As for the 4059. The only copy with Review Copy stamped to label and cover was the non-DG version. Fred takes this as an evidence of this non-DG version being a 1st press.

IMO the most likely scenario for 4059 is that the pressing run started out with one DG – Die and one non-DG die. The in the middle of the pressing run the side 2 DG-Die broke and was replaced with a non-DG die. Of course it could be the other way around ie that the run started with two non-DG dies.

Anyway when the pressed records came in those cardboard boxes to the warehouse in NY where they were put together with the covers (this was not done at the Plastylite plant) . An employee just grabbed a handful of records from the record boxes and the covers from another box I guess. What that person grabbed was maybe the first or lasts pressed LPs in that run – who knows. Depends on the logistics and how many boxes of 4059 there were. Then took the records to the office and stamped them “Review Copy” and let them out for distribution to radio stations, critics etc.

PS If you want to see the picture of the warehouse with Lee Morgans sitting in front look at londonjazzcollector

That said, up to this point, I’ve discovered a couple of errors on some titles, and Fred has confirmed this (one title differs on the DG question between the first edition of the book and the revised edition, and the cover address is not correct for another title) and that this will be fixed for a future edition.

I have warmed up somewhat to the possibility of not following the book regarding the DG or not dilemma for titles after BLP 4059 (as Cohen himself says; anything after 4059, DG or not, he considers original, as long as all other attributes that defines a 1st pressing is present) but it’s difficult. We’ll see how this goes…

Here’s Fred’s answer to me regarding my question if a specific title I was interested in had to be DG to be considered a 1st pressing:

“Starting with BLP 4059, released in May of 1961, pressing plants ordering replacement centers (see pp. 76-79 of my book) received them with no deep groove. They probably didn’t notice. It can only be assumed that the change in center design was a move to more economical pressings that required less (thinner) vinyl.

Here is where speculation comes into play: if you are working in a pressing plant you will likely take a center off the shelf or box at random and secure the stamper on the press. Your job is to press records, not check to see what the centers look like. Maybe you will press 300 copies this week and next week you will press 300 more (of the same record). Who knows which center was used for which pressing – deep-groove or non deep-groove?

The answer to your question is this: we do not know which pressings came off the press first. But if, as a collector, your interest is in having a record with all the details that define a first pressing, then the deep-groove pressing is the one for you. As for me, anything after 4059 is “original” as long as all other details are correct.

I hope that provides clarity.

Fred”

Cheers!

https://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/record-labels-guide/labelography-2/blue-note-deep-groove/

Deep grooves are and will always be more connected to OG and older records and I guess collectors will most likely see it as a plus factor when collecting and everything before a certain point in 1961 was indeed deep groove. The flat edge is another subject that is interesting and also the info that all 10″ 5000-series from the 50’s are 1st pressings is also an interesting subject….