Just a Few Jazz Records
Lots of interesting jazz vinyl to drool over on eBay right now. Let’s start with Hank Mobley Sextet, Hank, Blue Note 1560. This is an original West 63rd Street deep-groove pressing listed in EX condition for the record and VG+ for the cover. The bidding is already over $2,000 with nearly two days left on the auction, as of this writing. The seller is vinyl-house-uk and they have a load of great original pressings for auction this week, including a lot of nice Blue Notes. Here’s one more: Introducing Kenny Burrell, Blue Note 1523. This is an original Lexington Avenue pressing that is listed in EX/EX+ condition (whatever that is) for both the record and the cover. The bidding is around $1,250.
Here’s another from the UK, different seller: Paul Gonsalves Quartet, Boom-Jackie-Boom-Chick, Vocalion LAE 587. This looks to be an original UK pressing. The record is listed in EX or EX- condition and the cover looks to be about VG+. The start price is about $1,650 and so far there are no bidders. I don’t own a copy of this record. Do the liner notes explain the title? If so, or even if not, does someone out there have an explanation?
Bank to Hank: Hank Mobley, Mobley’s Message, Prestige 7061. This is an original New York yellow label pressing. The seller describes feelable scratches. Not a good sign. Cover looks good from the picture, at least VG+, maybe a stretch to VG++. The start price is $440, but there are no bidders so far. I guess if a beat up, partially eaten copy of Cool Struttin’can sell for nearly $1,200, then perhaps a feelable scratches copy of Mobley’s Message will sell for a big price as well? These days, who knows?
Back to vinyl-house-uk for one more for old time’s sake: Freddie Redd, Shades of Redd, Blue Note 4045. This is an original West 63rd Street pressing. The record is another one of those EX/EX+ listings and the cover is plain old EX. The bidding is just shy of $1,000 with nearly two days left.
Hmmm strange listing for the Hank 1560. They depict 2 side 1 labels that most obviously are different OR the LP has two side 1 labels. In that case it should be noted in the listing. Furthermore that top split can hardly be seen in the pictures. Sure a lot o other photo angles but why not take at least one picture that covers the mentioned problem with the cover. And as always like with the Lee Morgan Indeed listing I don’t really like their use of “Original” like “Ultra rare Original US Press” for that Lee Morgan that really is a 2nd press. No Lex on both sides. Sure when it’s a First press they mention it by adding “First” but a bit misleading IMO. I guess you have to learn the sellers language.
Vinyl house uses editing photo tool to emphazise brightness on covers. Quite easy job , works quite well for focusing attention only on what shines as gold.
I have a Japanese copy of the Gonsalves record — the “Jackie” refers to the saxophonist’s friend, Jackie Sharp, a musician and promoter, and the title is a rhythmic figure. It’s a great album!
Apparently, that Mobley has indeed two side one labels, that’s pretty special, maybe they didn’t even notice, else at least I would have mentioned it. I rarely have seen this on OG Blue Notes, so this “speciality” might even attract some more buyers. I am pretty sure that the pictures are not “photoshopped” in terms of retouching. It’s just a matter of the right light / reflection. I used to take similar pictures of my records, and as long as they are in great condition, that can easily be done in camera.
My favourite from the bunch is the Phineas Newborn on Atlantic :).
Just as an example of what I mean:
https://imgur.com/a/RN71l0Z
Anders Wallinder : i am in agreement with you, something else i noticed that just does not seem right with the Mobley blp 1560, in the first photo the deep groove area seems like some sort of paste or white out seems like it was applied around the long playing area, i have never seen both side 1 labels on this lp either, but hey it’s from one of eBay top sellers, and most trustworthy in my opinion, and someone has been up to $2k for it already, so there you have it
Most trustworthy, i don’t think so.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/284456558638?hash=item423aeea02e:g:xwUAAOSwMpNhRbz0
Riverside 256 listed as “original deep groove flat edge vinyl” when obviously its a second press…and who has ever seen a blue label Riverside disc with a flat edge ? 🙂
https://www.ebay.com/itm/274952286360?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20191002094254%26meid%3D0c96daa4eb6f4f689906bc2457c45bc6%26pid%3D100889%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D284456558638%26itm%3D274952286360%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2332490%26algv%3DDefaultOrganic&_trksid=p2332490.c100889.m5204
Another interesting “original mono” : in fact a Zoot Sims third press Argo grey label pressing in an original first cover….
Michel, just checking on the Golson/Riverside : would a first pressing have the big labels and US patent number in the dead wax?
Michel – true, you can even see the beaded rim in the photos!
Rudolf – yes, it should have the big labels with no “INC” but not necessarily a Research Craft pressing with the patent numbers.
Rudolf : yes, as Aaron said. And a squared seams cover. Any way, it sold for 400, so i guess those are very futile details 🙂
$3300 for a 2nd pressing Lee Morgan. wow !
https://www.ebay.com/itm/284457048222?hash=item423af6189e%3Ag%3A6ZsAAOSwcsNhRjT8&nma=true&si=RWvnq89OqAx0kny6osQF0qW%252F834%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
Unframed cover, NY 23 lbl on one side and this Lee Morgan was listed as “original” 🙂
Hi Michel,
to list the Lee Morgan as “original” is absolutely legit. It IS an original Blue Note. Nowhere in the description they mention, that it is a first press.
If it is a Liberty or a UA pressing, it is always clearly mentioned and they are not claimed to be “original”.
Here’s an example of a Jutta Hipp UA description:
Jutta Hipp – At The Hickory House
Rare US Press Mono LP On Blue Note United Artists Label
It is just a matter of your interpretation of the word “original” – to me this does not mean it is a first press at all. It means just that it is an original Blue Note 😉 – not an UA, Liberty, Japanese, MM… whatever pressing.
If you unsure, just refer to point 1a) on Al’s list of “Twelve Tips to collecting Blue Note”
https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/twelve-tips-to-collecting-blue-note/
Best regards, Michael
“Original press” does not mean First press in Vinyl House listings. I think it’s misleading. When it is a first press they write out “Original First press” instead. Original in their sense means that the record is an I guess early issue from Blue Note Records. Not an obvious Reissue like United, DMM or BN75.
If they use “Original first press”,for a first press then “Original second press” would be an accurate description for second press.
This is absurd. Original should always mean first pressing. Just because it’s a plastylite pressing should not mean that it qualifies to be “original”. It’s misleading and takes advantage of people who aren’t familiar with the convoluted world of pressing details. Buyer beware indeed.
100% agree with what_can_brown. “original” as a noun means “first thing”.
Hi Michel — how do you ID the Sims Argo LP as a 3rd pressing? The label guides I’ve seen say there isn’t a known chronological order to the label colors used by Argo.
https://www.bsnpubs.com/chess/argo600.html
https://www.cvinyl.com/labelguides/argo.php
well, I’ve been preaching this for decades.
loved by collectors, hated by sellers
@what-can-brown, @gregory the fish @dottorjazz : agreed ! that is exactly what my post mean :-). My 2nd degree is quite clumsy indeed 🙂
I think it would be a simple matter for a seller to say “early pressing” when a Blue Note is later than an FIRST press,though not a Liberty/UA issue. As noted,if “original ” is used to only refer to THE originally issued Lp,it would be more helpful(not to mention more honest). Any seller-if truthful-can attest that nothing is worse than dealing with an item sold and then returned because of a purposefully vague listing. Bad feedback,bad vibes,bad karma.
As a frequent seller I use the words ’original first issue or pressing’ only when it really is one.
For later pressings I give all details, in wording and pictures and it is up to buyers to draw conclusions. I think sellers cannot be required to list absent characteristics. E.g. ’this album is not kakubushi, it has no ears’, to give the most obvious. Buyers should be inquisitive, in case of doubt, ask questions.
I always bear in mind that buyers are over protected. Right of returns guaranteed for whatever reason. The seller is free game. Nothing is worse than a return procedure, feedback issues.
I’ve been on eBay since 1998 as a seller and buyer and whenever I sell a record I always make 100% clear what pressing it is. Be it a third or second or whatever. I like to be as transparent as possible to avoid unpleasant situations like returns.
I am in agreement with the admitting the first pressing, and not a fan of taking advantage of someone who does not know the rules- especially Blue note records, i have lost a little respect to vinyl-house-uk , he offers a 30 day return, hopefully the winning bidder will be okay with the purchase and not have t return it, returning records are a hassle on ebay, i have learned a lot on this thread
Support your local record store. The best way to buy is in person, you are in charge and can make a decision based on physical evidence.
Pingback: Familiar Names and Titles for The $1,000 Bin | jazzcollector.com