Re: TwentyTen - the return of the infamous cat#-discussion

From what I can gather, in our databases the 1993 releases all (or pretty much all, bar a couple) have 13 digit barcodes. So there may be one or two clashes, which I guess if the right formats are used for that release will be avoided - but it's difficult to say (I'm not back at work until August, so I have no idea what's going on, other people are taking care of this, thank god!).

It should be interesting...!

jo

--- In [email protected], "Frederic" <schokofueralle@...> wrote:
>
> So if i'm correct there'll be clashes if any cat# of this year has the same format as the particular cat# of 1993, right?
> 
> In that year we had the following formats:
> B/AD 3001 - Single [belly]
> CAD 3002 - Album [belly]
> BAD 3003 - EP [uvs]
> CAD 3004 - Album [f.black]
> B/AD 3005 - Single [f.black]
> cad 3006 - Album [hnia]
> bad 3007 - EP [unrest]
> dad 3008 - Double-album [rhp]
> cad 3009 - Album [h.berry]
> bad 3010 - EP [h.berry]
> bad 3011 - EP [breeders]
> cad 3012 - Album [unrest]
> dad 3013 - Double-album [dcd]
> cad 3014 - Album [breeders]
> bad 3015 - EP [unrest]
> cad 3016 - Album [rhp]
> b/ad 3017 - Single [breeders]
> 
> Oddly the first anounced release of this year is already heading for a clash (Tindersticks' Falling Down a Mountain [CAD 3X02] vs. Belly's Star [CAD 3002]) ... or is it not?
> It seems i still don't get it. Help!
> 
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "sweetfoolthemouth" <sweetfoolthemouth@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], <frankbri@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2000 was '2K', why not make 2010 '3X', where 'X' stands for '10', so 3X = 30.
> > > 
> > > Frank 
> > 
> > It would certainly make a lot more sense that way!
> > 
> > Though there's still the issue with barcodes - which even though we're a year away, I might 
> > have to bring up soon... 
> > 
> > Fun times!
> >
>




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