I lived in the UK until I was 14; all of our 45s had small holes, just like albums. I always wondered why they had the large holes here in the U.S.

They made them with the large holes so they would work with the large round 45 adapters.

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

The large hole was standardized for the original RCA 45 RPM changers in 1949.The main drawback with the large hole is records easily going off center.
-

MARKETING.

The 45rpm record, in the United States, was an entirely new concept. It came close to failing as badly as video discs, but it really took off in sales and turned out to be one of the best recording ideas of the century. RCA practically gave away many of its cheaper 45 players in order to sell 45rpm records.

RCA Victor invented the 45-rpm record so they also had to invent a phonograph to play them on. It was an entirely new concept. The big hole was designed mainly for the ease of handling. A whole stack of records can be held on one finger and loaded on the "Big Pylon" spindle with great ease.
Development began in the early '40s and halted due to the war. Immediately after the war 78-rpm record sales were booming so RCA let the 45-system sit on the shelf. Columbia sucker-punched RCA with the introduction of the Lp record in '48. RCA was invited to climb on board in but declined, dusted off the 45 system plans and had it on the market by March of '49. RCA contracted Crescent Manufacturing to help manufacture some of the phonographs. It was quite impressive that they could bring the new system from the drawing board to the market so fast.
The 45 system almost failed. RCA was ready to pull the plug by the end of '49 but pop music loving kids discovered the small, light weight, portable records and started buying them like crazy. By '55 the 45-rpm single outsold the 10-inch 78-rpm single.
The 45-rpm record and RCA 45-rpm record players were the success story of the decade.

Some early 45's had optional centers that could be punched out of the record. Webster Chicago designed a metal insert that would lock into the center hole so records could be played automatically on full size record changers with standard small spindles.

Pre-war 45-rpm system concepts .


Introduced in March of '49, the 9-EY-31 portable RCA Victor 45-rpm Victrola built by Crescent Manufacturing.


One of the last portable RCA 45-rpm Victrolas manufactured in '57. 8-HF-45P New Orthophonic High Fidelity

The original 45 changer that RCA Victor invented required that the record change within one revolution of the turntable
so the larger hole was necessary to keep the stack more stable while the records turned and then dropped down onto the turntable. RCA Victor advertised that their changer was "the fastest in the world", so the large hole was a matter of practicality.
I always wondered why the UK did not follow industry standard and made 45's with small holes, but I guess that was
a matter of practicality as well because it seems that a large number of record players in the UK seemed to be single play and were not stack up machines, although some of the Dansettes had BSR changers in them, so I guess that both sides fashioned the 45 according to what worked for them.

RCA made a big deal about the spindle. They chose it for ease of handling records then claimed that it was more reliable, had fewer moving parts and was the "magic" of the whole system. It may have had fewer moving parts visible to the operator but it was complex and very unreliable compared to a small standard spindle. The bigger circumference of the large hole created greater friction area on the record and a slower record drop. Records jammed and were ruined. The RP-168 spindle went through several major revisions in the first few months of manufacture. The tone arm dumped on the record so fast it bounced. A pneumatic dashpot was added to damp the tone arm landing but it doubled the cycle time. The first models were obviously rush-jobs in design and manufacture.

The RP-190 introduced in ’50 was much simpler, more refined and reliable. It lasted for 8 years.

Wow, thanks for the information everyone! Now it makes sense; I still prefer the 45s with the small holes though; it's just easier to not have to put the adaptor on when going from one size to another.

Ease of handling and practicality were just excuses for attempting to lock buyers into buying RCA's products.
The same thing was attempted by numerous companies in the 1900s & 1910s. Columbias "client" machines & others, increased the spindle size, so if you bought a "Standard Talking machine co" gramophone for example, you could only play "Standard" brand records.
It was a silly idea in the 1900s & a silly idea in the 1940s, and Im surprized it lasted in USA when it was a dismal failure everywhere else in the world.
HMV (EMI) in the UK actually released a 45 rpm player with a large spindle straight after RCA, but nobody wanted them, so they had to quickly revert to a normal spindle hole if they wanted the 45 format to succeed.
As repairTech said, it was nothing more than [RCA] marketing. If there had been any genuine advantage to the large spindle, it would have caught on elsewhere. In America, RCA was in direct competition with Columbia, who had released their new 33 1/3 rpm discs, so it was just their way to ensure future record sales.

I always thought the 45-rpm spindle was the coolest part of a record changer. Many of the early ones were beautiful.

Most companies are in the business of trying to rule the world. They all have gimmicks. They are in it for profit and nothing more. RCA's silly idea made them and all other record manufacturers a lot of money. The 45 was a smash hit here in the states because it was a good value. It allowed us to buy only the song we wanted to play. A contiguous mix of songs could be played without having to attend the phonograph. The Lp was a waste of real estate for popular music. Buy 12 songs just to get the one or two you want to hear? Not me.

The Lp was almost perfect for the original oldies, classical music. I think I bought one of those once.

I should have stated: Propriatory Marketing.
Just like today - ya buy a Dell computer, and ya gotta buy Dell stuff to work with it.

I always thought that the larger spindle had two practical purposes: 1) the record-changing mechanism (shelves and separator plates) could be located inside the spindle for more reliability, and 2) the larger hole meant less pressure and wear. Notice how chewed up the center hole of a 78 rpm record can be -- that doesn't happen on a 45.

-David

The original idea of the large hole in the 45 was so that the record dropping mechanism would fit in the spindle. If you look at most pre-1949 record changers they either have rotating knives or a pusher drop mech. I beileve VM was the first to use the thin spindle drop mech that we're all now familiar with, but it was not common at the time, and tended to chew the holes up in 78s.

There's always a lot of talk about how the RP-168 was imperfect, but every one I've ever overhauled runs like a Swiss watch.

Ken D.

edit: Looks like I owe dberman51 a beer, he beat me by about a minute with much the same info.

Not the first time, either. Didn't They have competing Television approaches in the late '30's, and competing TV color technologies in the early '50's as well?

Just like Hoover and Eureka.
Bill Gates and Mr Apple.
etc etc etc...

As I see it, Victor was usually the leader and Columbia followed. Victor had lateral disc records first, and even though Columbia came out with the LP, when RCA Victor began making LPs they sounded better than Columbias, perhaps due to the recording curve used. To my ears, Victor/RCA Victor records sound better and wear better than Columbia records right from the early 1900s to the end of the LP era.

Ken D.

A link to the June 26, 1948 Billboard issue with the Columbia LP Story page 18 and more.
http://books.google.com/books?id=d_UDAA ... LP&f=false

A link to the April 2, 1949 Billboard issue introducing the 45 system. Cover and page 35-38 Four full pages.
http://books.google.com/books?id=50QEAA ... le&f=false