Comments on: Well, At Least It’s Original https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/ For those who love jazz Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:08:15 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Rudolf https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11807 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:08:15 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11807 No, I meant to say that the last original in my collecton, without Inc and R, is # 4006. My 4017 is definitely an original first, so between 4006 and 4016 they made the change.

]]> By: Geraint https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11772 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:10:04 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11772 Maybe all publicity isn’t good publicity after all – no bidders for this guy; …and even $75 is a bit steep as a starting price for this title – the last few on ebay (in similar condition, recorded by popsike) ended for quite a bit less than that.

Did you mean 4016 Rudolf? There are certainly copies of 4006 (Dizzy Reece) without Inc & R. (& 4007 to 4016).

]]> By: ceedee https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11754 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 05:30:59 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11754 Yeah,he did change it..hopefully before inspiring any other novice seller to reach for such “ass-tronomical” heights.

]]> By: Geraint https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11711 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:52:06 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11711 perhaps you missed that the seller has actually changed the start price to $75.00?

]]> By: Al https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11710 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:03:17 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11710 Yes, but quite expensive as well.

]]> By: Geraint https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11705 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:08:51 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11705 Good way to get your auction noticed!

]]> By: Al https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11700 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:29:13 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11700 Well, I think Don-Lucky is right about this one and the missing decimal point.

]]> By: Rudolf https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11697 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:01:05 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11697 I don’t think so. I bought mine when it was issued in 1959. It has Inc and R. The highest catalogue number I have without Inc and R is 4006.

]]> By: Geraint https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11656 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:27:52 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11656 …but is it (original) though? Aren’t there supposed to be copies without the ‘Inc’ & ‘R’?

]]> By: don-lucky https://jazzcollector.com/blue-note/well-at-least-its-original/comment-page-1/#comment-11623 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:13 +0000 http://jazzcollector.com/?p=2421#comment-11623 …Damn !!! If anyone is interested, I’ve got a copy without all the seam splits that I would let go for $6000 ! (heh heh heh) Perhaps they meant to post it for $75.00 and forgot the decimal, as it really doesn’t look like they put much effort into their posting to begin with. Let this be a lesson for all you aspiring “Nautiluso’s” out there… For $7,500 I would expect a bit more flair, a convincing sales pitch and some decent photos at very least ! Where is the love ? This used to be about the music !!!

]]>