Comments on: A Pair of Blue Note Originals. Or Not?

By: etherbored

etherbored — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:27:27 +0000

Who is “Larry Cohn”……?

By: Peter A

Peter A — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:35:15 +0000

The “experts” didn’t say that no test pressings or review copies of Burrell 1597 exist with DG, but that the regular version was *released* much later than 1596 and without DG. Larry Cohn mentioned to me the exact release date but I can’t find it right away. Obviously the labels and covers were printed much earlier that the actual release date, as they both mention the 47 W 63rd st address (without ‘Inc.”).

As we all know test pressings do exist of Tina Brooks’ Back to the Tracks (BN 4052) and many other titles which were not released at all! Larry Cohn also has a test pressing or review copy of Kenny Drew – Undercurrent with double sided DG. All these copies do exist – and may technically be called ‘first pressing’ – but were not ‘released’…

By: Earl Hodin

Earl Hodin — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:20:50 +0000

Mike:

Can I assume the reason you think the 1579 is not an original is the non-mention of the P(lastylite)? It seems otherwise original.

As to the DG discussion,you all need to read Fred Cohen’s excellent discussion of this in his BN book (if you haven’t already). Clearly, the older the album’s release date, the more likely it is to have a DG, but it simply can’t be assumed that the absence of a DG is evidence of a later pressing – the use of other stampers contemporaneously, which increased as time went by, and wear to the DG stampers produced (in many if not all releases) examples of both, quite possibly at the same time.

It cannot be denied that DG’s are prized by collectors because of the association with early releases. Therefore, I believe you can call your non-DG copies of 1597 original with perfect reason, but don’t expect to get as much if you sell them.

By: Ng Chee Kia

Ng Chee Kia — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:35:43 +0000

I have seen a DG 1597 before and I believe that it was sold by Jazz Record Centre with a review copy stamp. May be there was a small run of this title and it was deleted immediately to be released again at a much later date? Could both versions then be regarded as the ‘original’? I myself have also heard about the lack of DG for 1597 but after seeing that copy I am convinced otherwise. I own a copy of non DG EAR 1597 and how nice it is if it is the original!

By: SWK

SWK — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:16:58 +0000

I am sorry to disagree with all the experts regarding DG on 1597.
It came definitely WITH DG.
Fred Cohen was auctioning this very item on 2012-08-17 which can be seen at Popsike.

http://www.popsike.com/Kenny-Burrell-Blue-Lights-on-Blue-Note-1597/290759061207.html

There also exists a post on Jazz Collector about Fred’s auction from the same day.

I downloaded Fred’s image of the deep groove label from his eBay auction where the DG is evidently indicated and I could send that download to people who will not believe.

By: Michel

Michel — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 06:49:54 +0000

Yes, i heard the same from Larry Cohn regarding the lack of DG on 1597, because its a later pressing.

By: Horsti62

Horsti62 — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:32:42 +0000

BN 1597 without DG is the first press, because it´s a later release ! Peter A is correct..

By: Peter A

Peter A — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:50:17 +0000

The second volume of the Burrell record was released much later, so it doesn’t exist with deep grooves.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:45:29 +0000

I find it difficult to believe that a seller of a vintage Blue Note title who displays the tone of being well-informed, would misunderstand the definition of “original.” Early pressing? Yes. Vintage? Yes. Original? I go with Fredrik’s logic.

Me thinks that there is a profit motive behind using the word.

Seen it before. Won’t be the last time.

By: Petter

Petter — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:42:42 +0000

Michael, I agree. DG doesn’t necessarily mean original.