because you folks; as knowledgeable as you may be; it seems have already decided among yourselves what course of action you want to take either way.

So as my friend djindio said, "ok. if you are intent on mass-removal of this data, who am i to stop you? what could i possibly contribute..." I continue, What detail can I apportion that would be received in a polite & respectful manner. Clearly history has shown the complete opposite.

Seems like a lot less heartburn and stress for me to be a sideline spectator.

~ "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

‘¥’🙏

You've been invited to come and help us understand the information you're entering and changing. Of course we expect you to be able to justify and defend your changes :) and obviously any way that you can help us out with this would be much appreciated.

The current discogs practice is to enter data as close to "as on release" as possible. For pressing plants, that means the best case is to enter the name exactly as it appears in the matrix, meaning for example SMEA rather than Sony Music Entertainment Australia.

Similarly, it would be simpler to create label pages ADFL and DADR for releases that show these in the matrix rather than full company names and locations that do not necessarily appear in that form on any release.

Myriad
CDr

Aha! (at least one of us knows a thing or two). FWIW I don't think I've ever seen a CDR submission with 'correct' pressed by info.

Myriad
any way that you can help us out with this would be much appreciated.

+1

Myriad
The current discogs practice is to enter data as close to "as on release" as possible.

I generally agree. But, at least with vinyl format releases, mastering/cutting studios and pressing plants are the exception to this rule. However, I'm not sure if this is a special exception based on the fact that a lot of the runout info is handwritten and therefore more susceptible to errors and inconsistencies when compared to the info that's printed on CDs (not sure if 'printed' is the proper term of art for CD inner-ring/matrix text?).

berothbr
I generally agree. But, at least with vinyl format releases, mastering/cutting studios and pressing plants are the exception to this rule. However, I'm not sure if this is a special exception based on the fact that a lot of the runout info is handwritten and therefore more susceptible to errors and inconsistencies when compared to the info that's printed on CDs (not sure if 'printed' is the proper term of art for CD inner-ring/matrix text?).

Yes, good point for vinyl. I have not nearly as much experience there but often it seems to be a mastering engineer initial or a symbol identifying the plant for vinyl rather than an acronym or shortened name, so it's a somewhat different case

mikeyman66
Confused only because you folks; as knowledgeable as you may be; it seems have already decided among yourselves what course of action you want to take either way.

I simply left a comment about an edit you made, which, at first sight (no runouts and no credits), was unsubstantiated. That's all.

berothbr
Did the Canadian counterpart press vinyl? AFAICT, you're probably right, but if the Canadian sister company pressed vinyl, then it might be a little more plausible that the Florida branch pressed vinyl too.

I couldn't find any evidence that the FL plant was into vinyl. Didn't dig into the Drummond plant however.

Myriad, I have thought of just replying to you on a PM but your cantor on below comments speak of assistance an / or appreciation.

Myriad
I would invite mikeyman66 to this thread...

Myriad
You've been invited to come and help us understand the information you're entering and changing. Of course we expect you to be able to justify and defend your changes :) and obviously any way that you can help us out with this would be much appreciated.

So I will attempt to explain. But I advise that I do not expect any unwelcome, accusatory, callous or deconstructive as has been exhibited in the past. If you wholeheartedly feel that any of your comments do not apply to the above; then you have nothing to worry about. All those replying, please proceed with thoughtfulness, patience and unselfishness. Do not take a personal approach.

Myriad
The current discogs practice is to enter data as close to "as on release" as possible.

Nice N' Wild* - Ain't No Sunshine / No Brilla El Sol; extremely rare release by the way.

This is why much larger citations in Discogs database exist today; Allied Record Company (ARC). The acronyms and variations found in matrices are so many between CD & Vinyl; that a true consensus was adopted to "net capture" the aforementioned.

The same accommodation should be done for Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc..

While I am sure there are plenty of other questions abroad regards to this discussion. I feel that a digestion of this information firstly set in; then I can proceed to the rest of the queries.

‘¥’🙏

P.S. I believe I saw a comment where Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. and provide additional baOi detail. 👌

mikeyman66So far in this thread, you've characterized your peers as callous and unaccepting of your views on this topic without provocation, when, in fact, multiple s have even encouraged you to share your opinion. This is unhelpful as is your reminder that others "proceed with thoughtfulness, patience and unselfishness", which is inherently personal as well as insulting.

mikeyman66
This is not recommended (possible) or suggested since there at least 8 acronyms for this company.

This is a fair point. However, I believe there are only two or three names/acronyms that are 'as on release' (depends on whether NCD is considered part of the name):
• ADFL
• ADFL/NCD
• AMERIC DISC ADFL
What are the other five?

sebfact
I couldn't find any evidence that the FL plant was into vinyl.

FWIW, I found a press release from its 2003 consolidation/merger that indicates Florida was a CD-only operation. Whether this was true in the early 1990s? I'm not sure, but I think it should be removed from vinyl format releases unless found 'as on release' (which is unlikely).

Myriad
so it's a somewhat different case

I don't think the underlying rationale is tremendously different because it's basically taking for slight LNVs to avoid creating superfluous profiles. In this instances, I think we are ok because "Americ Disc ADFL" and "ADFL" probably don't require separate profiles if we go the 'as on release' route. However, I also would using the actual company name. However, "Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc." is misspelled as, according to FL's entity DB search, the company ed as "AMERIC DISC U.S.A.-FLORIDA INC." in 1993 (it dissolved in 2010, but based on the press release above, it's most likely that the plant effectively stopped operating as 'Americ Disc U.S.A.-Florida, Inc. in 2003).

I have just edited the label page of Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. to remove discussion of the matrix numbers - as I've stated above, I do not believe these to be LCCN-valid, and no forum discussion has ever occurred anyway.

Whether anyone is interested in continuing the discussion about the label pages I haven't gotten into just yet...

mikeyman66
P.S. I believe I saw a comment where Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. and provide additional baOi detail. 👌

Revert Edit ~> Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. Profile per Charlie Cartaya (Former Vice-President of Operations).

mikeyman66
Revert Edit ~> Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. Profile per Charlie Cartaya (Former Vice-President of Operations).

Please discuss here if you believe these numbers are deserving of LCCN entry (explain why).

1) 2010 Annual Report

2) Ammendment Section

3) Articles Of Dissolution

* Revert Edit ~> Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. Profile per Charlie Cartaya (Former Vice-President of Operations).

mikeyman66
1) 2010 Annual Report

2) Ammendment Section

3) Articles Of Dissolution

* Revert Edit ~> Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. Profile per Charlie Cartaya (Former Vice-President of Operations).

What does that have to do with the matrix numbers?

Also, are you unable to explain yourself with words? Giving links isn't a discussion.

The matrix numbers are not sequential, as shown by those entered so far on the page of Disque Americ.

It is a requirement that LCCN matrix numbers be sequential, as shown in guideline 4.7.2

"4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n). For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a sequential identifying number that relates directly to the company."
https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/help/doc/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog#4.7.2

And it has long been accepted that forum discussion is required before updating label profiles and mass entering of LCCN matrix numbers.

I invite s to give their opinions: sebfact

Another forum thread discussed this previously:
https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/386858

where Disque Americ show, that apparent sequence was incorrect, as there is no apparent sequence or trend in release dates with ascending 0xxxx/1xxxx/2xxxx numbers.

Myriad
The matrix numbers are not sequential, as shown by those entered so far on the page of Disque Americ.

I agree. There are recurring patterns but overall they look random and hence I don't think they are eligible. 0J and 0K are from 1995 while 0M is from 2009? 0DL from 2011 but 0DA from 1994?
This is too vague to make this an accceptable LCCN number.

Thanks sebfact for taking a look! :)

berothbr
1. Are Americ Disc USA and Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. the same thing?

That does seem to be the case.
All the Americ Disc USA appearances were added by mikeyman666 or elcholopaco (who seem to be one and the same ). None of them has a matrix entered and its unclear where these were taken from. Their submission notes are unclear too

As for the catalog numbers, they do not seem sequential as already said above;

Myriad
And it has long been accepted that forum discussion is required before updating label profiles and mass entering of LCCN matrix numbers.

Yes, this was an undiscussed mass edit from a year ago.
It was already noted by me and another that there was not enough data to enter company numbers for this company. It should've been discussed before the edit, when that failed it should've been done after the edit.
But no action was taken back then and submitter became unresponsive on the matter.

@ mikeyman66
There is an open question here after an edit of yours, also mentioned in the opening post here.

This is not the first time mikeyman66 and elcholopaco appear together in questionable edits and I just found out why, see here dated June 23, 2014. elcholopaco's was created June 22, 2014.
This went on to defend questionable edits with his mutliple profiles and voting his own submissions for years (i.e. here).
The mod who was active back then is pinged here now.

^^Rebuttal & Redirection From Above Comment^^

mikeyman66
2nd Mention ~> I will attempt to explain. But I advise that I Do Not expect any unwelcome, accusatory, callous or deconstructive as has been exhibited in the past. If you wholeheartedly feel that any of your comments do not apply to the above; then you have nothing to worry about. All those replying, please proceed with thoughtfulness, patience and unselfishness.
Do not take a personal approach.

While I am sure there are plenty of other questions abroad regards to this discussion. I feel that a digestion of this information firstly set in; then I can proceed to the rest of the queries.

‘¥’🙏

cc ~> drivebybird

mikeyman66
^^Rebuttal & Redirection From Above Comment^^

Sorry, where do you address the issue of the matrix numbers that you have entered in LCCN with no forum agreement?

And when will you answer the question asked here?
https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/3663357-Lookout-Weekend/history?diff=5

Rather than making defensive and directionless posts, can you please thoughtfully and directly address the issues raised in this thread?

Myriad
Rather than making defensive and directionless posts...

Isn't that proof enough that there is no "case"?

sebfact
Isn't that proof enough that there is no "case"?

Honestly, yes. Misdirection tactics?

We have given ample opportunity but no evidence or explanations have been forthcoming. Time to revert all unsourced information from this on the Americ Disc profiles.

Myriad
Time to revert all unsourced information from this on the Americ Disc profiles.

+1

Myriad
We have given ample opportunity but no evidence or explanations have been forthcoming. Time to revert all unsourced information from this on the Americ Disc profiles.

Another +1 here

Myriad
Which leads me on to a second digressive point for this company: would it be more accurate to create a DADR label page for releases showing that in the matrix, rather than entering them on the page of Americ Disc or Disc Amerique (example Virgin Black - Elegant... And Dying).

Agree. If company is going to be ADFL, based on matrix, then it would be consistent that DADR be entered as on matrix, as well.

That or "Americ Disque, Florida" and "Disque Americ, Drummondville".

Myriad
would it be more accurate to create a DADR label page for releases showing that in the matrix

Actually not.
It seems to me that everyone is forgetting that Disque Americ, DADR & Americ Disc are same one company from (Drummondville, QC) Canada where certain practice of bi-linguality exists. I simply believe that DA Inc, sometime used French and sometimes English version of text just to express equal usage of both language. Certain dominance of French versions is simply product of plant's location - French speeking Quebec.
Here are some points:
- same plant / address (being located in Quebec it follows bilingual registration pattern for Canadian companies)
- same ifpi
- no evidence of any special market targeting with CDs having Disque Americ from CDs having Americ Disc in matrix.
- no evidence of different period when some of matrix variants were used

Proof for random usage of matrix variations that directly disapproving theory of two companies and Myriad's idea of different post for each glass/matrix variation is Bowie's Stage manufactured for Ryko where one CD has Disque Americ in matrix string while another has Americ Disc. Obviously random use of glass

So matrix variations of one company called Disque Americ / Americ Disc Inc Drummondville QC, Canada are:
-Disque Americ
-Disque Americ Canada
-Americ Disc
-DADR

The only company qualified to be Americ Disque is ADFL.

Please see ADNC, which I SPECULATE is Americ Disc North California.
Derived from The Best Of Bob Marley.

J

Myriad
Time to revert all unsourced information from this on the Americ Disc profiles.

Agreed. I came across Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. a while ago and wondered what it was all about since the matrixes never ever mention that company.
For the name, I'd vote for ADFL.

Regarding Americ Disc USA

Myriad
My instinct is that all of the releases on that page are probably the same, but it would be best to submitters for all releases to ask them to provide matrix data for confirmation.

I would simply remove the Pressed By credit since it's been added by the same on all submissions without any clear backup or clarification. As you pointed out earlier, the two entries that do offer some backup, show ADFL in the matrix, so it's very likely all are incorrect.

Gratitude for posting this amoebasinger -> Your answer is almost correct. Please review ALL the following hyperlinks.

amoebasinger
Please see ADNC, which I SPECULATE is Americ Disc North California.
Derived from The Best Of Bob Marley.

Almost correct -> * I've previously mentioned that there are at least eight acronyms for this company per Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc.)

External Reference -> North Carolina Business Search. Image 1 & Image 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

External Sources for Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc. -> Actual Image of Compact Disc Stamp ->

State of Florida - Division of Corporations :

1) 2010 Annual Report

2) Ammendment Section

3) Allied Record Company (ARC). The acronyms and variations found in matrices are so many between CD & Vinyl; that a true consensus was adopted to "net capture" the aforementioned.

The same accommodation should be done for Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc..

So as my friend djindio said, "ok. if you are intent on mass-removal of this data, who am i to stop you? what could i possibly contribute..."

I continue, What detail can I apportion that would be received in a polite & respectful manner.

Clearly history has shown the complete opposite.

Seems like a lot less heartburn and stress for me to be a sideline spectator.

mikeyman66
I just want to catalog my music collection in the end. A fun past time that this focus has dispelled way too much irreverence on small eccentricities to be stagnated by.

Gratitude,

‘¥’

mikeyman66
I've previously mentioned that there are at least eight acronym

Which acronyms are you referring to ? I've only seen ADFL and ADNC.

ADNC = Americ Disc / North Carolina

Maybe that entry should be called Americ Disc, North Carolina instead then.

mikeyman66
This is why much larger citations in Discogs database exist today; Specialty Records Corporation (SRC) & Allied Record Company (ARC). The acronyms and variations found in matrices are so many between CD & Vinyl; that a true consensus was adopted to "net capture" the aforementioned.

The same accommodation should be done for Americ Disc U.S.A. - Florida Inc..

ARC and SRC are acronyms and credited by what the letters stand for. Following that practice, the correct name for ADFL would be Americ Disc, Florida, not Americ Disc USA.

Re: matrix #s as cat#s, as of today I have added some "don't do it" guidance and related forum links to the profiles of Americ Disc.

Re: abbreviations, I do find it kind of confusing that DADR is still a "Do Not Use": https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/label/322049-DADR/history

We have plenty other examples of ambiguous aliases which could mean different locations of company X, why is this one any different? I think we should undo this and let people use DADR.

mjb
I think we should undo this and let people use DADR.

I agree. It's too hard to enforce which profile of Disque Americ or Americ Disc is being credited for these entries.

mjb
Re: matrix #s as cat#s, as of today I have added some "don't do it" guidance and related forum links to the profiles of Disque Americ and Americ Disc.

The same for Americ Disc, Florida would be good.
Also pinging and informing jcomin who has changed many of these but left these numbers untouched which shouldn't have been entered in the first place.

typoman2 at that moment we agree that matrix with ADFL were Americ Disc, Florida
But we didnt agree about matrix #s as cat#, so was quite rude for me also delete all LCCN #

If we agree now that all LCCN# from Americ Disc, Florida must be deleted, I can do it

mjb
I think we should undo this and let people use DADR.

Doesn't DADR stand for "Disque Americ, Drummondsville" ? That could result in quite a clear profile instruction.

jcomin
But we didnt agree about matrix #s as cat#, so was quite rude for me also delete all LCCN #

Not rude at all IMHO. The exact same scheme which was neglected before, no positive decision in the Forum about it neither, no instruction in the profile to use it – on the contrary … several warnings not to use them and even EI's were given out – see above https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/748075#7422031

So a big yes if you nevertheless need one to:

jcomin
If we agree now that all LCCN# from Americ Disc, Florida must be deleted, I can do it

Americ Disc …

LCCN for Americ Disc / Disque Americ / any other related?

It has never been approved for LCCN, so there shouldn't be any associated with Disque Americ, etc. We don't add LCCN first, then discuss whether or not to remove them afterwards.

[rant] I don't know how many times I have to say it, but for pressing plants, if the company profile does not specifically say that adding LCCNumbers is allowed, then don't do it. Do people have ants in their pants? It's not that hard to not enter them. And if you really, really think that they are LCCN, start a discussion first. [/rant]
:-)

typoman2
berothbr, Myriad, UriahCego, sebfact, dgenda, jweijde, obs, mjb, what about you? I can't see any reason why this should be handled differently to Americ Disc …

Absolutely, should be handled for all Americ Disc related entries.

The numbers have not been shown to be sequential and are invalid for LCCN. Just none of us have taken the time to remove them I suppose!

If the question is about matrix numbers on LCCN, my answer is "wipe 'em out"

I'm not sure regarding what company names should be used.
ADFL, ADNC, Americ Disc Florida Inc. et all. Some matrix info are given as "Americ Disc ADNC xxxxx" we can't split into two manufacturers. Tricky one.

By the facts, I rather use ADFL instead of Americ Disc Florida & Americ Disc Florida Inc.

jweijde
Doesn't DADR stand for "Disque Americ, Drummondsville" ? That could result in quite a clear profile instruction.

So you enabling DADR as a valid LCCN entity?

mjb
So you enabling DADR as a valid LCCN entity?

I think an entry called "Disque Americ, Drummondsville" for releases with DADR would be good. This is consistent with Americ Disc, Florida and unrelated entries such as Specialty Records Corporation and Allied Record Company, where we don't enter the abbreviation that actually appears on the release either.

The entries on Americ Disc can be used here, but, consistent with PMDC, "Americ Disc, Canada" would also be correct.

jweijde
I think an entry called "Disque Americ, Drummondsville" for releases with DADR would be good. This is consistent with Americ Disc, Florida and unrelated entries such as Specialty Records Corporation and Allied Record Company, where we don't enter the abbreviation that actually appears on the release either.

Notwithstanding SRC and ARC being interpreted as the full names of those companies, there are plenty of examples where we do not do that, and instead have entities which are much closer to how the companies are presented on the release ... PDO, PMDC, UNI, EMI MFG, EMI Jax, Capitol Jax, SNA, DADC, SMEA, EDC Blackburn, MCOM, and gobs of www.whatever.com.

So I would rather keep it simply DADR since that's simple, easily found in searches, and as on release.

I'm not so concerned about consistency... more just ease of use.

mjb
how the companies are presented on the release

Well, some of them are not only presenting themselves on the release but in ads and official communication as well (e.g. very much so PDO, or SNA).

jweijde
I think an entry called "Disque Americ, Drummondsville" for releases with DADR would be good.

+1

jweijde
"Americ Disc, Canada" would also be correct.

+1

mjb
I'm not so concerned about consistency... more just ease of use.

I was just trying to say that there are more places where we don't use the abbreviation, so using not using it here wouldn't be some kind of odd exception.

OK, I will happily defer to sebfact on this kind of thing.

So if there are no objections, we will leave DADR as a Do Not Use, and have it redirect to new entity Disque Americ, Drummondville. The Disque Americ profile will have to be edited too (it currently says to to use that entity for DADR).

Given this some thought again and for me either way is fine. It only bugs me a bit that Americ Disc Florida might need to be changed again aswell, if majority chooses to use the abbreviation for DADR.

Interesting case here: Trent Reznor And Atticus Ross - The Social Network

DADR in matrix but AD/CA in mould area.

1st question: should we create a new Americ Disc, CA (or similar) entry for this and similar releases showing that mould stamp?

2nd question: should we both Discque Americ, Drummondville for glass master and the potential new Americ Disc, CA (or similar) for a Pressed By credit?

(Also a good example of why the "matrix numbers" should not go in LCCN, as that could result in 3 submissions of unknown significance.

Will be interesting to see whether any SID codes end up being able to be associated to a specific location too.

Great work jcomin removing the LCCN numbers! :)

Myriad
Great work jcomin removing the LCCN numbers! :)

Thank you very much indeed, jcomin, these were added much too long for my taste regarding the oppositon against them …

I have created Disque Americ, Drummondville (one release only) based on opinions in this thread. If anyone has any other comments or opinions on creation of this profile it would be good to hear about it now...

Also I think it may be useful to create:

Americ Disc, North Carolina - for releases with ADNC in the matrix

Americ Disc, California(?) - for AD/CA releases, or does this /CA mean Canada?

So a month after you ( https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/label/322049-DADR/history#latest ) is still invalid. Just wondering what's going on :-D .

We still dont know what ADFL/NCD means?

Maybe
Americ Disc, Florida, North Carolina D....

Were also these CDs Glass Mastered at Americ Disc, Florida?
So, can we add at Americ Disc, Florida label profile?

Myriad
Will be interesting to see whether any SID codes end up being able to be associated to a specific location too.

For what its worth, the Redump Wiki SID codes list shows:
Mastering SID Codes IFPI L481 - IFPI L490 and Mould SID Codes IFPI 81xx assigned to Americ Disc, Drummondville,Canada

Of course I have no way of knowing how complete or up-to-date that list is.

jcomin
We still dont know what ADFL/NCD means?

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2000/10/09/daily22.html
https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2000/11/20/story3.html
this page suggests it could be Nashville Compact Disc Manufacturing LLC

Nashville Compact Disc Manufacturing, LLC, has announced a strategic partnership with Americ Disc Inc., an independent CD/DVD replicator, one of the largest in North America.
[..]
The partnership, which involves an undisclosed financial investment, gives Americ a service center in Nashville [...] It will take over the specialty packaging and fulfillment operations of NCD in Nashville, and will manage the supply chain with its replication plants in Miami, California and Canada.

pages on Discogs
Nashville Compact Disc

Great info!!!!!!

Mysticum - In The Streams Of Inferno

Myriad
Americ Disc, California(?) - for AD/CA releases, or does this /CA mean Canada?

Considering the information in the above mentioned news reports about Nashville Compact Disc, "CA" is most likely "California".
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/19961028/NEWS/310289985/americ-disc-opens-facility-in-california
http://www.audioworld.com/audio-biz/1996/americ-disc-opens-silicon-valley-cddvd-manufacturing-plant/
I see now that it says so in the Americ Disc profile aswell.

So for CDs with ADFL/NCD at matrix

were Glassmastered at Nashville Compact Disc
and also pressed by Nashville Compact Disc

and were Manufactured for Americ Disc, Florida ???

But all CDs with ADFL/NCD have
Mastering SID Code: IFPI L48x
Mould SID Code: IFPI 81xx

Both from Americ Disc

jcomin
But all CDs with ADFL/NCD have
Mastering SID Code: IFPI L48x
Mould SID Code: IFPI 81xx

Both from Americ Disc

This seems to dispute the suggestion that:

jcomin
So for CDs with ADFL/NCD at matrix

were Glassmastered at Nashville Compact Disc
and also pressed by Nashville Compact Disc

We also have these two:
Carl Story And The Rambling Mountaineers* - Songs For Our Savior - "MFG BY EVA-TONE INC" in matrix, and NCD presumably credited in the booklet

So it doesn't seem obvious that NCD owned its own pressing plant at all. Perhaps it was a broker which ran its own "specialty packaging and fulfillment operations" in Nashville as described on https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/748075?page=1&utm_campaign=-mention&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#8515231

NCD was acquired by MPO in 2000: https://www.lesechos.fr/2000/10/mpo-acquiert-deux-usines-au-quebec-et-en-angleterre-753878 "a sales office specializing in services"