Some Sell, Some Don’t, One Gets Quite A Price

Kenny Dorham Jazz VinylMany ages ago, when I last posted on Jazz Collector, there were many items I was watching on eBay that have subsequently sold. Or not. Here are some of them:

Kenny Dorham and the Jazz Prophets Volume 1, ABC Paramount 122. This was an original pressing listed in VG++ condition for the record and M- for the cover. It sold for $510. One of the things I’ve always liked about this record is the “Volume 1.” Obviously, somebody thought there was going to be a Volume 2, but it never materialized. Wonder if anyone here knows what happened to Volume 2? I searched for this record for years. About 20 years ago I passed up a very nice copy at the Jazz Record Center, which Fred Cohen very generously agreed to sell to me for $100. I have no idea why I didn’t buy it, but I didn’t. I finally acquired a copy last year in that lovely Baltimore collection. Still haven’t listed to it, though. Getting a turntable upgrade in New York this week. Maybe now’s the time.

This one had a starting price of about $1,500 and, not surprisingly (to me, at least), did not attract any bidders:

Eric Dolphy, In Europe, Debut 136. This was an original pressing from Denmark, listed in M- condition for the record and Ex+ for the cover, which is probably just a shade below M-.  We have seen this record sell for as much as $1,375 in the Jazz Collector Price Guide, but I think it’s rather presumptuous of the seller, to start at such a high price, rather than allow the bidding to set the market. But, that’s just me. It’s really none of our business how people want to sell their records. Or, in this case, not sell their records.

Stan Getz Quartets, Prestige 7002. This was an original New York yellow label pressing, listed in VG+ condition for both the record and the cover. It sold for #113.50.

Our friend CeeDee, probably wondering where I’ve been hiding, reach out on this listing: John Coltrane, Blue Train, Blue Note 1577. This one is a curiosity. The seller, a very experienced and knowledgeable seller (and, to my recollection, a regular reader of Jazz Collector), chose to list this as an “original” Blue Note. I guess it depends on how you define original, no? It’s not an unoriginal Blue Note, nor is it a first pressing: It has the West 63rd and the New York USA labels. You have to look closely at the pictures to discover that. It was in VG++ condition for the record, perhaps VG++ or M- for the cover. Someone agreed to pay $860. I have to think the winning bidder didn’t look carefully enough at the listings and thought he got a bargain Blue Train original for $860. I imagine there will be no small measure of disappoint when the record arrives and gets unpacked and the reality sinks in. Or, perhaps I am wrong, and this is now the going market record for a second, or third, or whatever pressing of this classic jazz LP. CeeDee’s accompanying note to me was quite succinct: “A lot of bread for this, with mismatched labels. Time to list your doubles?” If I were to list my doubles, I’d probably be a bit more circumspect in the language I would choose.

 

 

12 comments

  • re the Coltrane on Blue Note. As in a contract, the devil is in the détails. This seller says “Original release”. It is as original as it was at the time of its release: NYC/47W63 labels with R and Inc. However no Inc on the rear of the slack. So that may be an original anno 1963. He does not say “first issue”. Clever seller.
    The Jazz Prophets vol.2 was never released and the music may not exist at all. A twofer issued in the eighties gave hope to many people, it was however ABC-P 122 combined with a Sonny Criss. album.

  • Gregory The Fish

    for the blue train: i think most knowledgable sellers know that most buyers think of “original” as first press, and that this is a bit dishonest.

    i pass no judgement; it’s just my opinion. but still.

    if i’m dropping $860 on anything, i’ll want the best, regardless of bargain status.

  • If you look closely at the Blue Train, one of the labels is New York USA. Who knows when it may have been issued.

  • The accepted phrase in most studies (such as Cohen’s “Blue Note Records”)is “original pressing” – my personal opinion is that ANY use of the word “original” in relation to an LP implies an original pressing; and when it does not, it is misleading, whether deliberate or out of ignorance. And I further believe that ignorance in a seller is no excuse – a seller has some obligation to educate himself about the item he’s selling, particularly if he intends to use the word “original.”

    Another example of unforgivable misrepresentation is Djukic’s recent sale of BN 4008, which he calls an “Original US Pressing,” despite the presence of the “r”

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/HORACE-SILVER-QNTT-FINGER-POPPIN-039-ULTRA-RARE-ORIG-039-58-BLUE-NOTE-MONO-LP-63d-RVG-/161393106640?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item2593c75ed0&nma=true&si=3PLcVbN%252Be69pViAWx639eTzwpI8%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

    One encouraging thing is the low price realized – Djukic’s buyers are perhaps getting wise.

  • Earl: As I’m always trying to educate myself based on the discussion board and posts, let me be sure that I understand.(Having followed your link and viewed the seller’s photos) The “r” beneath the “E” in “NOTE” on the label means that it is not a first pressing. Is that correct? If not, where is the “r” that you referred to that is the telltale sign of a non-first press? Thanks.

  • Hello Everyone,
    This is a open question to all.
    Does anyone actually know what the press runs were on average of any given Blue Note Record.
    Just thinking of all the early pressings, Lexington etc etc including New York and Liberty labels.
    Has it ever been established even roughly how many may have been pressed at any given time ?

    Thanks

  • daryl: I am referring to the r in a circle underneath the E as you say; it is always associated with “Inc” after Blue Note in the address arc at the top of the label, and first appears in 4017 – it only signifies a non-original pressing if it appears on a label for 4016 or before; after that it is present in original pressings

  • sellers should describe the record, the labels etc. in every detail, with pictures added, without using the word original in the description. It is up to the buyer to draw his own conclusions.
    Btw, the Djukic/Silver album was not DG, as stated by Bob and clearly visible on the pictures.

  • I mean, Bob put it right, no deep grooves.

  • Gregory The Fish

    rudolf: we all know bob knows “no dg” on 4008 = not first press. he is a frigging expert.

    seems like a nice guy, and maybe he has a perspective i’ve neglected, but that is uncool from where i sit.

  • I purposely did not mention the DG since, as you say, Djukic clearly indicated it as missing – and I suppose one could make the argument (although I don’t agree) that DG in itself does not define a first pressing – however, the r & inc certainly do, and should not be present on an original pressing of 4008

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *