“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 & 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.

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.