A Few of My Favorite Things
Back after a lovely holiday in Costa Rica celebrating my birthday. Now it’s back to reality, which means watching rare jazz vinyl auctions on eBay. But first, I came back to a couple of notes in my inbox with opposing viewpoints on the same record and the same auction. This was the auction in question: John Coltrane, My Favorite Things, Atlantic 1361. The auction was from our friends at the Jazz Record Center in New York. This was listed as the “original mono pressing . . . on the red and purple labels.” The record looked to be in M- condition and the cover was probably VG++. There were four bidders, seven bids, and the final price was $255.
The first note I received was very simple: The subject was “Jazz Record Center Auction – Coltrane Third Pressing.” The message body was one word: “Insane.”
Now, I have to be honest here: I don’t know for sure if this record is a first, second, third, fourth or fifth pressing. With Atlantic, once they get past the black labels, green labels and bulls-eye labels, it’s something of a mystery to me as to what is a first pressing. I generally trust the Jazz Record Center, but like others have noticed, they sometimes use the word “original” when it is not necessarily a first pressing. How our email correspondent came up with the definitive notion that this is a third pressing, is not something I can answer. Hopefully someone here can, and then we can have a better guide to Atlantic.
The second note came under the subject: “John Coltrane on Atlantic.”
Here is the text:
“In my never-ending quest to understand jazz collecting better I was curious to know if anyone could comment on what I though was a very low auction price for this John Coltrane My Favorite Things record from the Jazz Record Center. Versus this high price example on Popsike.”
For those not inclined to click the link, the Popsike copy of My Favorite Things sold for $1,525 more than three years ago. Here’s a photo from that auction.
To continue the email:
“The purple edge variation on the cover is the only visible difference I can see. The JRC example isn’t ‘pristine’ as the Popsike entry reads. Is that it? Both records seem NM, although the JRC version doesn’t have that in the listing. There are less-priced examples on Popsike, but not the same condition. I’m sure I’m missing something obvious to you or one of the experts on Jazz Collector – mind cluing me in? Thanks. Always love reading the site!”
This was my reply:
“Hi. I’m just back from vacation. I’ll post your question next time I do a post. To me, the interesting thing is the $1,500 price rather than the $255 price. My Favorite Things, as great as it is musically, has never been one of the most valued collectibles. It I were to guess an answer, it would be the purple edge, but that would just be a guess. Surely someone in the Jazz Collector audience will have a viable answer.”
Yes?
No way is that an original! That’s a late 60s press. The first has the larger white fan/black box to the right of a larger black A.
London Jazz Collector has a pretty accurate breakdown here: https://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/record-labels-guide/5-atlantic/atlantic-record-labels/
I have to agree with the first note you received “Jazz Record Center Auction – Coltrane Third Pressing. Insane.” Even that $ 1525 copy isn’t a first pressing.
The first pressing has “white fan” labels with no “R” above the fan logo.
The second is the same but with a small registered trademark “R” above the fan logo.
The third pressing has “black fan” labels with a big “A” next to the fan.
The fourth pressing (sold by JRC as an original) has “black fan” labels with a smaller “A” in the box with the fan.
As Clifford posted, the LJC site is a fantastic resource.
Thanks so much for “publishing” my email! Definitely neglected to check LJC, but will next time. Always fascinated by the site and the folks who post here.
My favorite version is the white fan, no R, Mono, wide deep groove version, only because that’s the one I have. I do not see it listed in Discogs. Also, original just means something is not a bootleg, which is not very informative.
Would love to see your mono DG copy, you should make a submission for it on Discogs. I had a stamped “D-J COPY” with no “R” and it was not DG. I sold it as my otherwise identical copy with the “R” was in better condition.
I do think original has a bit stricter definition than just “not a bootleg”:
adjective: original
1. present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.
noun: original
1. something serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies.
@Aaron, good idea, I will submit it to Discogs when I get a chance. It has the Ankh marking, which according to LJC, is “Contract pressing for Atlantic” during the early 60’s. Thanks also for the reminder of what “original” means, and you are right, I’m just jaded I guess, I have hit the buy it now button one too many times on original pressings which turn out to be later issues…
Knowledgable Jazz record sellers should know better than to bandy about the word “original” when it’s not a first pressing.
The “Ankh” stamp in the deadwax is the mark of the MGM Record Manufacturing Division pressing plant.
Often , for me, when one “comes into knowledge,” matters get more complicated. Back when I started collecting, an activity no longer participated in, it was simply just buying records of music or artists that moved me, that I enjoyed. After time terms like matrix number ,label address and original and first pressing, deep groove, etc. came into play. Back then to me all records were original being that I bought them new in a store. Such were “original” at that moment in time. To me, anyway. Perhaps such is what a seller may mean now, original as opposed to reissue. The concept of birth order was not being considered.
Perhaps.
I’ve haggled over the meaning of ‘original’ in record listings with people in the past. A lot of otherwise well meaning and knowledgeable sellers seem to just mean “not a reissue” (as in contemporary reissue) as opposed to first pressing (or even early pressing) by their use of ‘original’. I am not a fan of this usage.
Hello all
Have not been here in a while. Working away late night on the computer and was going through my records for a break and pulled out a handful of Bill Evans later workings. So listening to “Affinity” with Toots Thielemans, has not heard this for a long time but to me a beauty , maybe not to everyones taste but I think Bill shines on this. Electric Keyboards nice. You know , when it comes to Bill Evans , there is not very much he did that was not Gold.
“Original” in the dictionary genrerally means that is is the first impression and not a copy. We all know that. Anyway we collectors buyers and sellers are a funny bunch so not so easy always. A record that is in Very Good (VG) condition is actually “bad” etc… Some use the OG meaning the “Original Gangsta” and is quite widespread. Then sure I can somehow understand that there is a difference between a Genuine Liberty Repress from an W63rd OG and a waxtime pressing. But is the Liberty an original – no I guess not. It sure is an early press from Blue Note but not “original” I guess? Maybe we should distinguish between Repress and Reissue – but that would also kind of mean that the repress should have the same metalware so maybe not?
I guess at the end of the day we just have to make our homework and know for ourselves.
For me an original Blue Note is an album produced by Blue Note before it sold out to United Artists. An original Prestige an album produced by Prestige in Bergenfield before the company was sold to Fantasy.
An original Blue Note can be a first Lex Ave pressing or a third NY pressing. Both are original Blue Notes.
The seller has the responsibility to describe in detail all the features of the object. The buyer is under the obligation to scrutinise all the details of the object offered for sale and ask questions if things are not clear.
Whew ! The debate goes on and on …. As I have said in past, I guess the fact that many don’t realize is that the average guy just wants a beautiful listening experience. Many of us, “old guys” were around to get the original and it was not something that we considered. Collecting for profit or re-selling was not even thought of. It’s the music that matters !
i agree with Rudolf on ‘original’.
if it is a first or third pressing is up to the buyer to investigate..
if you buy a 1000 dollar record and don’t know the ins and outs of it, you are not so smart.
But, being not so smart is NOT a crime, so be my guest.
I personally think it’s the seller’s responsibility to state exactly what they are selling. At least I always do when I’ve sold in the past. If it’s a slight second or third pressing I always indicate it. Why be another shark? To be knowingly vague about selling a record as an “original” when you know it’s a second or third pressing is rather deceitful and predatory.
We’ve been down this road before. Let’s examine the word: original.
Merriam-Webster says:
Adjective:
not secondary, derivative, or imitative
being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made
Noun:
that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made
Pretty straight forward, no?
So if you use the word ’original’ to describe a W63 version of BLP 1550 it’s not correct. Or a NJ pressing of Sax Colossus. Then maybe use the word ’vintage’ pressing or something. For me ’original’ is and will always be the very first pressing. Then, what truly is an original 1st pressing can in some cases be debated (and that issue will probably remain unsolved) when it comes to DG or not for Blue Notes after 4059 for example. For me, DG is irrelevant after 4059 and that is also what Fred Cohen believes.
In my humble view; don’t use the word ’original’ lightly if one cares about what the buyer actually is after and gets home. Honesty is key to keeping this community legit and actually helping your fellow collector instead of trying to take advantage of folks.
My two cents… 🙂
frederick is correct. objectively. anything else is weasel words.
Me? I’m with the folks who believe that “original” refers to a first-time press(before which there were none),and hold sellers responsible for what their listing contains(as well as for what it may IMPLY). What?
If I list a record that I’m unsure of,it’ll read “early pressing” or “‘early 60s issue”,let’s say,if it’s a date known to be first released earlier .
Sure,it’s “buyer beware”-I prefer to think of it as “buyer,BE aware”-as I think both buyers AND sellers benefit from knowledge about condition, pressings,etc. I buy AND I sell-and hope to be ethical on both sides of the equation.
Lastly,I just received the Japanese-mono- issue of “Favorite Things”50th anniversary issue in the mail-on(gasp)cd!
Looking forward to playing it quite often-JC’s “But Not For Me” never fails to make me happy to be alive,to know of this amazing music and to appreciate (love)it,whether”white fan” vinyl…or shiny disc.
I’ve never listed a record on Ebay or purchased one off Ebay or anywhere else where the word “original” was used to denote anything but a first pressing. And I’ve never used the word as a seller and, in my opinion, no seller I’ve ever purchased from has used the word “original” with any meaning other than “first pressing.” If “original” could possibly mean a second pressing because it’s issued by the “original” record label, that same logic would hold for a third pressing by the “original” company et seq. And no one buys into that. Surprised by JRC on this one.
just bought a like news – supersuperclean (exc) 1962 press (3rd printing according to you, black fan) . For 80usd on swedish ebay, really happy! and damn this is good music
I bought some “1st” pressing 10 inch Charlie P records 20 years ago. love them of course but I compared the back catalogue numbers and it seems like they are 1st 2nd or 3 pressings, still 10 inch. The funny thing? I don’t give a fuck.
As at least one seller consistently notes, “All records are vintage pressings, not contemporary reissues,” and a detailed description with attached images should be enough.
The concept of an “Original” is sometimes muddy — especially when manufacturers recycled older labels on newer pressings — but at the end of the day that Coltrane is not a first and the price is egregious. The seller should have been clearer.
The problem is JRC is so well respected, he can write “Original’ and the novice collector will take that as it being a first pressing, . reason being : well it’s from JRC, a guy who not only has good feedback, but the man wrote a book detailing what makes a first pressing on the most famous jazz record label in the word ,that being Blue Note/ At the end of the day, it really is up to the buyer to do his homework, but this listing coming from JRC is a little disappointing, when the sellers knows it’s not a original pressing, and this is not the first time. sad!
The problem is JRC knew better and misrepresented what they were selling. Clifford said:
“As at least one seller consistently notes, “All records are vintage pressings, not contemporary reissues,” and a detailed description with attached images should be enough”
100% correct
Well said Charlie.It’s the music and only the music that counts!
Not sure the buyer would care about our discussion. Nowadays record collecting seems to be driven more and more by Instagram publication.
I remember several years ago, JRC had an auction of “original” Blue Notes and I purchased a title only to find out that while the lables were correct, there was no “P” in the runout. I sent Fred a note saying that I felt that should have been listed in the description. He agreed, though I feel it was more sarcastic than honest.
I do see the other arugment that if it is not listed in the descripltion, then it should be up to the buyer to ask the question. It was a lessoned learned and a mistake that I hope not to repeat.
-Tom
Oh, on the contrary, I was the buyer and absolutely did care about your discussion. In fact, they were your comments which helped me to realize I wasn’t getting a first pressing of Favorite Things. I contacted JRC, received an acknowledgement of his error and promptly received a refund. To me, I now want to read “First Pressing” or not bother.
Thanks for the update Stuart! It’s always nice to hear from the people involved.
Aloha folks, I have purchased records from Fred going back to the late 90’s. I felt he was upfront with me. Having said that, he sells quite a bit on consignment. I wonder how much his clients push him to say or not about the originality of each record? I try to give the benefit of the doubt but seems like more listings aren’t honestly listed. I like what Aaron said, if you can’t definitively say what pressing it is, say these are original vintage releases with good photos depicting all the relevant information for bidders/buyers to make the determination. Mahalo!
Regarding the Aankh mark, could anyone explain. I’m looking at my, hopefully, first pressing and it ticks all boxes exept there is a faint pressed mark on the runout of both sides that I cannot interpret. Could it be the aankh-mark?
Bertil, click “more images” under the photo: https://www.discogs.com/label/1174302-MGM-Custom-Pressing-Division