DG Or Not DG, That Is the Question
Our friend CeeDee send me the following link in a fit of minor pique: Bill Evans, Portrait in Jazz, Riverside 315. There were two related sources of irritation. One was the overuse of pictures to show every minor detail of the listing. The other was the seeming incongruity between the many and varied pictures and the description of the record. The seller described it as an original deep groove pressing, yet in all of the pictures it is quite difficult to ascertain an actual deep groove. Take a look and see what you think. This one was listed in VG++ condition for the record and VG+ for the cover. It sold for $157.50.
Here’s a catch-up on some of the other records we were watching last week, starting with Johnny Griffin, A Blowing Session, Blue Note 1559. This was an original pressing offered by the Jazz Record Center. It was in M- condition for both the record and the cover. It sold for $2,619. Big price. I finally landed an original copy of this record last year as part of a collection (not the Irving Kalus collection) and I’m pleased to say the entire collection cost just a bit more than $2,619. From the same auction, this one sold for a surprisingly high price:
Miles Davis, Sketches of Spain, Columbia 1480. This was an original 6-eye pressing and it was in near new condition for the record and the cover. It sold for $291, which is a higher price than we’ve ever seen for this record. This one also got a nice price, but more in line with what I may have expected: Zoot Sims, Zoot, Argo 608. This looks to be in M- condition for both the record and the cover. It sold for $327.22
There is absolutely positively no deep groove on that record…should have one if it’s original.
It seems pretty clear from the pics of that Evans that it’s not a deep groove pressing. Oops!
Not long ago I won an auction for a Riverside LP where the picture clearly showed the DG. When the record was arriving, I couldn’t see the DG at first sight. A more close inspection revealed the DG.
The pressing was absolutely original, but made on very thin vinyl. It is a miracle to me and I learned once again, that nothing is as easy (or true) as it sometimes seems to.
Even if it had a DG, isn’t the “original” press of that record on the small blue label?
I have that same Bill Evans pressing with the larger blue mono mike and reel labels and no deep groove. Mine has a hand etched date in the deadwax. I think it states 3-7-65 or something like that. It is pressed on slightly more flexible vinyl than my original stereo pressing. It is still a nice pressing of a somewhat rare album.
I am surprised that the Johnny Griffin albums sells for so much money. I wonder if the magnificent cover art is responsible for a lot of its appeal. By the end of the album, I am usually searching my collection for something like the Bill Evans album to give my ears a break.
(thought I left this post before)
Definitely no DG and i think it is the large label – original has small label & DG
Although all those pics are somewhat a waste of space and time, I rather like the thorough look afforded
It looks like the seller of the Bill Evans record doesn’t know what a deep groove is. If you look at his feedback he sold a true first pressing with the small label + deep groove and states that this one is the same although it is clearly a later pressing.
Well we are all in agreement, there is no deep groove on this label and the original should also have a “small label”. Does anyone remember if the true first pressing has INC after Bill Grauer Productions?
Small label Riversides have no INC., that came with the second regular-size blue label.
What is the number/sequence of Riverside’s with small labels?
The alternance of Riverside Large blue DG / Small DG / Large blue (different) DG has been already discussed in this forum. IIRC Small label starts around the end of 200 (around 290 – 299) and stops around 320 330. To be clarified, there are some overlappings IIRC i wrote a detailed post about it. Not sure…
Can someone explain the specific size difference between the small and large labels? I assume the large labels are standard size labels…?
“I wonder if the magnificent cover art is responsible for a lot of its appeal.”
@ Upstate Bill: totally…I personally believe cover art has A LOT to do with the value of a record =)
Richard-re labels,the following site allows a side by side comparison. Very helpful!
http://33rev.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=68
offtopic, but..
have i gone nuts or what..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NM-1966-in-shrink-MONO-LP-Mercy-Live-at-The-Club-CANNONBALL-ADDERLEY-Quintet-/350712050148?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item51a81131e4
The site listed by ceedee is useful for comparison of large & small labels, but I believe it has the sequence wrong – it puts the large label earlier which is backwards – the small labels go from 248 to 325, large from 325 up – DG’s go up to about 473 – measurements for the square: about 2 7/16″ for the small label, 2 9/16″ for the large – original for the Evans (315) is therefore small label DG
Hi, that is my site ceedee posted the link to. If you look carefully there are TWO large (standard size) blue Riverside labels, the first does not have INC on the bottom text and predates the small label. I have the catalog numbers at home where the switch takes place that I can post later. The second large label (3rd blue label) came after the small label and adds INC to the bottom text.
Aaron:
Although you are correct in saying the “Inc” comes last, but I believe you are mistaken about the large label without INC preceding the small label – the correct order is small label no INC, large label no INC, large label with INC _ I would be inclined to believe you, despite all my findings, if you could find me a catalog number in the high 300’s or any 400’s with a small label
Earl, here are the catalog numbers that correspond to the different Riverside labels:
1) White “reel” label “RLP-12” prefix 100 to 242 (240 & 241 unconfirmed)
2) Blue “reel” label 243 to 270
3) Small blue “reel” 271 to 330-335
4) Blue “reel” label w/Inc. 329 (except 331, 32, 33 & 39) to 476
So what would you say about my small label 12-258 (Rollins, Freedom Suite)? Or my small label 12-262 (Thelonious in Action)? If your sequence were correct, these couldn’t possibly exist. What I would say is that the Blue labels you list prior to 12-271 are, in fact, second pressings
By way of clarification, the diameter of the “small label” is about 3 5/8″; that of the “large” label, very close to 4″
Hi Earl,
According to my findings (which are open to correction) small label copies of 12-258 (Rollins, Freedom Suite) or 12-262 (Thelonious in Action) would simply be represses that were first released on the large (non-INC) blue label. What would prove your theory correct is if there are any records from 271 onwards with the large (non-INC) blue label.
@Aaron
My RLP241 has a white label. I’ve never owned a Rlp240 but have seen it as a white label.
I agree with the assessment on small label 258 and 262, they are pre-Orpheum represses.
I have not been able to locate any of those yet – will keep looking
But tell me this: does it seem logical that when they began printing the “INC” label, they would return to a much earlier large label to print on, rather than the recently (according to your sequence) used small labels?
Mike,
240 and 241 are indeed on the white label, thanks for update.
Earl,
This sequence was originally posted here by a long-time Riverside expert and although it seems counter intuitive I haven’t found any evidence in my own collection, on eBay or Popsike to dispute it. Like I said, if there are titles from 271 onwards with the large (non-INC) blue label that would change things.
Correction, I should say 272 onwards as 271 was first on the large (non-INC) blue label.
Aaron,
my label expert friend points out that all the Monk/Mulligans (247) with the picture cover (later pressing) that he has ever seen have the large-label, while the earlier original cover (no picture) he has only seen with the small label & I would bet he has a larger collection than the two of us put together – do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Earl,
I do, here is a Monk/Mulligan (12-247) that’s on eBay right now with the original cover (no picture) and large (non-INC) blue label:
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/641/mulliganmonk.jpg
Just when I think you guys are getting WAY too far into the discographical weeds,out comes a nugget-like the original cover to Monk/Mulligan which I had never seen. Thanks,gents!
Aaron
How do you know this is a large label – no measurements, no statement concerning size – I would have to have it in front of me to measure it – is there some other criterion besides size that I don’t know about?
This large, hi-res image clearly shows a large (no INC.) label if you look at the relative space from the deep groove (which is same diameter on large and small labels) to the edge of the label.
Ceedee maybe right: we’re getting into weird territory here.
Yes, the distance from the DG to the edge is slightly greater (~ 1/16″) in the large label, just as all measurements are slightly greater (in fact, the DG is not always placed symmetrically, so it may in fact be greater on one side than the other) – however, this begs the question as to whether you are able to identify this very small difference in a picture of unknown proportion to the actual. If in fact your obvious familiarity with labels permits you to see such small differences in pictures of unknown enlargement, I must bow to your judgment
I’m the buyer. And Yes, there are no deep grooves whatsoever. I’m kind of surprised to see this topic and pictures you guys mentioned here!
At the time I was in buying spree on ebay, so I left a positive feedback to the seller as soon as I got the LP.(And thanks him or her for a quick delivery!) How foolish I am.
Anyway, I just wanna know this specific LP is an original 60s press? Even though it does not have any deep grooves?
Hyun,
You have an early to mid-’60s 2nd pressing of a classic album that is really tough to find in nice condition. It should sound very nice even without the deep grooves.
Thanks Bill.
You give me some kind of relief.
I have another bad experience. I won Dexter Gordon/Getting’ around(BLP 4204, mono, new york usa) at the price of $416. When I saw the tailoff, no ‘ear’, just ‘RVG'(or van gelder). The seller did not mentioned ‘ear’ in his LP description, but there were over 30 bidders when the auction was ending. So I just guessed this one must be original 1st press (that’s why these people are here.)
I gotta learn first, buy later.
Hyun,
You bought an early mono pressing that was either manufactured at Plastylite or somewhere else depending on the plant used by Blue Note in their later years or Liberty after their purchase of Blue Note. A lot of the albums without the ear sound very, very good. All collectors have done something similar, many times even. I would highly recommend purchasing Fred Cohen’s guide book entitled ‘Blue Note Records, A Guide for Identifying Original Pressings.’
Thanks again, Bill.
I’ll try to buy the book.