Comments on: Guest Column: Reviewing The Blue Note Guide

By: Katy

Katy — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:49:05 +0000

Okay, u’r Welcome. 🙂

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:37:13 +0000

No thanks Katy but I appreciate the offer.

By: Katy

Katy — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:31:28 +0000

To Mike: In response to your earlier post (regarding Blue Note for which the labels do not match: *Side 1 has the “47 West 63rd NEW YORK 23? label while *Side 2 has the “47 WEST 63rd NYC” label) when you had left me this comment:-(Mike Says:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:55 am):
-1575, like 1577 should have the NY23 on one side only. I don’t believe(but would love to be disproven) that it has ever been seen with NY23 on both. Also, no Inc or R should be found and the W63 address should be on the back. Katy B are you selling?”-

Katy says(to Mike):
I’m now trying to respond, YES, If you still have interest in city lights *copy, please let me know & I’ll discuss this further with you Mike, the copy does not have the details that you described in your above post, I’ll list the specific details again if you’d like me to. Wait to hear from u Mike, Thank U. – Katy

Katy B are you selling

By: Frederick Cohen

Frederick Cohen — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:27:04 +0000

For the benefit of Blue Note collectors and/or readers of the pressing guide, I would like to bring to their attention to the recent eBay sale of Kenny Drew “Undercurrent” on Blue Note 4059.
The vinyl was in virtually new condition; the jacket showed minor wear (you can find the complete description as eBay #300517372359). What made this copy interesting is the lack of the deep groove on Side 2 and the “Review Copy” stamp on both the Side 2 label and the back slick. This is the first time I have seen a label-stamped review copy of Undercurrent and it raises the issue once again as to the definition of an “original” pressing: is it a record, regardless of any other consideration, that includes all the details – such as a deep groove – that collectors look for, or is it the first issue of that record? It is my impression that the presence of the “Review Copy” stamp on the label is a very strong indication that the “original” Undercurrent pressing had no deep groove.
Blue Note frequently stamped “Review Copy or “Audition Copy” on the jacket only, making it possible to substitute another copy of the same record. But the presence of the “Review Copy” stamp on the label would suggest that it was the first pressing – sent to magazines and writers prior to its official release. The only exception to this might be in an instance where a record did not sell well and a second group of review copies was distributed. The fact that Kenny Drew never recorded another session as a leader for Blue Note as well as the general scarcity of “original” pressings of Undercurrent leads me to believe that the record’s poor reception in stores might possibly have encouraged Blue Note to try a second distribution of review copies. But that is speculation.
Historically, the presence of a “Review Copy” stamp on the label or cover has usually depressed the value of a Blue Note in the eyes of collectors. What is interesting in this latest sale is that the final bid of $1202.77 for a “Review Copy” was the second highest price ($1311) that Popsike shows for the June 2010 sale of a standard “original” pressing.
My point is that once the deep groove no longer appears consistently on both sides of Blue Note pressings, deciding what is and is not an “original” is difficult, if not impossible.

By: dottorjazz

dottorjazz — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:16:25 +0000

transition periods are the most difficult to keep clear:I’m still waiting for the book but I’m sure that not everything will be brought to light.

By: Katharsis

Katharsis — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:10:22 +0000

That’s an interesting point.
I was always wondering, why the heck a DG should be a second pressing, because I somehow doubt, that they decided to use these old dies, when having others.
But my collection is so little, how can I tell.
Please, shed light!

By: bill

bill — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:55:08 +0000

With more knowledge comes more controversy. Fred’s book seems to contradict Allan Songer’s point that any deep groove after 4059 is a second. Fred lists every permutation of deep groove after 4059 as original. Was the new equipment ALWAYS used for the first run as Allan stated? Can anyone shed any light on this?

By: London Calling

London Calling — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:16:00 +0000

There’s one difference, Dottor. Pre-owned shoes rarely increase in value. Just look on Shoebay.(I made that up. There isn’t one) Your records are a solid investment, as well as bringing you pleasure.

I tell my wife, when I go, take the records to a dealer. With the money you get, you can buy all the shoes in the world.

I should say I don’t think I have ever won this argument. I have too many records, and that’s a fact, apparently.

By: dottorjazz

dottorjazz — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:14:37 +0000

my WAF:as old blue eyes sang:”I don’t drink wine and I don’t sniff stuff;so I’m all home-office.I’ve only one bug:MUSIC,so I got my spaces every where I could,large spaces.My wife loves shoes:I tell her she’s got only two feet and she roars back that I have only two ears !true,but I do use ears for culture,not fashion.

By: GW

GW — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:08:04 +0000

WAF – london calling: you are perfectly right with this category!! My wife also sometimes wonders why 2 turntables are necessary and why our home is cramped with so many records. But – most important – she loves the music.