RSG §4.7.5 sternly requires putting price codes in BAOI, never in a catalog number. Indeed, if a price or what we used to call a "distribution" code is mentioned separately from the catalog number on a release, then we are not supposed to invent a catalog number which embeds the code in it. I believe that's what the guideline was created for.
However, there has long been an exception which never made it into the guidelines, but was explicitly stated by nik: (I am paraphrasing here:) If the price code already appears to be embedded within a catalog number, then "as on release" can prevail.
This was to keep it simple for s—we do not expect anyone to dissect and infer meaning from the various parts of what is ostensibly a catalog number, so for our purposes, we routinely fill the catalog number field with whatever seems to be a valid catalog number, as long as it is printed all together, all on one line somewhere on the release. Such price codes can still be added to BAOI, in any case.
Examples:
• Ariola (): 123 456-789 (789 is price code)
• TELDEC (): 1.23456 AE (AE is price code)
• EMI (Europe): 1C 038 12 3456 7 (038 is price code... you probably didn't know that)
• WEA (US): 9 12345-0 A (A is price code... bet you didn't know that either)
*nb: Nik was wrong when he said the TELDEC code was never found to the side of the cat#, but to be fair, it is often below.
Any price codes not so tightly integreated into the catalog number are generally not treated as part of the catalog number. For example, on an Ariola release, there might be a catalog number, and then off to the side, "F:" with the French price code and "D: -789" with the German price code; these would be eligible for BAOI entry only. This does lead to inconsistencies, but we are not concerned about that.
Now, there was some discussion much later re: circled and boxed codes next to the catalog number, as used by PolyGram. These were a little more ambiguous and were being handled haphazardly. IIRC, it was finally decided to treat those as separate, not part of the catalog number, for our purposes; the circle or box was just too strong of a separator.
Of course, none of this ever made it into the guidelines! And that's why I am bringing it up now. Shouldn't the exception be added to RSG §4.7.5?
Proposed amendment to RSG §4.7.5: Sometimes a catalog number is printed on the release with an integrated price code. If the price code is printed as if it were part of the catalog number, i.e. on the same line and not boxed or circled, then it may be included in the catalog number field. It can still also be entered in a BAOI field; see RSG §5.2.g."
RSG §5.2.g could likewise be amended: "If the price code is not circled or boxed, and is printed alongside or within the catalog number, then it can also be included in the catalog number."
I’m with you. Price codes appear embedded in all parts of catalogue numbers - the Columbia prefixes, the Capitol prefixes, all the EMI LP prefixes worldwide until the 70s, the UA suffix etc. Sometimes it’s just common sense but a clarification might be good.
