<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Undercurrent: DG or Not DG, That Is The Question	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/</link>
	<description>For those who love jazz</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:41:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: ZARABETH47		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-96037</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ZARABETH47]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-96037</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Seems to me that the review stamp could of been added whenever. If you go by DG being the rule for an original then the later marketing strategy could be the ticket. I (personally) believe that the DG only occurs because of certain stamper machines as I have tons of late 60s early 70s presses with DGs. BLUE NOTE lps as well as soul and rock titles on various labels. I always assumed that the DG presses is what everyone wants because of the tone of the stamping machine! They seem to be the ticket for what I call BLUE NOTE CLANG or SIZZLE(SCHIZZLE!) I do hear the clang/sizzle on New York USA lps here and there so we then bring up the RVG mastering concept ......... we could go on and on! BN rules for sure! I like your website Al!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems to me that the review stamp could of been added whenever. If you go by DG being the rule for an original then the later marketing strategy could be the ticket. I (personally) believe that the DG only occurs because of certain stamper machines as I have tons of late 60s early 70s presses with DGs. BLUE NOTE lps as well as soul and rock titles on various labels. I always assumed that the DG presses is what everyone wants because of the tone of the stamping machine! They seem to be the ticket for what I call BLUE NOTE CLANG or SIZZLE(SCHIZZLE!) I do hear the clang/sizzle on New York USA lps here and there so we then bring up the RVG mastering concept &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; we could go on and on! BN rules for sure! I like your website Al!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Rudolf		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94366</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rudolf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:30:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94366</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[my copy has no DG either side, has the ears and 47W63rd on each label. On the sleeve 43W61st. According to Larry this should be the original 1st pressing.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my copy has no DG either side, has the ears and 47W63rd on each label. On the sleeve 43W61st. According to Larry this should be the original 1st pressing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94338</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94338</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Right, I haven&#039;t seen any others with those marks.  Although, for a long time I thought the side 2 DG was the original and tend to block other things out so it&#039;s highly possible I just missed it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right, I haven&#8217;t seen any others with those marks.  Although, for a long time I thought the side 2 DG was the original and tend to block other things out so it&#8217;s highly possible I just missed it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Aaron		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94322</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aaron]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94322</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You mean besides this stamped review copy being discussed?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mean besides this stamped review copy being discussed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94305</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:36:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94305</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[don-lucky,  If you get a chance, would you ask Larry if he has ever seen Undercurrent with no DG and the P stamp.  I personally don&#039;t remember seeing one but I could easily be wrong.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>don-lucky,  If you get a chance, would you ask Larry if he has ever seen Undercurrent with no DG and the P stamp.  I personally don&#8217;t remember seeing one but I could easily be wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: don-lucky		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94294</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[don-lucky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94294</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[...First pressing or not, I always prefer to have a DG variation myself. (At the end of the day, to each his own right.)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;First pressing or not, I always prefer to have a DG variation myself. (At the end of the day, to each his own right.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: don-lucky		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94293</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[don-lucky]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94293</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Here&#039;s a quote sent to me from our good friend Larry Cohn back on February 2nd, 2011 regarding this very issue:

&quot;Fred’s point is that for collectors when there is an older or original technology or version that would be preferable, even in the case of a “tie”.  A perfect example is his sale last week on eBay of a copy of Undercurrent by Kenny Drew, BLP 4059.  It is always an interesting title since it does not exist with the dg on both sides (apart from a Plastylite test pressing I guess, but I mean a real copy with actual Blue Note blue &#038; white labels on it).  

Fred of course lists the DG-one side as the original.  But he is consistent –in his auction he did not call his copy an original because it had no dg at all, even though it had the Plastylite P stamped in the vinyl runoff.   I looked at his copy in the store before he sent it off to the winner (who paid some weird amount like $1200) and it had “REVIEW COPY” stamped on the label on Side B, as well as on the back of the jacket.

In my research that “REVIEW COPY” stamp would be just the evidence I was looking for to prove that this copy of 4059 was indeed a first pressing original.    It would support my theory that when the new technology was introduced it was applied to new releases, with the older repressings getting second class citizen (or more accurately random, anything will do) treatment.  So I would argue that the NO DG with P copies of 4059 are the originals and the dg-1 side copies are random second pressings.  Of course, the no P copies are reissues dating from 1966 or 1967, 5 or 6 years after the record was released.

But I see Fred’s point.    For later titles, say Song for My Father or The Sidewinder, getting a dg copy is very, very satisfying from a collecting standpoint.  It is preferable to the good old, garden variety modern NO DG with P copy.  That is his point-of-view and he is honest enough to even go by it when he is selling something.

Larry&quot;

*Thanks again for all your input on this one Larry ! Greatly appreciated as always.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a quote sent to me from our good friend Larry Cohn back on February 2nd, 2011 regarding this very issue:</p>
<p>&#8220;Fred’s point is that for collectors when there is an older or original technology or version that would be preferable, even in the case of a “tie”.  A perfect example is his sale last week on eBay of a copy of Undercurrent by Kenny Drew, BLP 4059.  It is always an interesting title since it does not exist with the dg on both sides (apart from a Plastylite test pressing I guess, but I mean a real copy with actual Blue Note blue &amp; white labels on it).  </p>
<p>Fred of course lists the DG-one side as the original.  But he is consistent –in his auction he did not call his copy an original because it had no dg at all, even though it had the Plastylite P stamped in the vinyl runoff.   I looked at his copy in the store before he sent it off to the winner (who paid some weird amount like $1200) and it had “REVIEW COPY” stamped on the label on Side B, as well as on the back of the jacket.</p>
<p>In my research that “REVIEW COPY” stamp would be just the evidence I was looking for to prove that this copy of 4059 was indeed a first pressing original.    It would support my theory that when the new technology was introduced it was applied to new releases, with the older repressings getting second class citizen (or more accurately random, anything will do) treatment.  So I would argue that the NO DG with P copies of 4059 are the originals and the dg-1 side copies are random second pressings.  Of course, the no P copies are reissues dating from 1966 or 1967, 5 or 6 years after the record was released.</p>
<p>But I see Fred’s point.    For later titles, say Song for My Father or The Sidewinder, getting a dg copy is very, very satisfying from a collecting standpoint.  It is preferable to the good old, garden variety modern NO DG with P copy.  That is his point-of-view and he is honest enough to even go by it when he is selling something.</p>
<p>Larry&#8221;</p>
<p>*Thanks again for all your input on this one Larry ! Greatly appreciated as always.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Nick		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94288</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nick]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94288</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hello Got this off of the net for your information. 

Plating
The plater coats each acetate with a thin layer of silver which is then electro-plated with nickel. When this plate is separated from the acetate, the metal that was facing the disk now has protruding ridges where the grooves were. This plate is called the father or master plate. The acetate disk usually gets destroyed in this process.

The father plate is oxidized, and plated again. The resulting plate, when separated from the father, becomes a metal duplicate of the acetate, with grooves again. This plate is called the mother plate and can be played on a turntable to check for errors in mastering or plating. Like acetates, mothers and fathers also come in one-sided pairs.

In a two step process, the father plate is converted into a stamper, and the mother is shelved for future use. In a three step process, the mother is oxidized and plated to make stamper plates. One father can produce 10 mothers, and one mother can produce 10 stampers. *One stamper can produce about 1000 vinyl records. Therefore, a two step process can produce a maximum of about 11,000 records before a remastering has to be done, and a three step process can produce up to about 100,000 vinyl records before remastering.

(The plating section was written almost 100% by Paul W. Brekus, master engineer at Aardvark Record Mastering in Denver, CO. Please see Aardvark for Paul&#039;s excellent &quot;The Record Making Process&quot; summary.)

*Maybe the 1000 per stamper has improved since the Blue Notes were made and it could have been a lesser count for the Blue Notes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Got this off of the net for your information. </p>
<p>Plating<br />
The plater coats each acetate with a thin layer of silver which is then electro-plated with nickel. When this plate is separated from the acetate, the metal that was facing the disk now has protruding ridges where the grooves were. This plate is called the father or master plate. The acetate disk usually gets destroyed in this process.</p>
<p>The father plate is oxidized, and plated again. The resulting plate, when separated from the father, becomes a metal duplicate of the acetate, with grooves again. This plate is called the mother plate and can be played on a turntable to check for errors in mastering or plating. Like acetates, mothers and fathers also come in one-sided pairs.</p>
<p>In a two step process, the father plate is converted into a stamper, and the mother is shelved for future use. In a three step process, the mother is oxidized and plated to make stamper plates. One father can produce 10 mothers, and one mother can produce 10 stampers. *One stamper can produce about 1000 vinyl records. Therefore, a two step process can produce a maximum of about 11,000 records before a remastering has to be done, and a three step process can produce up to about 100,000 vinyl records before remastering.</p>
<p>(The plating section was written almost 100% by Paul W. Brekus, master engineer at Aardvark Record Mastering in Denver, CO. Please see Aardvark for Paul&#8217;s excellent &#8220;The Record Making Process&#8221; summary.)</p>
<p>*Maybe the 1000 per stamper has improved since the Blue Notes were made and it could have been a lesser count for the Blue Notes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ceedee		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94284</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ceedee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94284</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;To OCD or not to OCD,that is the question&quot;...ya think?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;To OCD or not to OCD,that is the question&#8221;&#8230;ya think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: dottorjazz		</title>
		<link>https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/original-undercurrent-dg-or-not-dg-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-94278</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dottorjazz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jazzcollector.com/?p=3536#comment-94278</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[right:this is the problem and I think Fred&#039;s book can&#039;t give all answers.
In my own opinion it&#039;s a wonderful book but deep groove question is destinated to survive.
and all serious collectors will stay up at night with this doubt:original or not original ?
if you have the road to solve it,please start,we&#039;&#039;ll follow you !]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>right:this is the problem and I think Fred&#8217;s book can&#8217;t give all answers.<br />
In my own opinion it&#8217;s a wonderful book but deep groove question is destinated to survive.<br />
and all serious collectors will stay up at night with this doubt:original or not original ?<br />
if you have the road to solve it,please start,we&#8221;ll follow you !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
