Comments on: DG Or Not DG, That Is the Question

By: Hyun Ho Ham

Hyun Ho Ham — Tue, 07 May 2013 02:38:43 +0000

Thanks again, Bill.
I’ll try to buy the book.

By: Upstate Bill

Upstate Bill — Tue, 07 May 2013 01:44:40 +0000

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.’

By: Hyun Ho Ham

Hyun Ho Ham — Tue, 07 May 2013 00:48:29 +0000

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.

By: Upstate Bill

Upstate Bill — Mon, 06 May 2013 18:38:41 +0000

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.

By: Hyun Ho Ham

Hyun Ho Ham — Mon, 06 May 2013 09:13:16 +0000

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?

By: Earl Hodin

Earl Hodin — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:14:26 +0000

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

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:58:00 +0000

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.

By: Earl Hodin

Earl Hodin — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:07:23 +0000

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?

By: ceedee

ceedee — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:27:11 +0000

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!

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:48:52 +0000

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