Comments on: A Couple of Nice Ones, A Monk Autograph?????

By: Rudolf

Rudolf — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:22:35 +0000

Ng: I have seen the UK release on Oriole in London record shops. They must be pretty rare now. But as with the Zoot Sims on Ducretet Thomson, the English version is less in demand. I guess people wish French liners and no liners translated into English. Quality-wise they should as good, if not better, than the French original.
If you have an Oriole, my advise would be to keep it. If you find one, jump on the occasion. I for one would be very happy to have one. I have the U.S. Atlantic version.

By: Ng Chee Kia

Ng Chee Kia — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:01:12 +0000

What about the UK release on Criole?

By: Mattyman

Mattyman — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:47:45 +0000

So slowly but surely we're getting to the answer, gents ;-) - At least our little discussion gives enough details to pay attention to the next time this Lewis/Distel copy is up for auction; we've now established which one of the two is the true 1st, so buyers know exactly when to fork out big money and when not! - For those who came in late, by clicking HERE you go to my original comment ;-)

By: Rudolf

Rudolf — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:17:06 +0000

Clifford, you are absolutely right, if one cover is laminated and the other is not, then the non-laminated is a fifties pressing/issue. When I had the record, the sleeve was not laminated, I am sure of that. So that would correspond with the less flashy first label.

By: Clifford Allen

Clifford Allen — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:41:45 +0000

This is interesting; I believe that the cheaper copy of the Versailles is a second pressing. That label is from the 1960s for sure. To me the cover slick appears laminated versus the matte on the pricier one. It could be a scanner issue but my hunch is that an unlaminated jacket would be from the 1950s, given what I know of European pressings.

By: Rudolf

Rudolf — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:21:50 +0000

Mattyman: interesting discussion. When looking at the rear of both sleeves, I would say that both sleeves are originals.
There are obvious differences in the two labels.
I had the record some years after its issue, but since my copy was bad, I changed it for a new Atlantic copy. I am at pains to remember details of the label, but would think that my copy was the first (expensive) version, the vague one, not the second one with the clear gold lettering.
Should a second pressing be excluded? Sacha was very popular at the time and maybe the record sold very well, justifying a second pressing.

By: Mattyman

Mattyman — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:09:17 +0000

Hello Michel, the Moiré effect may be due to a scan, but in this case it’s clear that that has got nothing to do with it: in both cases we’re talking about plain photos of a front cover – the lettering of the names John Lewis etc, is just as sharp on the 2145 dollar version as on the 345 buck pressing.
–
This would basically mean that on the 1st pressing of the Lewis/Distel they used a photo of a photo (hence the Moiré-effect) and on the later pressing, the 345 dollar one, the photo’s actual negative to create the front cover.
–
Since I love that front cover, also because it doesn’t have the horrible blue and red stripes as on the Atlantic pressing, I should focus not on the first pressing, but on a later one then I guess. If they weren’t so freakin’ expensive. Fact is and fact remains that you can’t deny the obvious differences in photo and label quality of both pressings if you flip through the few photos that I uploaded in my comment above 😉

By: Michel

Michel — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:20:54 +0000

Mattyman, very intersting question. I’ve compared all the pictures with other copies featured in old auction catalogues. It seems that the original cover has a “dark” John Lewis. For the “moiré effect, it can be from the scan. I’d say that the most expensive was actually an original, and the second is a more recent issue. I may be wrong anyway. I’ll keep doing researches….

By: Mattyman

Mattyman — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:16:44 +0000

And in response to your comments on the John Lewis/Sacha Distel, I have looked a bit closer at the photos of both auctions. Please flip thru the photos that I took out of both auctions and let me know what you think. My idea is that the copy that sold for 2145 houses an original vinyl in a reproduction cover and the copy that sold for 345 houses a repressed vinyl in an original cover. - See what I mean, I lined 'em up, view by clicking HERE! (View in slide show mode) - You can still see the original listing of the $2145 version here. - The $345 copy can still be viewed here. - I'm curious about your findings, but one thing is clear: there are major visible differences between the most expensive and the cheaper one. ;-)

By: Mattyman

Mattyman — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:09:57 +0000

Well, Don-Lucky, if that’s the case then maybe it’d be a splendid idea to share the known holiday dates with all of us, so that we can figure out in time when the high rollers are on their way to the Hamptons, so that we can bid in peace in the meantime, while they’re behind the wheel 😉