The Record Collectors Guild Forum Index

Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
MCTOffline
Post subject: RE: How to tell original pressing  PostPosted: Jun 17, 2008 - 10:31 AM
R.C.Guild-SM
R.C.Guild-SM


Joined: Jun 11, 2006
Posts: 328

Status: Offline
This is one of those questions that seems to come up a lot. Here are a few more threads on this topic which may be of interest:

http://www.recordcollectorsguild.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=332339

http://www.recordcollectorsguild.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=42400
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
KentTOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Oct 20, 2009 - 08:40 PM
R.C.Guild-SM
R.C.Guild-SM


Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 589

Status: Offline
Original UK of this would be Pink Label A1/B1 with cover printed by E.J. Day in England.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
hobbyshopOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Feb 05, 2010 - 05:48 PM
Level 1
Level 1


Joined: Feb 05, 2010
Posts: 1

Status: Offline
I was just putting some of my old 45s in the computer and noticed that Vee-Jay had the year of pressing on the label. There was a one-up number difference from the A-side to the B-side also.
Four Seasons Marlena/Candy Girl VJ539. The numbers that I noticed were 63-3313 and 63-3314 on the A and B sides.
I wonder which other companies did something like that?
Also Is the 3313 and 3314 a run sequence number?
The song Marlena came out in 1963 according to Billboard.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
annaloogOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Feb 05, 2010 - 11:28 PM
R.C.Guild-M-SMR
R.C.Guild-M-SMR


Joined: Jun 03, 2003
Posts: 12491
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
Status: Offline
hobbyshop wrote:
... and noticed that Vee-Jay had the year of pressing on the label....
Vee-Jay's year prefix denotes the year of the original Vee-Jay master, not the pressing date. Reissues, either "second pressings" or on, say, Tollie or Oldies 45 show the same year prefix.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
FredCOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Oct 02, 2011 - 08:35 AM
R.C.Guild-SM
R.C.Guild-SM


Joined: May 15, 2007
Posts: 352
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
As has been exampled already, telling one pressing from another can vary from label to label, plant to plant. If you really NEED to know, you first have to educate yourself about the record in question by researching it's History.

Such a query revealed itself when I was trying to determine just when a certain single was issued. Not the specific release date, but just a general time as to when the record was initially offered for sale to the public. Assembling some of the pieces led me to discover that the actual record was released in July, 1960 (catalog number), but recorded no later than February, 1960 (matrix codes). But the real research didn't begin until after.

The initial record in question was Carlo & Jimmy's "Rockin' Rocket" on the Laurie label. They were Carlo Mastrangelo (of Dion & the Belmonts) and Jimmy George (who played guitar for the group). It was issued about three months before it was announced that Dion and the Belmonts would be going there separate ways, which was in October. Before then, Dion had already cut his first solo sides (in September), so the parting wasn't abrupt as it would appear. Anyway, this led to further wonderment about their other material. It's been said that their last album, WISH UPON A STAR (Laurie LLP 2006), was issued nearly a year AFTER the group parted ways. This could be easily justified in that ALONE WITH DION had an earlier catalog number, LLP 2004. But in digging thru Billboard on line, the WISH UPON A STAR lp shows as being reviewed in June, 1960. ALONE WITH DION was reviewed in February, 1961. Given the facts, there was no way that ALONE could have pre-dated WISH, especially since none of the songs were even recorded yet. The matrix codes further enforce this. WISH used RCA codes, them with the "L" prefix, and the way it was presented, mastered in the first half of the year, which substantiated the June review. ALONE used Columbia, and based on that number, February, 1961, was a valid issue time, not too much earlier than that. Note also that these matrix codes could be found on the label as well as the dead wax.

But it gets even more confusing. PRESENTING DION & THE BELMONTS was initially reviewed in Billboard in May, 1959, on Laurie LLP 1002. That issue used Columbia numbers (also on the label) which back that up. It was reissued in the second half of 1960, but on Laurie LLP 2002, that based upon the RCA master numbers used. I would figure it was when the group dissolved their union. Again, the code, with the "L" prefix, backs this up. But THEN, there are also copies LLP 2002 using the "N" RCA pefix, which date from the second half of 1962. This may have happened when Dion left the Laurie label for Columbia.

This led me to investigate further the "RARE" release of the Stereo (re-channeled) issue of PRESENTING on Laurie SLP 2002. As it turns out, after inquiring about the master codes on there (RCA starting with "C"), that would be a 1973 release.

BTW, ALONE wasn't the only Laurie lp issued out of catalog number sequence, as I'm sure there are other labels out there who used similar practices.

It all just goes to show, if you really want to know if you have the first pressing of anything, DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST. Not everyone played by the same rules all of the time.

Fred Clemens
 
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address  
Reply with quote Back to top
AbeatlessnutOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 02, 2011 - 08:40 PM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Oct 16, 2005
Posts: 154
Location: Massachucetts
Status: Offline
I have just started to read the first 3 pages of this very interesting topic. Someone mention that terms need to be defined- like "1st Pressing". Now I was always under the impression that this term meaning was the first stamper from the original "mother". Some record companies indeed did note which stamper was in use as they changed numbers as stampers wore out and needed to be replaced (The Big record companies). Bruce Spitzer explains this when he wrote about Original American Capital Beatles Lp's. Once the first stamper needed to be replaced, they'd create another and move the Number to 2. So I always believe 1st pressing ment 1st Stamper. Do you agree or am I all wet?
 
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address  
Reply with quote Back to top
annaloogOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 03, 2011 - 07:22 AM
R.C.Guild-M-SMR
R.C.Guild-M-SMR


Joined: Jun 03, 2003
Posts: 12491
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
Status: Offline
Abeatlessnut wrote:
... So I always believe 1st pressing ment 1st Stamper. Do you agree or ....
The term, "pressing", as used in price guides, ordinarily refers to the design of the record label, differences of which are used to determine the "pressing" order (1st, 2nd, etc) or distinguish between "originals" and "reissues" of otherwise identical copies of a particular title*. The term has nothing to do with the manufacturing process.

Considering that a pressing order from just one factory (let alone several) might be completed by a dozen or so pressing machines running simultaneously, each with different stamper codes (assuming they exist), and that the various plating facilities did not adhere to a uniform standard coding regarding the registration of their mothers and stamper, an attempt at a useful identification based on plates is unlikely to happen.


-------------------------
* There are some specialist price guides which do attempt to establish differences, and assign "pressing" order, based on plating registration differences or other minutiae.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
DollarsternoOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 03, 2011 - 09:08 AM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Nov 02, 2004
Posts: 165
Location: Sautee Nacoochee Ga.
Status: Offline
Here is a good example... Miles Davis on Prestige.
Prestige moved it's address in 1957 when this was released. But because the address changed, the address was removed from back cover and changed on the label....after the move it is considered a second press by collectors. Very tricky. Same year of release but with changes to label and cover concerning the different address' makes a difference to serious collectors and value.


http://www.discogs.com/Miles-Davis-Quintet-Cookin-With-The-Miles-Davis-Quintet/release/2979014
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
namralosOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 03, 2011 - 01:55 PM
R.C.Guild-SM
R.C.Guild-SM


Joined: Jun 10, 2011
Posts: 520
Location: Nevada, USA
Status: Offline
This is true in Bruce's books as well. A first pressing LP has the original label design. They might have used up quite a few stampers
(and even a mother or two) in the first pressing. A change of metal parts does not ordinarily make a record a second pressing.

EXCEPTION: When a change in metal parts results in the substitution of a new version of one or more songs, the next records
are later pressings even if the labels are the same.
Example: true first pressings of the British mono Revolver have not only the original label design ("Dr. Robert" instead of "Doctor Robert")
but also have an alternate mix of "Tomorrow Never Knows." These come only from the first master, XEX-606-1. However, unless
something like this happens, the first pressing runs all the way until the original label design is changed. The first US Apple pressing of
the Let it Be album, for example, ran for quite some time. Reportedly, there were many labels printed in advance.

Frank
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
AbeatlessnutOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 03, 2011 - 05:34 PM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Oct 16, 2005
Posts: 154
Location: Massachucetts
Status: Offline
namralos wrote:
This is true in Bruce's books as well. A first pressing LP has the original label design. They might have used up quite a few stampers
(and even a mother or two) in the first pressing. A change of metal parts does not ordinarily make a record a second pressing.

EXCEPTION: When a change in metal parts results in the substitution of a new version of one or more songs, the next records
are later pressings even if the labels are the same.
Example: true first pressings of the British mono Revolver have not only the original label design ("Dr. Robert" instead of "Doctor Robert")
but also have an alternate mix of "Tomorrow Never Knows." These come only from the first master, XEX-606-1. However, unless
something like this happens, the first pressing runs all the way until the original label design is changed. The first US Apple pressing of
the Let it Be album, for example, ran for quite some time. Reportedly, there were many labels printed in advance.

Frank

That's right, Brain doesn't work like it use to. When I wrote it I was thinking of Jefferson Airplane's "Takes Off" Lp and how everyone wants the 1st pressing with the extra song titles or "Meet The Beatles: without credits (BMI ect..). I was thinking of the exception, not the rule.
 
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2007 The PNphpBB Group
Credits