To a certain extent, I think you're the victim of dumb luck. Yes, their first issues were "standards" intended to be in the catalog for a longer period of time than the "hit of the moment" type discs. If you look at the low numbers in Columbia's first disc series, and in their A-prefix double-sided discs, you'll notice the same pattern. The patent dates are probably your best proof that Nauck and Sutton are correct. I have 5 10" Marconi discs, numbered between 22 and 380. They all have the "hairpiece" version. I also have a 12" Marconi, numbered identical to the Columbia issue (the 10" had a separate numbering sequence). It also has a hairpiece.
Since the matrix numbers match the catalog numbers, I'm not sure if Columbia recorded material specifically for the Marconi line, or if they obliterated the original Columbia matrix numbers. Tyrone > Nauck/Sutton's book, American Record Labels and Companies, says the > records started with No. 01 and reached into the low 400's, and that most > issues were pressed from ordinary Columbia masters. Would they have > issued the biggest Columbia sellers first, or was it common to issue > records non-chronologically? I'm just trying to figure out why my > (lowest) No. 06 is on the later label while my (highest) No. 169 is on the > earlier label, and why my No. 32 is on the later label while the one in > the book is on the earlier label.
