VDC Group: how to identify and credit from disc matrix

I'd like to update the profile of www.VDCGroup.com, which is how I've been able to gather the information below

Matrix pattern: [release catalogue#] ▉ [variable info] ▉ [LCCN number XXXXXX] ▉ [variable info] E.G. My Dying Bride - For Darkest Eyes
OR
Matrix pattern: | [release catalogue#] | [LCCN number XXXXXX] | E.G. Propaganda - A Secret Wish
OR
Matrix pattern: [release catalogue#] [variable info] [LCCN number XXXXXX] E.G. Katie Melua - Call Off The Search

[variable info] is usually the name of the releasing label/record company or the VDC Group URL, and may not always be present

Mastering SID code: IFPI LD11/LD12/LD13
Mould SID code: IFPI 5Q** (often misread as 50**)

Suggested LCCN entry:
Glass Mastered At - VDC Group - XXXXXX

NOTE: VDC will not be identified by mastering or mould SID code in the absence of one of the above-described matrix patterns. mastering SID LD11 is recently in use by another company (see Spectral Wound - A Diabolic Thirst)

Example releases with matrix scan:

with URL
Jack Bruce - Shadows In The Air

without
My Dying Bride - For Darkest Eyes

Notes:

1) XXXXXX is often preceded by a * which I think we can leave out when entering in LCCN

2) The XXXXXX number appears to be sequential and so we should be able to use this to identify reissues and removed release dates where appropriate the way we do for Sonopress

3) The XXXXX number seems quite variable, possibly a new one was assigned fore very single glass master the company created (I have a similar suspicion for Cradle Of Filth - Live Bait For The Dead

Sorry for a long post
Please let me know if any questions/issues or points for further discussion
Thanks as always

ping list
baldorr

For Each Note:

1. I agree. Since there are examples of releases having it and not having it, I don't see a reason to add it to the LCCN.

2 & 3. Especially on Cradle Of Filth - Live Bait For The Dead, this seems to be the case. There are not many cases of where there are nine variants worth of information to look through of a single release for something like this!

+1 for adding identifying information to the VDC Group profile. It makes sense the way you presented it here. Good work!

I agree, good work Myriad.
I like your suggestion to add to the profile page the above info, and with that the sequential number in LCCN.

agree with the suggested profile update +1
and for treating different company catalog numbers as variants unless proven otherwise by known reissue release dates

Edited to add last paragraph

Myriad
NOTE: VDC will not be identified by mastering or mould SID code in the absence of one of the above-described matrix patterns. mastering SID LD11 is recently in use by another company (see Spectral Wound - A Diabolic Thirst)

All sounds fine. I'm wondering how many will have VDC in the matrix. All releases in my collection with those SID codes are like this Madness - Keep Moving
So those remain as is with no VDC addition to the LCCN?

Sorry 'in the absence of one of the above-described matrix patterns' missed that bit when reading. So in the example here it would be a Glass Mastered with code?

Edited to correct: Pressed At to Pressed By

Myriad
Example releases with matrix scan:

with URL
Donovan - Fairytales And Colours

LIke the above then Brazilian Nights (2) Featuring Romero Lubambo - Brazilian Nights would be Pressed By or would these become Glass Mastered At as well?

It appears we have a bit of an issue with 5 and 6 digit numbers appearing out of sequence on VDC Group label pages. The first page is a good example of this problem with numbers already entered in LCCN.

I believe the 5 digit # (0xxxx) started around 1999. 6 digits (0xxxxx) started around 2007. I'm sure all numbers are sequential but it just seems wrong to have these two releases next to one another:
04740 Leggo Beast - From Here To G (2000)
004752 Various - Fear Candy 36 (2007)

It seems the only way to fix this issue would be to add an additional number or letter to 6 digit codes. For example, with "1" in front, the sequence of those numbers could then be corrected (they should appear after 5 digit codes as intended). I'm not sure why the plant did not do that...

Basically, the plant added a 0 in front instead of 1 which would continue the proper sequence in 2007, instead they really complicated things for us (not so much for the plant itself I guess).

Cl0ver
Sorry 'in the absence of one of the above-described matrix patterns' missed that bit when reading. So in the example here it would be a Glass Mastered with code?

Yes, the idea is that we would add a Glass Mastered role there based on the combination of matrix pattern, LCCN number, and SID codes.

Cl0ver
LIke the above then Brazilian Nights (2) Featuring Romero Lubambo - Brazilian Nights would be Pressed By or would these become Glass Mastered At as well?

See my first post:

Myriad
Suggested LCCN entry:
Glass Mastered At - VDC Group - XXXXXX

gemini80s
I believe the 5 digit # (0xxxx) started around 1999. 6 digits (0xxxxx) started around 2007. I'm sure all numbers are sequential but it just seems wrong to have these two releases next to one another:
04740 Leggo Beast - From Here To G (2000)
004752 Various - Fear Candy 36 (2007)

Interesting point, I'm not sure what we can do about that. It's interesting that without the zeros, they're both a 4-digit number 12 digits apart with 7 years between. So the numbering scheme must have changed or reset when the plant decided to use a 6-digit matrix number for some reason. It definitely does complicate the chronology of matrix numbers on the label page

Looking at label profile and releases some more, it's quite obvious that the 5-digit scheme ended in 2005 (around 76xxx). After the MPO purchase, the number changed to 6-digits, apparently already in 2006: Various - Extended Seventies - The Dawning Of The 12 Inch Era (000531)

So for above example releases, actual VDC numbers should look like this:
Leggo Beast - From Here To G (2000) 04740 = 4740
Various - Fear Candy 36 (2007) 004752 = 104752

Another possible solution for numbers issue would be to use different VDC label name entries in LCCN.

For 1999-2005 releases, we could create a new label "VDC Group UK" as that matrix branding also appeared with 5-digit numbers: The Undertones - Positive Touch

Or we should always use Various - Troubadours of Folk The 60s Acoustic Explosion).

For 2006-2014+ releases, VDC Group seems to be the our only option.

Myriad
The XXXXX number seems quite variable, possibly a new one was assigned fore very single glass master the company created (I have a similar suspicion for Matsushita Universal Media Services). Therefore I'm not certain that it would be advisable to create a new submission for different XXXXX numbers but better to keep them on one submission. See this release for a good example: Cradle Of Filth - Live Bait For The Dead

I'm a bit confused here between the difference between the 5- and 6-digit number.

Is it so that you only wany to add the 6-digit number to LCCN but not the 5-digit number?

Because adding numbers to LCCN should normally lead to creating unique subs for different numbers (which in the example you give here does not seem advisable indeed).

gemini80s
it's quite obvious that the 5-digit scheme ended in 2005 (around 76xxx). After the MPO purchase, the number changed to 6-digits, apparently already in 2006: Various - Extended Seventies - The Dawning Of The 12 Inch Era (000531)

Various - Top40 - Seventies are all from the end of VDC's run (2014 masters) and are five digit numbers.

Outside the question of adding the numbers to the LCCN I think that the profile should be updated to include information indicating the presence of the SIDs LD11-13 and the various matrix types = Glass Mastered At.

Outside of Discogs' reticence in using SIDs to identify companies the presence of the LD11-13 until 2014 can when the release date is certain definitively identify them also. The pressing/mastering equipment was sold in the beginning of 2015 via private sales and the plant dismantled by December 2014.

JoshPeer
Lucy's Diary - Lucy's Diary, Blackberry Smoke - Holding All The Roses, Various - Top40 - Seventies are all from the end of VDC's run (2014 masters) and are five digit numbers.

Thanks for finding those, all have asterisks in front however. Nevertheless, this complicates matters even more, I honestly don't know how we can credit post 2006 entries properly in LCCN without the label becoming a big mess (leading asterisks and leading 0s and are sadly irrelevant for proper display on label pages).

WolfXCIX
2 & 3. Especially on Cradle Of Filth - Live Bait For The Dead, this seems to be the case. There are not many cases of where there are nine variants worth of information to look through of a single release for something like this!

I am not sure we can use this to identify reissues, the numbers are all over the place, and the first variant has the same number between disc 1 and 2. Some are close together, some are incredibly far apart.

Here's all CD 1 and CD 2 sorted from lowest to highest number, de-duplicated, anomalies highlighted:
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30619 www.vdcgroup.com
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30623 www.vdcgroup.com <-- 4 off from previous
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30624 www.vdcgroup.com <-- One off from previous
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30636 www.vdcgroup.com
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30653 www.vdcgroup.com
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30654 www.vdcgroup.com <-- One off from previous
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30657 www.vdcgroup.com <-- 3 off from previous

COF006DD/B SNAPPER MUSIC 30624 www.vdcgroup.com <-- Found in CD1 as well
COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30802 www.vdcgroup.com <-- A in the suffix
COF006DD/B SNAPPER MUSIC 30804 www.vdcgroup.com <-- 2 off from previous
COF006DD/B SNAPPER MUSIC 30891 www.vdcgroup.com
COF006DD/B SNAPPER MUSIC 30892 www.vdcgroup.com <-- One off from previous

CD2 is mostly ~150 away from CD1 in sequential number.

Looking at them like this I do not think these are sequential numbers at all. Or all the variants are so poorly submitted that we can't use the submission at all, which I personally find incredibly unlikely.

Myriad
1) XXXXXX is often preceded by a * which I think we can leave out when entering in LCCN

Agree

Myriad
2) The XXXXXX number appears to be sequential and so we should be able to use this to identify reissues and removed release dates where appropriate the way we do for Sony DADC and Sonopress

Also agree

Myriad
3) The XXXXX number seems quite variable, possibly a new one was assigned fore very single glass master the company created (I have a similar suspicion for Matsushita Universal Media Services). Therefore I'm not certain that it would be advisable to create a new submission for different XXXXX numbers but better to keep them on one submission. See this release for a good example: Cradle Of Filth - Live Bait For The Dead

That's a more difficult one, but sometimes multiple masters are used for a single pressing run (and the same one might have served over different runs as well) , in which case it appropriate to list them as one release.

But we need to be sure. Best ways to check these are if someone can obtain multiple copies of the same title, and check them physically.
If there is really no other difference than the sequential number, there is no reason to divide them over different versions.

At this point it's difficult to either agree or disagree. I'd say: to be looked into.

Don't know how other look at this?
Maybe it's best to initially keep them apart (and thus allow individual images for these variants to become available), and merge them afterwards, if can be determined they are effectively just the result of refreshing the glass master as needed in the pressing process?

Warepire
I do not think these are sequential numbers at all

I found 2 duplicate numbers used in completely different releases:

Freda Payne - Band Of Gold - The Best Of Freda Payne
Matrix / Runout: CMRCD044 SANCTUARY 28990 www.vdcgroup.com
Mastering SID Code: IFPI LD11

Jerry Lee Lewis - Sun Essentials
Matrix / Runout (CD1): SNAB904CD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 28990 www.vdcgroup.com
Mastering SID Code (CD1): IFPI LD12
Mould SID Code (CD1): IFPI 5004

Marti Webb, Jess Conrad, Maria Kesselman, John Dulieu - Songs From Three Great Shows
Matrix / Runout: PLSCD612 SANCTUARY RECORDS *30985 www.vdcgroup.com

Dave Willetts, Carl Wayne, Paul Jones, Fiona Hendley, Linda Hibberd - Jesus Christ Superstar & Godspell
Matrix / Runout: PLSCD613 SANCTUARY RECORDS *30985 www.vdcgroup.com

Note there are no matrix images to these numbers, so I believe there is a much greater likelihood of matrix/plant typos than numbers not being sequential/unique.

In any case, the 5-digit codes through 2005 should be completely valid for LCCN as proven by ~1500 entries on www.VDCGroup.com label (2 exceptions even if confirmed don't make a trend)...

gemini80s
Marti Webb, Jess Conrad, Maria Kesselman, John Dulieu - Songs From Three Great Shows
Matrix / Runout: PLSCD612 SANCTUARY RECORDS *30985 www.vdcgroup.com

Dave Willetts, Carl Wayne, Paul Jones, Fiona Hendley, Linda Hibberd - Jesus Christ Superstar & Godspell
Matrix / Runout: PLSCD613 SANCTUARY RECORDS *30985 www.vdcgroup.com

These 2 are on the same label, one cat# apart.
Both could be ordered at the same time.
Numbers might be entered correctly, but a typo/mistake might have been introduced in the sequential numbering, for this particular case?
Other option: Dave Willetts, Carl Wayne, Paul Jones, Fiona Hendley, Linda Hibberd - Jesus Christ Superstar & Godspell, a common problem here. (should baoi be blindly copied in a copy-to-draft??)

Your further research proves that numbers *are* indeed sequential/unique. My above post was just to show why they *may not* be, which seems to be an incorrect assumption ;-).

gemini80s
Note there are no matrix images to these numbers, so I believe there is a much greater likelihood of matrix/plant typos than numbers not being sequential/unique.

My main issue was not the duplicated number, but how the numbers for CD1 and CD2 doesn't make any sense at all considering CD1 and CD2 are a set? Even on re-orders needing additional glass masters, that makes the numbers make even less sense.

Warepire
re-orders needing additional glass masters

Sonopress USA was another plant that used new/different sequential numbers for every? repress, so that practice is not unheard of, but certainly unusual.

gemini80s
Warepirere-orders needing additional glass masters
Sonopress USA was another plant that used new/different sequential numbers for every? repress, so that practice is not unheard of, but certainly unusual.

Is my table confusing? If so, I need to make a better table. I am trying to highlight the total lack of relation between CD1 and CD2 in sequential numbers (if they are sequential) for something that is meant as a set as clearly given by the catalog numbers in the matrix. CD1 numbers, while increasing, are not even close to CD2 numbers, that are also increasing.

Warepire
I am trying to highlight the total lack of relation between CD1 and CD2 in sequential numbers (if they are sequential) for something that is meant as a set as clearly given by the catalog numbers in the matrix. CD1 numbers, while increasing, are not even close to CD2 numbers, that are also increasing.

There must be some typos in Cradle Of Filth - Live Bait For The Dead matrix variants, it seems quite likely that variant 1 CD1 should be 30623 as proven by other variants
Matrix / Runout (CD1; Variant 1): COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30624 www.vdcgroup.com
Matrix / Runout (CD2; Variant 1): COF006DD/B SNAPPER MUSIC 30624 www.vdcgroup.com
correct CD1 number:
Matrix / Runout (CD1; Variant 6): COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30623 www.vdcgroup.com
Matrix / Runout (CD1; Variant 9): COF006DD/A SNAPPER MUSIC 30623 www.vdcgroup.com

Compare above release with
Venom (8) - In League With Satan
Matrix / Runout (Disc 1): CMDDD389/A SANCTUARY RECORDS 24455 www.vdcgroup.com
Matrix / Runout (Disc 2): CMDDD389/B SANCTUARY RECORDS 24470 www.vdcgroup.com
Venom (8) - In League With Satan (repress)
Matrix / Runout (Disc 1 / Variant 1): CMDDD389/A SANCTUARY RECORDS 27681 www.vdcgroup.com
Matrix / Runout (Disc 2 / Variant 1): CMDDD389/B SANCTUARY RECORDS 24457 www.vdcgroup.com
Matrix / Runout (Disc 1 / Variant 2): CMDDD389/A SANCTUARY RECORDS 30663 www.vdcgroup.com
Matrix / Runout (Dics 2 / Variant 2): CMDDD389/B SANCTUARY RECORDS 61285 www.vdcgroup.com

As you can see the repress numbers would make little sense without original pressing in database.

These numbers are sequential and unique, you really have no solid evidence to suggest otherwise (can't trust that every single submission data is accurate). As I said above, 2 out of 1500 do not make a trend, outliers like that must be disregarded. We are still unable to confirm that different (master) releases exist with same VDC number in matrix.

gemini80s
These numbers are sequential and unique, you really have no solid evidence to suggest otherwise (can't trust that every single submission data is accurate). As I said above, 2 out of 1500 do not make a trend, outliers like that must be disregarded. We are still unable to confirm that different (master) releases exist with same VDC number in matrix.

But these outliers have to be picked apart and understood, no? There's currently a plant with sequential numbers that aren't that I am looking for to make a thread, because maybe we were too quick to judge. (I misplaced the link, and must find it again)

Warepire
these outliers have to be picked apart and understood

No, you're making this an issue without actual evidence here.

gemini80s
proves that numbers *are* indeed sequential

It's not argued here that the numbers go from five to six digits in a non-sequential way. So it is a point of fact that they are not sequential. We don't enter company numbers to LCCN because they appeared to be sequential for a point in time.

Even outside of that you say

gemini80s
the 5-digit codes through 2005 should be completely valid for LCCN as proven by ~1500 entries on www.VDCGroup.com

If you look at any of the early years the numbers are not sequential.
Big Country - Somebody Else Confirmed 2000 release with 06008 in the matrix.

Now this would make sense if all the high numbers in the early years are indeed reissues and that would be the conclusion we are forced to draw. Although would there ever have been a need for a reissue of Paul Rayner-Brown - The Country - Sounds Of Nature ;) Truly seems unlikely.

I'm not going to get into how mind blowingly inane it is we make URLs into profiles, but this shows why it complicates the matter.
We can't discuss if the numbers were sequential for a URL, it is only a fact they were sequential to the pressing company or not. So what actually matters is whether or not VDC used these sequentially. Any finding on that would by default crossover to the www profile but not the other way around.

JoshPeer
If you look at any of the early years the numbers are not sequential.
Paul Rayner-Brown - The Country - Sounds Of Nature Confirmed 2000 release with 43587 in the matrix.

Sorry but these two statements are rather misleading, dare I say wrong. Based on what we know, it's safe to assume that release is a repress from 2003+, however unlikely that may seem to you.

With single disc releases, it's almost impossible to know if any particular VDC matrix entered in BaOI is the original/first master or not. With multiple disc releases, this is much easier to "guess" because the lowest numbers will be consecutive or nearly consecutive=first master numbers. The higher numbers will not be so close=subsequent masters. This is why some numbers entered in LCCN don't match with actual/original release years (the reason you believe some numbers are not sequential). Approx. release years for 5-digit numbers:

2000: 0xxxx-09xxx
2001: 09xxx-23xxx
2002: 23xxx-35xxx
2003: 35xxx-50xxx
2004: 50xxx-70xxx
2005: 69xxx-77946 (last known)

So far I see no obvious conflicting information for matrices up through 2005 as all apparently have unique=sequential numbers (5 digits) which should be entered in LCCN when there are no matrix variants present in BaOI. Of course as soon as variants show up, it becomes an issue how to properly credit those discs. But Is that a good enough reason not to enter any VDC numbers in LCCN? I don't believe so as the list above should help determine a reissue from an original pressing (which happens to be one of the main points of this discussion).

Please note that I'm only arguing the validity of www.VDCGroup.com matrix LCCN info already present in that profile and NOT the 6 digit codes without that URL branding which started this discussion. The 6 digit codes/matrices after 2006 are obviously more complicated and need some more research at this point before we can determine whether/how they should be entered in LCCN.

Warepire
gemini80sNote there are no matrix images to these numbers, so I believe there is a much greater likelihood of matrix/plant typos than numbers not being sequential/unique.

My main issue was not the duplicated number, but how the numbers for CD1 and CD2 doesn't make any sense at all considering CD1 and CD2 are a set? Even on re-orders needing additional glass masters, that makes the numbers make even less sense.

It's possible that QC found that the original press for CD2 was bad, and a new good glass master was made. This is all hypothetical, but it's a plausible explanation.

Are there any other 2+ disc releases?

star_man_20
Are there any other 2+ disc releases

Almost half of releases from this manufacturer are 2+ discs. Most are reissues/compilations, which may explain why so many different master numbers exist (e.g. repress of a reissue). Note that we still don't know which plant actually made the VDC discs as these were only catalog numbers used by VDC Group not necessarily glass master numbers. It's also quite plausible that every single subsequent pressing included a new master number.

CD Systems was the apparent predecessor of www.vdcgroup.com branding which used the same mastering SID codes and also 5-digit numbers until early 2000. VDC continued the pattern but new 5-digit numbers.

Going back even further, the earliest Marie* Et Marc* - Marie Et Marc).

Some early discs also had "MADE IN U.K. BY CD SYSTEMS" in matrix: Anu Malik - Yaraana (these were still mastered by PDO UK including their sequential #).

Early combination of CD Systems and VDC (PDO) matrices:
Various - Best Of Hardcore
Matrix / Runout (CD1): 10363771 01 % MADE IN THE U.K. BY VDC LOWCD045
Matrix / Runout (CD2): 10363781 01 % MADE IN THE U.K. BY VDC LOWCD046
Matrix / Runout (CD3): LOWCD047 MADE IN THE U.K. BY CD-SYSTEMS 05665
Matrix / Runout (CD4): LOWCD048 MADE IN THE U.K. BY CD-SYSTEMS 05666
Mastering SID Code (CD1): IFPI L132
Mastering SID Code (CD2): IFPI L134

IFPI LD11 was likely the original mastering SID by the VDC plant, first used with "CD Systems UK" in matrix, apparently started in 1998 (Frank Sinatra - The Sinatra Collection is one of earliest discs).

IFPI LD12 and IFPI LD13 apparently started in 2000 with 'www.vdcgroup.com" branding.
LD13 first appeared late 2000, earliest known master # 08228 (Samson (3) - Head On)
LD12 first appeared beginning of 2001?, earliest known master # 09361 (Various - The Very Best Of Smooth Jazz is interesting with 3 different matrix brandings:
Matrix / Runout (CD1 Variant 1): JAZZFMCD24/A JAZZFM 24355 www.vdcgroup.com
Mastering SID Code (CD1 Variant 1): IFPI LD12
Mould SID Code (CD1 Variant 1): IFPI 5Q12
Matrix / Runout (CD2 Variant 1): JAZZFMCD24/B JAZZ FM 15250 www.vdcgroup.com
Mastering SID Code (CD2 Variant 1): IFPI LD12
Mould SID Code (CD2 Variant 1): IFPI 5Q12
Matrix / Runout (CD1 Variant 2): JAZZFMCD24/A JAZZ CD Systems UK 03853
Mastering SID Code (CD1 Variant 2): none
Mould SID Code (CD1 Variant 2): none
Matrix / Runout (CD2 Variant 2): JAZZFMCD24/TWO JAZZ FM VDC GROUP UK 04947
Mastering SID Code (CD2 Variant 2): none
Mould SID Code (CD2 Variant 2): IFPI 5Q11

gemini80s
Sorry but these two statements are rather misleading, dare I say wrong. Based on what we know, it's safe to assume that release is a repress from 2003+, however unlikely that may seem to you.

You don't seem to well grasp the entirety of my point.

gemini80s
it's almost impossible to know if any particular VDC matrix entered in BaOI is the original/first master or not.

But if it has been determined that numbers are sequential and we are treating them as such then by default we agree that numbers out of sequence are inherently a later manufacture. So a 7XXXX number on a 2000 release is by default a repress from post 2000 and we know that the original glass master number is not in the database.

The fact is that you can't add two different numbers to LCCN, and if they are indeed sequential we need to known what it means when entering numbers that aren't sequential, in the case of the Paul Raynor-Brown CD we would have to have information in the profile that instructs that this is a repress and the year of release can't be 2000 for it then. If we can't confidently say that in the profile then we can't add numbers yet.

The larger issue is that CD Systems, the various www profiles and VDC all point to one glass masterer. So to answer if a number is sequential we need to look at the company using and adding them to matrices not made up Discogs' profiles that are not real life entities.

That company, VDC, seems to have used various methods. As has been pointed out.
The numbers appearing on discs that say www.vdcgroup.com were not placed there by www.vdcgroup.com but by VDC Group. This is again why when extrapolating technical information from matrices we should be crediting accurately, fake profiles make this harder.

The number is all those matrices is a number that points to a specific company creating and making the glass master, adding that number to CD Systems which did not own a LBR machine and did not ask for or use that number is incorrect, this extends to the www profiles. These numbers only belong to VDC Group period.

JoshPeer
So to answer if a number is sequential

Instead of these generic posts, I invite you to do some research. Please see above post with SID codes, I'm really working as hard as I am capable of at the moment, updating with new information as we speak. VDC matrix numbers are sequential and unique (just like CD Systems one before that), you can trust me with this information and stop asking these questions already.

gemini80s
Instead of these generic posts, I invite you to do some research. Please see above post with SID codes, I'm really working as hard as I am capable of at the moment, updating with new information as we speak. VDC matrix numbers are sequential and unique (just like CD Systems one before that), you can trust me with this information and stop asking these questions already.

I am as intimately familiar with the SID codes, dates, matrix numbers and various entities as yourself Gemini. I’ve done far more research than the posts indicate. I am interested in fact based data inference.
You once again seem to gloss over the points of my posts. You’re in a hurry to add numbers at any cost it seems.

LD11-13 belong to VDC Group and did so until Dec 2014. The numbers in matrices when these SIDs are present were placed there by VDC Group in all instances. Comparing the sequentiality of these numbers to any other company or brand is incorrect. Just because another company or brand appears in a matrix does not mean you should be adding some other companies number to it. These are glass master numbers, they are the numbers for VDC Group and no one else.
CD Systems and the www brands did not apply these numbers and they are not related to them.

You are making no sense Mr. Knowitall. Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense and personal insults.

OK the plant really complicated the numbers during 1999/2000 but I think I've been able to decipher those.

"Chekmate - Seasons In The Sun / Turn Back The Hands Of Time (Dance Versions)). As a result, the 0xxxx numbers from second half of 1999-early 2000 are mixed up with earliest numbers from 1995 (not sure if 1994 release is correct):
00114 Instrumental - Acoustek (1999)
00158 Riley Lee - Rainforest Reverie (1994)
00995 Joey Negro - Disco House (1995)
01025 Philip Chapman - Journey To The East (2000)

So far I haven't spotted any duplicates (e.g. both 1995 and 1999 release containing same matrix #).

CD Systems matrices apparently ended in 2000 at 04xxx (04307 Various - Vir2ual Drum Bass is the lowest number currently entered on that profile). See first pages of both labels to see the lowest numbers entered in LCCN.

In between "CD Systems UK" and "www.vdcgroup.com" appeared a short-lived "VDC GROUP UK" branding (likely only used in 2000):
04487 Baby Mammoth - Motion Without Pain (lowest known)
04523 Various - Serve Chilled
04968 Fila Brazillia - Brazilification (Remixes 95-99)
05157 Various - Nu Cool
05244 Cornell Campbell - Silver Jubilee (25 Classic Cuts)
05291 Various - Served Chilled 2
05357 The Undertones - Positive Touch
05411 Anne Clark - The Best Of Anne Clark (highest known 0xxxx #)

The "VDC GROUP UK" matrices then continued during 2000 with 2xxxx numbers (leading 0 apparently became 2 so their numbers would not collide with www.vcdgroup.com numbers):
25442 Various - Winter Chill (lowest known 2xxxx #)
25447 Frankie Laine - The Platinum Collection
25556 Various - Country Greats
25691 Paul Rayner-Brown - Waterfalls
25733 Sex Pistols - There Is No Future
25980 Unknown Artist - Salsa Fever
26017 Waterfall Cities)
26220 Trance4mations (Psychedelic Sojourns & Tantric Travels) (last known VDC GROUP UK matrix)

Complicated as hell but sequences make perfect sense (no overlapping whatsoever ;-).

Edited: to correct quoted text.

JoshPeer
gemini80sInstead of these generic posts, I invite you to do some research. Please see above post with SID codes, I'm really working as hard as I am capable of at the moment, updating with new information as we speak. VDC matrix numbers are sequential and unique (just like CD Systems one before that), you can trust me with this information and stop asking these questions already.

I am as intimately familiar with the SID codes, dates, matrix numbers and various entities as yourself Gemini. I’ve done far more research than the posts indicate. I am interested in fact based data inference.
You once again seem to gloss over the points of my posts. You’re in a hurry to add numbers at any cost it seems.

Re the sentence above:
'I’ve done far more research than the posts indicate.'

Great news. Please share and post that here.

A few interesting multiple disc releases with "VDC GROUP UK" matrices from 2000:

Various - Trance - Psychedelic Flashbacks 4
Matrix / Runout: TRIPBX8/A RUMOUR VDC GROUP UK 25414
Matrix / Runout: TRIPBX8/TWO RUMOUR VDC GROUP UK 04500
Matrix / Runout: TRIPBX8/THREE RUMOUR VDC GROUP UK 25428
Matrix / Runout: TRIPBX8/FOUR RUMOUR VDC GROUP UK 25417

The Sugarhill Gang* Vs. Grandmaster Flash - The Greatest Hits
Matrix / Runout (CD 1): NEECD379/A CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 05095
Matrix / Runout (CD 2): NEECD379/TWO CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 25984
Matrix / Runout (CD 1 variant 2): NEECD379/A CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 25897
Matrix / Runout (CD 2 variant 2): NEECD379/TWO CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 25914
Matrix / Runout (CD 1 variant 3): NEECD379/A CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 05094

Various - Hits Of The 70s
Matrix / Runout (Disc 1): DTCD0002/A TIME MUSIC VDC GROUP UK 04745
Matrix / Runout (Disc 2): DTCD002/TWO TIME MUSIC VDC GROUP UK 25638

gemini80s
Your further research proves that numbers *are* indeed sequential/unique.

Not sure if your reaction is on my post, but: yes, that's right. Everything indicates these are unique numbers and they do follow a certain sequence too, as far as this matters. (Random unique numbers are fine too, although they are rather impractical to keep track of.)

I was merely indicating that the fact the same numbers appear on these two different titles is most probable a mistake. Most probably a draft-copy error, and if not, it might still be a human error at the plant, as it concerns two jobs that probably came within the same order.

To me, these numbers simply look unique & sequential. I don't see any indication they are not.
Sequential doesn't necessarily mean the sequence needs to look logically.

Philips cat# for instance make all kind of jumps, and sometimes count backwards, sometimes forward. Sometimes lower number come later than higher numbers
As long as the numbers are unique for each job, they are fine to enter.

gemini80s
You are making no sense Mr. Knowitall. Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense and personal insults.

Take a deep breath.

Cl0ver
RE 'I’ve done far more research than the posts indicate.'

Great news. Please share and post that here.

What would be of interest here?

My main contention is that this thread is talking about adding glass master numbers that belong to VDC Group to any company name or branding that appears along side that in the matrix.
I don't understand what evidence I'm supposed to show that would help counter that argument?
The numbers may appear in the same matrix as CD System but they are not CD System numbers, is this point contended? These are not catalog numbers for some brand called www.vdcgroup.com, is this contended? Do we now add any sequential number that can be found to whatever company or brand we find regardless of whether or not the number belongs to that entity?

VDC has reset their numbering scheme many times as gemini80s has shown with his posts and is easily seen with a search using the SIDs shown chronologically. This means that with VDC's history of glass mastering starting circa 1998-2014 there is no consistent sequential series but a number of sets of sequential series, with many anomalies along the way.

For example as already stated in its profile, CD Systems was incorporated in 1995, it was incorporated by the directors of VDC Group and then subsequently ed as a dormant company, it never made any filings until it's dissolution in 2015, it never claimed any sales or assets, so VDC Group which owned the trade name CD System used it in it's matrices, that is interesting but has no bearing on the use of the glass master numbers, it is a point of fact they can't belong to CD Systems because they belong to the company making the glass master.

JoshPeer
My main contention is that this thread is talking about adding glass master numbers that belong to VDC Group to any company name or branding that appears along side that in the matrix.
I don't understand what evidence I'm supposed to show that would help counter that argument?
The numbers may appear in the same matrix as CD System but they are not CD System numbers, is this point contended? These are not catalog numbers for some brand called www.vdcgroup.com, is this contended? Do we now add any sequential number that can be found to whatever company or brand we find regardless of whether or not the number belongs to that entity?

Sorry but this is again nothing but a bunch of you know what. Yes, we usually credit the company printed in the matrix! I've proven with my research why some numbers belong only to www.vdcgroup.com, some only to CD Systems and some only to VDC GROUP UK. How can you not understand that matrix branding must not be ignored with this manufacturer. You need to wake up and smell the coffee!

gemini80s
Sorry but this is again nothing but a bunch of you know what....You need to wake up and smell the coffee!

You sir have an issue, just cool it. You obviously took offence and I apologize. Now let's move on.

gemini80s
we usually credit the company printed in the matrix!

Ya of course we do, and branding profiles like GZ Digital Media which would still get the Pressed By credit despite not being named in the runout because we credit companies for roles they actually performed and the number only goes with the company it belongs to.

gemini80s
I've proven with my research why some numbers belong only to www.vdcgroup.com, some only to CD Systems and some only to VDC GROUP UK.

All you've done is used the search engine on Discogs to find correlations. The glass master numbers do not Belong to those profiles. Adding them would be factually incorrect. Why on earth would we add glass master numbers to a www profile? Same as with www profiles from runouts, we don't add pressing numbers. The glass master numbers go with the owner of LD11 to LD13. And I've already given proof that CD Systems never had an LBR machine or pressed a disc or existed in any capacity outside of the Matrix brand.

Sequential CD matrix numbers/brandings and corresponding release years (approx.):

CD Systems UK / MADE IN THE U.K. BY CD-SYSTEMS
1995: 00001?-02xxx
1996: 02xxx-07xxx
1997: 07xxx-12xxx
1998: 12xxx-20xxx
1999: 20xxx-25279 (highest known), 00xxx-03xxx
2000: 03xxx-04307 (last known CD Systems matrix)

VDC GROUP UK (2000)
04xxx-05411 (highest known 0xxxx)
254xx- 26259 (last known VDC GROUP UK matrix)

www.vdcgroup.com
2000: 054xx-09xxx, 263xx-301xx (only IFPI LD11 matrices)
2001: 09xxx-22xxx
2002: 22xxx-35xxx (excluding IFPI LD11 matrices, see 2000)
2003: 35xxx-50xxx
2004: 50xxx-70xxx
2005: 69xxx-77946 (last known www.vdcgroup.com matrix)

no manufacturer in matrix (6 digits)*
2006: 000001?-003xxx (lowest known 000233)
2007: 003xxx-011xxx
2008: 011xxx-021xxx
2009: 021xxx-032xxx
2010: 032xxx-042xxx
2011: 042xxx-051xxx
2012: 051xxx-057xxx
2013: 057xxx-068xxx
2014: 068xxx-077094 (last known 6-digit matrix)

*Some post-2006 matrices (represses?) included only 5 digits, these went up to at least 77334 (Belinda Carlisle - The Complete Studio Albums ).

DVDs used a separate numbering sequence, see analysis in below posts.

JoshPeer
Why on earth would we add glass master numbers to a www profile?

Wait, why wouldn't we? Is there something in the guidelines prohibiting this?

JoshPeer
The glass master numbers do not Belong to those profiles. Adding them would be factually incorrect. Why on earth would we add glass master numbers to a www profile? Same as with www profiles from runouts, we don't add pressing numbers. The glass master numbers go with the owner of LD11 to LD13. And I've already given proof that CD Systems never had an LBR machine or pressed a disc or existed in any capacity outside of the Matrix brand.

How can 1995-1997 CD Systems numbers be glass master numbers when the plant did not do any glass mastering until 1998? Don't you see that these are simply company numbers? Of course these should be credited with "Manufactured" or "Made By" in LCCN. Oh, and let me remind you again they were also completely sequential as you see above, so they should also be credited with a "catalog number" (not a "glass master" number as you keep saying repeatedly).

star_man_20
Why on earth would we add glass master numbers to a www profile?

Wait, why wouldn't we? Is there something in the guidelines prohibiting this?

See TAKT.

Almost exactly the same situation but those are actually glass master numbers. This is not even debatable.

Don't know what the actual discussion is about now, but any form of unique/sequential #s specific to a certain company, can be added to lccn.
Even if we don't know if they are "job #s" "glass master #s" or any other form of istration to keep track of things.

There are no specific requirements except: must be a unique numbering, must be assigned by that specific company.
These requirements are met by vdc group. Little reason to not add the number.

DVD production apparently started in 2000.

Earliest DVDs included "VDC GROUP" in matrix (only these exist in db at the moment):
00155 Dizzy Gillespie And The United Nations Orchestra* - Live At The Royal Festival Hall, London
00295 The Manhattan Transfer - Vocalese Live 1986
00329 Steely Dan - Aja
00332 Demis Roussos - The Phenomenon - 20 Original Video Hits
00396 Nat King Cole - Nat King Cole And Friends: The Unforgettable Collection
00398 Sex Pistols - Live At The Longhorn
00892 Paul Simon - Graceland
01015 The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Electric Ladyland

Sequence continued without manufacturer in matrix (2001-2005):
03566 Emperor (2) - Emperial Live Ceremony (2001)
06491 Motörhead - The Best Of Motorhead (2002)
15044 Rage (6) - The Video Link (2003)
24654 The Who - The Kids Are Alright (2004)
51130 Various - Lord Of The Decks 3 (2005) highest known 5 digit #

Numbers reset in 2005? and continued with 6 digits:
001972 Neil Young & Crazy Horse - Rust Never Sleeps (2005)
003384 INXS - Live Baby Live (2005)
009941 Autopsy (2) - Dark Crusades (2006)
013359 Denis Leary - No Cure For Cancer (2007)
036637 Puressence - Don't Know Any Better (2008)
048236 Various - Promo Only Chart Video Feb.09 (2009)
061097 Janis Ian - Between The Lines + The Old Grey Whistle Test Concert DVD ... Plus (2010)
072500 Utopia (5) - Oblivion (2011)
085066 Sugar (5) - Copper Blue (2012)
092247 Status Quo - Pictures: The Essential Collection (2013)
098350 Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Frankie Said (2014)
106920 Liam O'Flynn - The Piper´s Call (2015) last known DVD

At least 2 DVDs also exist with "www.vdcgroup.com" in matrix but without a sequential number (likely all 2000 releases):
Yes - Keys To Ascension

So DVD numbers could also be added in LCCN but we would have to use a different label name entry than for CDs during the same period(s).

gemini80s
I believe the 5 digit # (0xxxx) started around 1999. 6 digits (0xxxxx) started around 2007. I'm sure all numbers are sequential but it just seems wrong to have these two releases next to one another:
04740 Leggo Beast - From Here To G (2000)
004752 Various - Fear Candy 36 (2007)

That changes when you sort the list by Year instead of Catalog Number.

fishbulb
That changes when you sort the list by Year instead of Catalog Number.

Obviously, but releases are supposed to appear sequentially without that. This shouldn't be a major issue anyway if we use different company entries as printed in matrix (only DVD numbers will be a problem)...

gemini80s
releases are supposed to appear sequentially

That's a display issue, should be ignored in regards to data input.

I think it's impossible to find a way to show all different forms of sequential numbering in an appropriate way using a sorting algorithm.
Either preceding zeroes are taken into , or not. Both will result in certain sequences showing correct, others incorrect.

Leading 0s are not an issue at all (label pages ignore them). We need to find a solution for DVD numbers which are completely different (compare charts above) and some 5 digit numbers before 2005 which were used without www.vdcgroup.com branding.

gemini80s
So DVD numbers could also be added in LCCN but we would have to use a different label name entry than for CDs during the same period(s).

That's not really going to happen though. DVDs and CDs were made at the same facility so there's no need to arbitrarily create a new label profile.

The issue of different numbering schemes that would interfere on the label page is definitely problematic though. All I can think to do at this stage would be to enter the approximate manufacturing years (like you have already begun collating) into the label profile to help identify potential reissues, since cat# sorting on the VDC profile is obviously gonna be too messy to analyse.

What I mean is, put this information in the VDC Group label profile:

"www.vdcgroup.com
2000: 054xx-09xxx
2001: 09xxx-23xxx
2002: 23xxx-35xxx
2003: 35xxx-50xxx
2004: 50xxx-70xxx
2005: 69xxx-77946 (last known www.vdcgroup.com matrix)

no manufacturer in matrix (6 digits)*
2006: 000001?-003xxx (lowest known 000233)
2007: 003xxx-011xxx
2008: 011xxx-021xxx
2009: 021xxx-032xxx
2010: 032xxx-042xxx
2011: 042xxx-051xxx
2012: 051xxx-057xxx
2013: 057xxx-068xxx
2014: 068xxx-077094 (last known 6-digit matrix)"

If the 6-digit matrix numbers from 2006-14 are sequential then it would be useful to be able to identify reissues based on this information in the label profile. That way it doesn't matter that we can't properly distinguish the pre-2005 numbering from the post-2005 numbering from the DVD numbering schemes when sorting the label page by cat#.

star_man_20
Wait, why wouldn't we? Is there something in the guidelines prohibiting this?

Dr.SultanAszazin
There are no specific requirements except: must be a unique numbering, must be assigned by that specific company.
These requirements are met by vdc group. Little reason to not add the number.

This is the point yes. The numbers are added by VDC Group so if we are adding them they should be added to that profile's page.

gemini80s
Almost exactly the same situation but those are actually glass master numbers. This is not even debatable.

These profile pages have no standardization and they should. A glass master number should go to the company using it, we should be treating brands and companies as separate things. This would be accurate to reality then, The same as we did for www.gz and GZ. This is applied in an ad hoc fashion on Discogs but we should be using one method.

gemini80s
How can 1995-1997 CD Systems numbers be glass master numbers when the plant did not do any glass mastering until 1998? Don't you see that these are simply company numbers?

Sorry I need to better clarify, IFPI LD11 wasn't implemented until 1998, the company was however manufacturing discs by 1994. The company entered into a five year operating lease for its first disc replicator in 1993, upon the expiration of the lease and the equipment becoming wholly owned by VDC Group IFPI LD11 seems to have been added to the LBR machine, the same circumstance seems to have been true of LD12 and 13. In June of 1994 the owners of VDC Group ed the business and name CD Systems, prior to this they started in the disc manufacture business as brokers essentially, which is why the earliest discs that say "Made by VDC" all have PDO, UK matrices, whatever the circumstance, CD System never actually brokered any business itself and was only a matrix brand in the end. VDC was actually a VHS duplicating business and it seems the initial intention was to run the new CD manufacturing business under a separate name. Once the switch from VDC to CD Systems as the manufacturing name in the matrix happens you can see two types of matrices. Both will say "Made By CD Systems" however when CD Systems did not have the disc manufactured by VDC Group there is no glass master/order number in the matrix. In the style of this one, Various - Café Del Mar, this is because the numbers are not related to CD Systems, however the CD System discs which have a catalog number until 1998 and LD11 appears will have no IFPI number and this is an indicator of a VDC Group master, you see, the number only appears on discs which were made by VDC Group. CD System discs not made by VDC don't have a number.
You can see here also, Various - Ain't Misbehavin'. glass mastered by someone other than VDC, no catalog number, this one was however pressed by VDC.
You will see this fact repeated throughout like again here Ken Boothe - The Ken Boothe Collection and so on.

Myriad
What I mean is, put this information in the VDC Group label profile:

I think this is a helpful start, we can at least give guidance indicating a "Glass Mastered At" credit for VDC Group with the known numbers and SIDs irrespective of the decision on adding numbers to LCCN. This would still help accomplish the task of identifying reissues/represses.

I think that ideally in the end it would be most accurate to have the profiles say:

CD Systems
When "Made by CD Systems" appears in matrix credit CD Systems with a "manufactured by" credit (with no number in LCCN) and (depending on further discussion) the fact that they are a brand used by VDC Group as a disc broker and that pre 2008 releases can be identified as VDC Group masters by the presence of the VDC Group number (and maybe we could then give VDC Group the Glass Master credit) and with the lack of the number it will have been mastered by someone else such as PDO, PMDC, etc. which can sometimes be identified by those companies matrix types.
VDC
Appears as "Made by VDC" in the matrix of early VDC Group manufactured discs, give only a manufactured by credit as these early discs appear to have all been glass mastered elsewhere.
www.VDCGroup.com
Matrix branding used by VDC Group starting around 2000, give only a manufactured by credit and with the presence of the VDC Group number and SIDs a credit of Glass masteriing By to VDC Group.
VDC Group
With the presence of the known Mastering SIDs and numbering schemes a "Glass Mastered" credit can be given and with the presence of the known Mould SIDs KAxx a "Pressed By" credit can be given.

JoshPeer
When "Made by CD Systems" appears in matrix credit CD Systems with a "manufactured by" credit (with no number in LCCN

All CD Systems 5 digit numbers are proven to be sequential and unique and are therefore perfectly valid for LCCN. Does not matter if CD Systems belonged to VDC Group. This was the company used in matrix and we have no valid reason not to add those numbers to that company even if they reset toward the end in 2000.

www.VDCGroup.com matrix numbers are 100% unique and sequential. Absolutely NO valid argument against entering these company numbers in LCCN.

No matter how hard you try with your tedious rants and baseless arguments that none of numbers should be entered, your efforts to derail this project will fail. You are not the decision maker here, your opinion is worth no more than one vote just like the rest of us. You are behaving as if you know everything and we know nothing. You will not bully your way through this issue, mark my words.

JoshPeer
I think that ideally in the end it would be most accurate to have the profiles say:

In principle I agree with all your suggestions here, with a couple of small tweaks:

JoshPeer
CD Systems
When "Made by CD Systems" appears in matrix credit CD Systems with a "manufactured by" credit

To follow the discogs "as on release" rule it would be better to use Made By than Mfd By

JoshPeer
and that pre 2008 releases can be identified as VDC Group masters by the presence of the VDC Group number (and maybe we could then give VDC Group the Glass Master credit)

This sounds logical to me for the CD Systems discs

JoshPeer
VDC
Appears as "Made by VDC" in the matrix of early VDC Group manufactured discs, give only a manufactured by credit as these early discs appear to have all been glass mastered elsewhere.

Again, Made By would be more true to the "as on release".

That said, is there a reason that VDC needs to be kept separate from VDC Group? Do we know when the company went from being VDC or VDC Ltd or whatever, to being VDC Group?

JoshPeer
www.VDCGroup.com
Matrix branding used by VDC Group starting around 2000, give only a manufactured by credit and with the presence of the VDC Group number and SIDs a credit of Glass masteriing By to VDC Group.

Yes, I like this. Personally I think we should move towards treating all URL brands this way rather than ever asg a Glass Mastered or Pressed role to a URL.

JoshPeer
VDC Group
With the presence of the known Mastering SIDs and numbering schemes a "Glass Mastered" credit can be given and with the presence of the known Mould SIDs KAxx a "Pressed By" credit can be given.

I think you mean mould SID 5Q**, otherwise yes.

ALL THAT SAID, I am still tending towards thinking that we should allow the VDC matrix number into LCCN. We know that the numbers are unique, assigned by/associated with VDC, and are sequential within the ~2 numbering schemes used for CDs and the separate scheme used for DVDs. It makes more sense to me than SM where it was decided that numbers which are not sequential at all were agreed to be entered in LCCN.

I think the combination of LCCN numbers entered for VDC and the approximate manufacturing dates for each numbering scheme that gemini80s has determined in the label profile is probably our best way to help guide us in identifying and tagging reissues where appropriate.

Myriad
is there a reason that VDC needs to be kept separate from VDC Group? Do we know when the company went from being VDC or VDC Ltd or whatever, to being VDC Group

"VDC" matrices started in 1994. These became "CD Systems" when in-house mastering started in 1995. "VDC GROUP UK" was first used in 2000, which quickly became "www.vdcgroup.com".

So the 5 year gap between last VDC and first VDC Group releases should be enough to keep these labels separate IMO.

Well, this plant's matrix numbers from 1999/2000 are apparently more complicated than I concluded here: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/1003703#10245470

Some numbers discrepancy can be attributed to different mastering SID codes:

Original number sequence by plant apparently did not reset after 25279 (Various - Soul Togetherness 2000 late 2000) last used with www.vdcgroup.com.
The other machine(s) in use at the time=without mastering SID code started a new numbering sequence still with CD Systems name, likely also late 1999. This would explain why 2 separate sequences of numbers were used concurrently with CD Systems, VDC GROUP UK (1999-2000) and www.vdcgroup.com (2000) matrices.

These multiple disc examples nicely show the different number sequences/SID codes:

Various - The Legendary Sun Records Story (2000)
Matrix / Runout (CD 1): PBXCD336/A CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 25738
Mastering SID Code (CD 1): IFPI LD11
Matrix / Runout (CD 2): PBXCD336/TWO CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 25727
Mastering SID Code (CD 2): IFPI LD11
Matrix / Runout (CD 3): PBXCD336/THREE CASTLE CD Systems UK 03802
Mastering SID Code (CD 3): none
(this release likely proves that VDC GROUP UK and CD Systems matrices briefly overlapped; IFPI LD11 matrices changed to VDC likely in 1999, the other machine(s) not before 2000)

Foghat - Tight Shoes / Girls To Chat (1999)
Matrix / Runout (CD 1): ESACD836/A CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 04543
Matrix / Runout (CD 2): ESACD836/TWO CASTLE VDC GROUP UK 25328#
Mastering SID Code (CD 2): IFPI LD11
(CD1 without SID)

Various - Vir2ual Drum Bass (2000):
Matrix / Runout (CD1): VIRTCD203/A RUMOUR 26319 www.vdcgroup.com
Matrix / Runout (CD2): VIRTCD203/TWO RUMOUR 05469 www.vdcgroup.com
Mastering SID Code (CD1): IFPI LD11
(CD2 without SID)

Mike Cooper - Paper And Smoke (2000)
Matrix / Runout (CD 1): CMDDD073/A SANCTUARY 30098 www.vdcgroup.com
Mastering SID Code (CD 1): IFPI LD11
Matrix / Runout (CD 2): CMDDD073/B SANCTUARY *09219 www.vdcgroup.com
Mastering SID Code (CD 2): IFPI LD13

Matrix numbers between 262xx-301xx with www.vdcgroup.com branding were used in either 2000 or 2002. I'm quite certain that every number was unique to each release, so this should not present any issues with LCCN entries.

IFPI LD11 was not apparently not used during 2001 and 2002 (reappeared around late 2003).

gemini80s
"VDC" matrices started in 1994. These became "CD Systems" when in-house mastering started in 1995. "VDC GROUP UK" was first used in 2000, which quickly became "www.vdcgroup.com".

So the 5 year gap between last VDC and first VDC Group releases should be enough to keep these labels separate IMO.

But was the company known as VDC Group even back in 1994 when it was identified as VDC in 1994? If so I think they should be merged into one profile.

Myriad
better to use Made By than Mfd By

Myriad
I think you mean mould SID 5Q**

Yes, agreed, those were errors on my end.

Myriad
We know that the numbers are unique, assigned by/associated with VDC, and are sequential within the ~2 numbering schemes used for CDs and the separate scheme used for DVDs

After looking at various discussions on previous number entries, I'm of the mind that numbers do not have to be sequential from beginning to end, so having sequences of sequential numbers is ok for LCCN entry. These numbers are somewhat convoluted so will not help with sorting on the label page much the same as with the GM Records page et al.

Myriad
That said, is there a reason that VDC needs to be kept separate from VDC Group? Do we know when the company went from being VDC or VDC Ltd or whatever, to being VDC Group?

So the actual company that owned the LBRs and made the glass masters was from 1994 to 2014 The Video Duplicating Company Limited, in 1999 there was a change in the list of Directors with the company that brought in more Directors that also had ownership in related companies, this coincides (mid 1999) with the change in the company presenting itself as two entities, VDC Ltd and CD Systems into one, VDC Group, by the end of 1999 trade publications were mentioning that these two entities were now the VDC Group. this was only a branding as the name was never ed independently. 1999 was also the year that they received their first DVD replicators and was potentially a reason for dropping the CD Systems broker identity.

This may come across as heretical but a company profile for The Video Duplicating Company Ltd that would receive all the Glass Mastered At credits would be best. One could also add all the numbers to that profile then with whatever broker branding appears in the matrix receiving the Made By credit as mentioned above.

I don't believe its been mentioned in the thread yet but the renumbering that commenced in 2005-2006 was due to a fire at the replicting plant in July 2005 that destroyed all their equipment, they had to rebuild at a new location and start fresh in 2006.

Another note is that the numbering and SIDs do not only appear on discs with the various broker brandings but also on many discs which do not mention CD Systems, VDC Group etc,.

There are a few hundred cases where DEMON MUSIC GROUP is part of the matrix along with IFPI LD12 and 5Qxx plus the odd occurrence of www.vdc....etc also being part of the matrix. They mostly seem to be between 2000 and 2005.

Would these be useful to look at when tying down number sequences?

I'm happy to help by the way - just let me know.

Thanks for this research! I only noticed this thread now but have been pondering about VDC Group related things for a while.

A comment to this though: "Mould SID code: IFPI 5Q** (often misread as 50**)"
It's not always misread. For example in https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/719616?page=11&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#9339616

What comes to URL profiles, I'm for crediting them with "Made By" and leaving the "Glass Mastered At" for the company itself. TAKT was mentioned here as an example and I don't understand why the sequential number shouldn't be added to TAKT profile when there is only URL and no TAKT logos as they are still continuation of TAKT numbers. I some claimed that neither URL or TAKT brand is the company name, but what is the company name then? TAKT is used based on sequential code and SID codes in case no brand is mentioned in the matrix after all, no URL nor any "official" company name. Anyway, a bit off-topic for this thread, but my point being that generally I don't understand separating the sequential numbers to URLs only.

FinskaZaba
A comment to this though: "Mould SID code: IFPI 5Q** (often misread as 50**)"
It's not always misread. For example in Girlschool - Hit And Run there are both IFPI 5Q** and IFPI 50** codes. See the image I took after requested by Klass.Animal in https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/719616?page=11&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#9339616

To me that image starts with 5Q.

Warepire
To me that image starts with 5Q

I thought that also then spotted the faint code in the outer ring. Odd.

Warepire
FinskaZabaA comment to this though: "Mould SID code: IFPI 5Q** (often misread as 50**)"
It's not always misread. For example in Girlschool - Hit And Run there are both IFPI 5Q** and IFPI 50** codes. See the image I took after requested by Klass.Animal in https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/719616?page=11&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#9339616

To me that image starts with 5Q.

You see there are two different mould SID codes in the same image? One starts with 5Q but the other one clearly with 50.

FinskaZaba
WarepireFinskaZabaA comment to this though: "Mould SID code: IFPI 5Q** (often misread as 50**)"
It's not always misread. For example in Girlschool - Hit And Run there are both IFPI 5Q** and IFPI 50** codes. See the image I took after requested by Klass.Animal in https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/719616?page=11&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#9339616

To me that image starts with 5Q.

You see there are two different mould SID codes in the same image? One starts with 5Q but the other one clearly with 50.

Now I see.

I also collected some data of SID codes from the releases in my collection (especially those with IFPI LD12, and IFPI 50** instead of IFPI 5Q**) in my message in https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/719616?page=11&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#9339277

Sometimes there is also IFPI KA**. Is that related to VDC Group too?

Can't be 50** because that mould SID belongs to DADC (Terre Haute). 5O** maybe...

gemini80s
Can't be 50** because that mould SID belongs to DADC (Terre Haute). 5O** maybe...

Could it be a mistake of the manufacturing plant in this case? Or even pressed by DADC for some reason? Because it clearly looks like 50**, not 5O**.

FinskaZaba
a mistake of the manufacturing plant

It's very odd, sure looks more like a 0 but it must be an O. Not pressed by DADC because their mould SID codes look different (closer to the 5Q** variant).

Manufacturing error seems extremely unlikely since there are so many of these, and I doubt this "mistake" would have gone unnoticed by the industry (I believe each plant was assigned specific SID codes for protection against this kind of stuff).

Here's the link to the image in question, in case anyone else needs it: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/2548942-Girlschool-Hit-And-Run/image/SW1hZ2U6NzM1OTM2MTk=
The Mould SID codes in the image are quite clearly "5003" and "5Q08".

gemini80s
Manufacturing error seems extremely unlikely since there are so many of these, and I doubt this "mistake" would have gone unnoticed by the industry (I believe each plant was assigned specific SID codes for protection against this kind of stuff).

Is it possible that they are using a run of blanks that were sourced from another manufacturer that had already been stamped and that when they manufactured the CD, they also added their mould SID? I'm guessing the relative positioning of the mould stamps may be helpful in establishing this.

FinskaZaba
A comment to this though: "Mould SID code: IFPI 5Q** (often misread as 50**)"
It's not always misread. For example in Girlschool - Hit And Run there are both IFPI 5Q** and IFPI 50** codes. See the image I took after requested by Klass.Animal in https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/719616?page=11&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#9339616

gemini80s
Can't be 50** because that mould SID belongs to DADC (Terre Haute). 5O** maybe...

Well, it's either 5003 or 5OO3, as the two 0 characters look identical. I think 5003 is far more likely. Apparently it can be 50** on VDC discs. I guess this is a good example of the risk of us associating mould SID codes too definitively with a specific pressing plant.

spekem
Is it possible that they are using a run of blanks that were sourced from another manufacturer that had already been stamped and that when they manufactured the CD, they also added their mould SID? I'm guessing the relative positioning of the mould stamps may be helpful in establishing this.

Possibly, as the 5003 code looks like it is ?stamped? over the mirror band rather than moulded into the plastic layer like a true mould SID should be.

Either way, it's very interesting. It would be more interesting to know whether any genuine 50** discs exist from VDC without an additional 5Q** code.

Myriad
it's either 5003 or 5OO3, as the two 0 characters look identical. I think 5003 is far more likely. Apparently it can be 50** on VDC discs

Well I'm quite sure it's 5OO3. Do you seriously believe DADC and VDC (completely unrelated companies) would stamp the exact same mould codes in the same period?

VDC (2002)
Anathema - Resonance 2

DADC (2002)
star_man_20 can check this one)

I know DADC's zero is shaped like the 0 we see in this forum. DADC's mould SID is certainly 50**.

The VDC 0 looks far more square on that image, which means it could very well be an O. Note that we don't have any 50O* codes in the database, but we have over 200 VDC entries with mould SID 500*. So these codes are all up to our interpretation at this point. Until I see some actual evidence that VDC used 50** moulds, I'm convinced the middle digits are NOT zeros.

Edited to add the label info\Typos corrected
I only have one VDC release with two mould SID's on. One on the ring nearest to the centre hole and one slightly further out.
Both are very poorly stamped and very easy to read as a 0 or O instead of a Q.
If you view at an angle with a good magnifier and also one of them from the printed side you can see they are definitely a Q.
In this case they transpose as IFPI 5Q01 / IFPI 5Q03
I find some of these are impossible to scan or photo clearly enough to show the Q as the tail can be very faint or appear as a slight dot within the circle.

Also came from the Castle Music label. I have a feeling that the ones with two Mould SID's are represses, but I cannot prove this.

Myriad

Either way, it's very interesting. It would be more interesting to know whether any genuine 50** discs exist from VDC without an additional 5Q** code.

Yes, they do. For example this: Black Sabbath - Never Say Die!. There is no matrix image ed but I can confirm there is only IFPI 5003 (or possibly 5OO3).

gemini80s
Until I see some actual evidence that VDC used 50** moulds, I'm convinced the middle digits are NOT zeros.

What kind of evidence do you need to see? You've already seen the evidence but decided that it must be 5OO3 as it can "NOT" be 5003 according to your own preconception.

FinskaZaba
Yes, they do. For example this: Black Sabbath - Never Say Die!. There is no matrix image ed but I can confirm there is only IFPI 5003 (or possibly 5OO3).

Is there any chance you could a photo of that mould SID code?

Myriad
Is there any chance you could a photo of that mould SID code?

I tried. It's very difficult to take a clear photo of mould SID codes, at least with my camera. This is the best one of the 16 attempts: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/1142646-Black-Sabbath-Never-Say-Die/image/SW1hZ2U6MTAzNzY5MDUw

Can someone check this release - Marc Bolan - The Beginning Of Doves? There are two VDC numbers. Is Variant 2 here a subsequent repress? Still confused with VDC / CD Systems etc.
I recently updated this and have left vdc as 'Made By' until clarification.
Pinging gemini80s.

The_Titan_Find
Is Variant 2 here a subsequent repress?

I'm not aware of any rule to split subs based on sequence number alone.

KenSpagnolo
The_Titan_FindIs Variant 2 here a subsequent repress?
I'm not aware of any rule to split subs based on sequence number alone.

If the numbers ARE sequential then that would point to different pressing dates. If that's the case then they definitely would be split.

The_Titan_Find
If the numbers ARE sequential then that would point to different pressing dates.

Well, the profile refers to them as sequential, if that's the only question.

The_Titan_Find
If that's the case then they definitely would be split.

I see this done a lot, but I can't quote a profile that says to do so. There are profiles that say that sequence changes within 18mos or 2yrs should be considered part of the same run, so not split. I've asked in several forums what the cut off limit should be and I never get an answer. And with analogous vinyl lacquers, I've been told explicitly different dates in lacquers are variants only. Not saying this makes sense, but I've got nothing to hang a split on.

The_Titan_Find
If the numbers ARE sequential then that would point to different pressing dates. If that's the case then they definitely would be split.

My understanding is that where there is a different (new) manufacturer catalogue number, that is considered to be sequential, in the matrix you will also have a new glass master and so it should be split.......but subject to the 18 month 'rule' as well. Looks like your matrix layout is slightly different as well?

spekem
The_Titan_FindIf the numbers ARE sequential then that would point to different pressing dates. If that's the case then they definitely would be split.

My understanding is that where there is a different (new) manufacturer catalogue number, that is considered to be sequential, in the matrix you will also have a new glass master and so it should be split.......but subject to the 18 month 'rule' as well. Looks like your matrix layout is slightly different as well?

Yes, my original has the " * " used in early VDC numbers. While the later Variant 2 does not.

KenSpagnolo
The_Titan_FindIf the numbers ARE sequential then that would point to different pressing dates.
Well, the profile refers to them as sequential, if that's the only question.

The_Titan_FindIf that's the case then they definitely would be split.
I see this done a lot, but I can't quote a profile that says to do so. There are profiles that say that sequence changes within 18mos or 2yrs should be considered part of the same run, so not split. I've asked in several forums what the cut off limit should be and I never get an answer. And with analogous vinyl lacquers, I've been told explicitly different dates in lacquers are variants only. Not saying this makes sense, but I've got nothing to hang a split on.

Yes. Can't find much on VDC numbers or when they were supposed to be used. So not sure of the gap between these variant pressings. Add both to LCCN? As Glass Mastered by VDC? Or leave as is without adding them?

The_Titan_Find
Add both to LCCN? As Glass Mastered by VDC? Or leave as is without adding them?

Speaking generally, I think add both whenever there's not a specific reason to split, to the role specified in the profile. For VDC, the examples are pressed by instead of glass mastered at.

KenSpagnolo
The_Titan_FindAdd both to LCCN? As Glass Mastered by VDC? Or leave as is without adding them?
Speaking generally, I think add both whenever there's not a specific reason to split, to the role specified in the profile. For VDC, the examples are pressed by instead of glass mastered at.

Thanks! Will do.

The_Titan_Find
Add both to LCCN? As Glass Mastered by VDC? Or leave as is without adding them?

I would add both to LCCN on one submission until it is eventually decided what to do about the matrix numbers (see protracted discussion in this thread that I need to revisit).

And Glass Mastered At would be the best role.

Myriad
And Glass Mastered At would be the best role.

Why glass mastered when the profile says pressed by?

Myriad
And Glass Mastered At would be the best role.

As the IFPI LD1x mastering SIDs have apparently moved to Brazil after VDC's closure, I would add something like "Only add a glass mastering credit when appearing with the 5- or 6-digit sequential number" to the label pages.

As for a pressed by credit, I guess it can safely be added since the IFPI 5Qxx mould SIDs have disappeared after 2014/2015.

I used 'Pressed By' until a more definite consensus is reached.

The_Titan_Find
I used 'Pressed By' until a more definite consensus is reached.

+1

also the profile would need updating first to clearly state the roles to use.
Currently the statement 'The Video Duplicating Company (VDC) was an independent optical disc replicator founded in the UK in 1982.' would suggest Pressed By.
Later: 'In 2010, VDC became the first UK company to install Blu-ray mastering and replication machinery' So I read this as they Pressed Blu-ray's and I'm assuming Glass Mastered (rather than sound mastering) Blu-ray's

Katie Melua - Call Off The Search
Also many releases like this not given a LCCN role as we would have to currently go by SID codes only. Hence the proposed profile update here.

Cl0ver
The_Titan_FindI used 'Pressed By' until a more definite consensus is reached.

+1

also the profile would need updating first to clearly state the roles to use.
Currently the statement 'The Video Duplicating Company (VDC) was an independent optical disc replicator founded in the UK in 1982.' would suggest Pressed By.
Later: 'In 2010, VDC became the first UK company to install Blu-ray mastering and replication machinery' So I read this as they Pressed Blu-ray's and I'm assuming Glass Mastered (rather than sound mastering) Blu-ray's

+1
Definitely looks like glass mastering began in 2010 according to the info.

KenSpagnolo
Why glass mastered when the profile says pressed by?

That was being discussed in the first 70-80 posts of this thread.

handmedownurluv
As the IFPI LD1x mastering SIDs have apparently moved to Brazil after VDC's closure, I would add something like "Only add a glass mastering credit when appearing with the 5- or 6-digit sequential number" to the label pages.

Definitely, and not to be used on discs manufactured after 2014.

handmedownurluv
As for a pressed by credit, I guess it can safely be added since the IFPI 5Qxx mould SIDs have disappeared after 2014/2015.

Agreed on this.

The_Titan_Find
Definitely looks like glass mastering began in 2010 according to the info.

For Blu-Rays yes. Glass mastering for CDs and DVDs began long before that.

Myriad
Definitely, and not to be used on discs manufactured after 2014.

I need to rectify based on the Katie Melua release posted by Cl0ver; if we link the SID codes to the matrix numbers such releases wouldn't get LCCN credits so 2014 as the cutoff year should be enough.

Myriad
That was being discussed in the first 70-80 posts of this thread.

Ok, will have a read.