|
|
Post by JRock on Jun 24, 2017 17:56:44 GMT
Leight Great - feel free to email me what you are looking to sell. I may be interested depending upon the titles. JRock1675@gmail.com.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jun 24, 2017 19:50:28 GMT
Jackie McLean 4013: all features except DG are for an original issue.
what's strange is the address, 47 West 63rd, NO INC + ®.
1) a counterfeit issue.
2) a later issue using leftovers labels.
it's a situation quite similar to 1597, original with DG: most 1597 copies are no dg, most 4013 copies are dg.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Jun 29, 2017 16:52:40 GMT
i often think that we just don't talk about blue note enough.  Agree on that. Blue Note is for me a religious devotion. The sonic qualities of the records are one aspect; however the music contained in those hundreds of albums in the catalogue are just treasure trove. For instance I recently stumbled on something that astounded me while listening to Paul Chambers Quintet BN1564; it turns out that the signature bass riff on " So What" the famous first track off Kind of Blue can be traced all the way back to the album BN1564 that Chambers recorded months earlier before the Kind Of Blue sessions. If anyone has this Chambers record I seriously encourage them to listen to Minor Run-Down, the opening track and then listen to So What. Why is this knowledge so astonishing to me? Because over the years there have been some debates over who is responsible for what on Kind of Blue. It is certainly a Davis' album but the most famous notes played on the album are the creation of P.C. from an earlier obscure BN title  Fascinating insight, Spencer. So What ... so what was Miles' contribution? One is tempted to say he "simplified", or purified, the tune so that it could be used as a vehicle for modal improvisation. But: KoB is deceptively simple - a fact that becomes glaringly evident whenever someone else chooses to play one of those tunes. I am not (only) talking about the legions of music students and amateur players who have preyed on them. I'm talking about the likes of J.J. Johnson, whose otherwise splendid big band date from 1964 (RCA LSP-3350) includes a rather sophisticated version of "So What". It doesn't work, because it's trying to add something that's completely off the point. KoB was a "grand fluke" (Jason Koransky), but it was Miles who was able to achieve it. Not Freddie Hubbard. |
|
|
|
Post by gst on Jul 3, 2017 15:59:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jul 4, 2017 4:42:22 GMT
all known copies of 4059 DG have deep groove on side two, never on side one and never both sides.
all known copies with Review Copy stamp are no deep groove, and are stamped on side one or side two. stamp on back cover too.
no copies deep groove side one and review copy anywhere are known.
|
|
|
|
Post by gst on Jul 4, 2017 13:11:23 GMT
Ah yes side 2 DG. Thanks Dottor.
I find this particular album interesting in the DG discussion as it's at the cut off and because of the presumably low production numbers. It seems to me that the DG and non-DG copy must have been pressed at the same it, but someone used a different machine or stamper part way through for whatever reason (same machine different stamper would give credence to the DG version coming off the presses first). We'll most likely never know which was pressed first so I'll continue with the thought that one sided DG copies are variants (much like the new phenomenon with colored vinyl). They may be more valuable based on their rarity, but shouldn't be considered to be the only true first pressing.
Of course this doesn't stop me from wanting a one sided DG copy of "Out to Lunch" to go along side my non-DG!
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jul 4, 2017 14:10:12 GMT
Out to Lunch is in the realm where I don't care about DG on blue note anymore, and even fred essentially says it doesn't matter. i'm quite content to call my non-DG "Tokyo Blues", for example, an original. DG copies are know, but it's so far past 4072 that I don't think it is really meaningful which is which at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Jul 4, 2017 15:26:29 GMT
4059: Kenny Drew: Undercurrent
W63i, no dg/dg side 2 only, RVGs, P
cover: NYC, laminated
cohen: deep groove side two
cohen addenda after releasing of his book:
“For the benefit of Blue Note collectors and/or readers of the pressing guide, I would like to bring to their attention to the recent eBay sale of Kenny Drew “Undercurrent” on Blue Note 4059. The vinyl was in virtually new condition; the jacket showed minor wear (you can find the complete description as eBay #300517372359). What made this copy interesting is the lack of the deep groove on Side 2 and the “Review Copy” stamp on both the Side 2 label and the back slick. This is the first time I have seen a label-stamped review copy of Undercurrent and it raises the issue once again as to the definition of an “original” pressing: is it a record, regardless of any other consideration, that includes all the details – such as a deep groove – that collectors look for, or is it the first issue of that record?
It is my impression that the presence of the “Review Copy” stamp on the label is a very strong indication that the “original” Undercurrent pressing had no deep groove.
Blue Note frequently stamped “Review Copy or “Audition Copy” on the jacket only, making it possible to substitute another copy of the same record. But the presence of the “Review Copy” stamp on the label would suggest that it was the first pressing – sent to magazines and writers prior to its official release. The only exception to this might be in an instance where a record did not sell well and a second group of review copies was distributed. The fact that Kenny Drew never recorded another session as a leader for Blue Note as well as the general scarcity of “original” pressings of Undercurrent leads me to believe that the record’s poor reception in stores might possibly have encouraged Blue Note to try a second distribution of review copies.
But that is speculation.
Historically, the presence of a “Review Copy” stamp on the label or cover has usually depressed the value of a Blue Note in the eyes of collectors. What is interesting in this latest sale is that the final bid of $1202.77 for a “Review Copy” was the second highest price ($1311) that Popsike shows for the June 2010 sale of a standard “original” pressing.
My point is that once the deep groove no longer appears consistently on both sides of Blue Note pressings, deciding
what is and is not an “original” is difficult, if not impossible.
Cordially, Fred” (March, 01 2011)
COMMENT: 4059 exists in at least three different issues:
- deep groove on side 2 only
- no deep groove, REVIEW COPY STAMP on side one and cover
- no deep groove, REVIEW COPY STAMP on side two and cover
As for other Blue Note numbers, it seems impossible here to state
which one is the real first pressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jul 5, 2017 14:58:14 GMT
i've said it before, and i'll probably say it many more times after today: i love fred. so honest. so kind. so genuinely excited about collecting.
|
|
|
|
Post by gst on Jul 6, 2017 15:05:37 GMT
Agree. I really wish i was closer to I could visit the store.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jul 9, 2017 16:01:32 GMT
i've said it before, and i'll probably say it many more times after today: i love fred. so honest. so kind. so genuinely excited about collecting. In a lot of ways, a dealer is a dealer to me, Greg, but I do strongly admire his scientific approach to all this, as he could have easily abused his power and authority in the hobby and misled the many less-than-scientific collectors out there to believe that all DG copies are the originals and non-DG copies are not. I mean the majority of collectors still think DG copies are the only originals but he did the right thing by writing that passage in his book. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jul 9, 2017 16:10:08 GMT
Nice find, looks clean! Yes, I wholeheartedly believe non-DG copies from this era should be considered originals, and if anything, this suggests that maybe it's the *opposite* of what most collectors think, that the non-DG copies are the very first pressings...but I think it's very important to note that we will never have any reasonable degree of certainty about all this (and despite this, the majority of collectors and dealers will operate with a false sense of certainty regarding this, with most taking for granted that DG copies are the only originals). But I want to mention another thing that I think gets overlooked: We focus on 4059 as the copy that begins non-DG pressings, but when you think about it there's no guarantee that 4059 was the first non-DG title created without a deep groove at Plastylite. If you look at the last recording date for many albums with higher catalog numbers, it's possible that they were pressed before 4059, meaning that Plastylite in all likelihood did not press albums in order by catalog number. But regardless, 4059 is indeed the lowest number in the catalog sequence to have a pressing with non-deep grooves (and all the other markings of an original including W63R labels) and it's at the very least a good rough marker for when Plastylite started using dies without deep grooves. |
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Nov 16, 2017 15:32:36 GMT
This seems the obvious place for this announcement: www.bluenotereview.comAnone tempted? You get a trendy shipmate slipmat! slipmat! *and* a scarf!  |
|
|
|
Post by gst on Nov 16, 2017 17:39:54 GMT
This seems the obvious place for this announcement: www.bluenotereview.comAnone tempted? You get a trendy shipmate *and* a scarf! Saw this on various sites, but the price makes it a pass for me. I would be interested in just the unreleased historical stuff if it ever came out by itself. |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Nov 16, 2017 18:15:33 GMT
if i may be cynical (shocking, i know), this box set just seems like an attempt to do two things:
1) cash in on the 'fear of missing out' crowd by presenting a bunch of nonsense that looks like collectible records but really isn't
2) maximize the payout by including ridiculous crap (a fucking scarf? and that slipmat is corny as hell) to justify jacking up the price.
honestly, these new tracks weren't released originally, weren't released under cuscana, etc. how amazing can they be? i mean, read through the list of tracks. none of that seems essential to me, and some seems outright stupid.
|
|
