City Lights and the Meaning of Life
One of the loyal Jazz Collector readers sent me the following link under the subject line “No Ear/P”: Lee Morgan, City Lights, Blue Note 1575. This was interesting because it had the West 63rd Street address and the deep grooves, so it looked like an original. The seller, who has been selling quite a lot of high-end collectibles on eBay recently, didn’t mention anything about the ear or the RVG. Our reader was curious and/or interested and asked the seller in an email about the ear. Turns out there wasn’t one. The record and cover are in VG+ condition. It sold for $799. I think that will be one unhappy buyer, paying that much and not getting an original pressing. Of course, it raises the existential question of who is at fault. Of course the buyer should have asked before bidding that much on a record. But what of the seller’s responsibility? He never claimed it was an original, but he also knew that it wasn’t. Should he have been more explicit?
I once bought a record through a trading list on a messageboard years ago (it wasn’t a jazz record), and when it arrived it had a cut corner, which was done to a lot of promo copies. I hadn’t asked about it when I bought the record, so I was unpleasantly surprised, to say the least. Even though it could (and to be honest, should)have been mentioned, I always thought I should have asked about the condition myself. I never made the mistake of not asking about the condition of a record again.
In the case of my record, or for that matter in general, the condition of a record should always be mentioned in a precise way.
Pressing info is another story, I think. I still think that’s up to the buyer to ask about before making a purchase.
That seller listed the “ear” in a headings of a number of his other auctions. So even a bit of comparison should have led to buyer to notice its absence in the City Light listing.
doesn’t look like a true deep groove to me either
I’m also curious as to why, although your reader asked and was answered that question re the ear, the listing continued to say “No questions or answers have been posted about this item.”
The answer is yes, he should have been more explicit. If it is a later pressing, it should say later pressing, not original or failing to write anything about it. Don’t think it’s a deep groove either. This record should have the NY23 on one side as well to be a true 1st pressing, regarding to the Fred Cohen book.
A refund should be issued and a thoroughly good thrashing…publicly.
I got to say though, the muppett buyer has more corn than sense. These vague descriptions where you have to read between the lines, it’s just in poor spirit and as Al said he has sold a few big bits, so he knows.
As the alleged Miles quote, “It’s not the notes you play; it’s the notes you don’t play.” It apears that’s the case with these dubious listings, it’s not what they describe it’s what they don’t!!
Okay maybe not a thrashing….Perhaps we could put them in stocks and frisbee all our unwanted reissue jazz vinyl at them. I’d actually pay to do that.
Hank’ signature?
I’s be interested to hear views on this listing…
http://www.ebay.com/itm/321226964599
Thoughts…..
Adamski
1. The cover seems very problematic – in addition to the split he describes, the picture shows considerable staining at all edges, and (sloppy) tape at the spine
2. The back says “oh Boy” at the top, then what I think is a “to” in the middle, which would seem to imply that what comes next is who it is being dedicated to, rather than who is doing the dedication – next comes what does look like Hank something, but I am certainly no expert on signatures
3. The condition of the record sounds a reasonable VG+, but who knows? would have to know more about the seller to judge that
4. Although he answered an inquiry about RVG/Ear by saying there was RVG, he didn’t mention the ear – seeing as how in another of his listings (for Dexter Swinging Affair) he headlines the ear, this would also make me suspicious
The bidding for Hank is already for over $300, so others aren’t apparently as suspicious as I
If seller does not mention anything about the ear or the RVG, I always assume there is none. If you are going to spend that amount a quick email may be in order. That being said, seller must have known something was up when the bidding got that high. Half his money back and everyone learns a lesson.
Has not deep groove!!!
In regards to the comments about the signed Hank Mobley. I spoke to the guy about the ear, asking him to elaborate. His response was “what is Ear is?”
Aside from his poor typing or maybe broken English, he doesn’t seem to know anything about records.
That doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t the real mccoy or he is a scammer, but it doesn’t fill me with confidence.
curious as to why he would not know what the ear was, having used it in the headline for the Dexter mentioned above
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BLUE-NOTE-BLP-4133-Dexter-Gordon-A-Swingin-Affair-Van-Gelder-EAR-43-West-LP-/321227579112?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item4acaa7dee8
I’ve always assumed that if something isn’t mentioned, it’s not there. I wouldn’t expect someone to list all the things that are NOT on a record…
he probably copy and pasted the title from collectorsfrenzy. same with much of the “details”
Lol. Love this line from his Dexter listing: “I preferer describe this record vg for not have any kind of problems with a potential maniac buyer.” Gotta watch out for those potential maniacs; they’re harder to spot than the verified ones.
is there a signed mobley on ebay recently i missed? which album? any links still up– god i have to see this, how much did it go for
k i found it, look you guys, the only other mobe lp sig i saw was on ebay c. 1998-9 and it was in ballpoint pen, really neat, if this lp is from france than he must of signed it years later, 67-8…but RED SHARPIE? did they even have those then. if i this was a sig akin to the former i would bid a grand in ten seconds for this, but this one…….i dunnnoooo…..
Impossible to say what the real deal is with Mobley’s signature and how trustworthy the seller, but the kind of (red) felt tip pen was definitely around in the mid-sixties. At the time a lot of library items were ruined by it forever… Seller would have done himself and his business a service by having someone to rewrite his descriptions in straightforward English. Despite the off putting language, from what I can gather some of his items may be quite worthwhile, for instance the Portal records and other European ones of interest to fans of the avant garde.
The Mobley sold for a mere $427, which is roughly half what a VG++ UNSIGNED copy demands these days.
After corresponding with the seller, I really should have bid on this. It is true he spoke/wrote poor English and was largely ignorant of the finer points of vintage jazz records, but I truly believe he was not malicious. He was just not the right person to sell them. I have no reason to believe all the buyers won’t get fine albums, I’d say this buyer got a heck of a deal.
look, it might of been real. the “H” isnt that dissimilar from other hank script ive seen, but the red marker man, i still dont know, who had a red marker on hand for a lp singing in the 60s. red marker? really?
I am still amazed at how many sellers I have to correct for their incorrect usage of DG. You know you have cred issues when we are taling about Mid 70’s black b Liberty pressings with DG and even EAR a few times. Oh Well, Ignorance is bliss.
No DG on the pic I see(city lights) Did this press have the NEW YORK 23 to the labels at all?
If I was bidding (at any price) I would of definitely asked about the PLASTYLITE symbol. Labels were put onto “biscuits” and some were never pressed(squeezed out) until years later because of different reasons. I had some Jimmy Smiths with NEW YORK 23 labels that had no ears. I have to give credit to later Liberty BN big wigs as they never mislabelled represses with the earlier “found bisquits” I;e. a stereo press with an older bisquitted MICROGROOVE NY 23 label or vice versa!!!!! Or at least I haven’t come upon many mistakes if any.
Mattyman has a copy of Somethin’ Else or Blue Train (can’t remeber the details) that has STEREO labels but was pressed with mono stampers
Aaron/Mattyman: Did it have the ol’ PLASTYLITE moniker? : )
Does (present tense!)
True, the record is actually not a deep groove, so *maybe* a refund would be in order if the buyer could not somehow see that from the pictures, but I definitely do not think a seller should feel obligated to mention that a particular repressing does not have a “P”. If a buyer hasn’t done their homework, shame on them and congratulations to the seller. And I saw a non-P mono copy of Open Sesame sell recently for close to a grand so for some of these rare titles it seems that people are willing to pay just for the RVG mastering.