It’s A Seal, But is it a Steal?
I’ve been watching a lot of interesting jazz vinyl on eBay this week, starting with: Bill Evans, Waltz for Debby, Riverside 399. This one brings up the old conundrum of what to do about a sealed record, as a buyer, a seller or as an owner. This is a sealed mono copy and one would assume, from the looks of the cover, that it just may be an original pressing. The seller certainly thinks it is an original, and I assume so do the bidders. This one has been bid up to $560 and it closes later today. So when you get it, you have to open it, and then it’s no longer sealed. Does that make it less valuable, or is it more valuable that it’s never been played. Of course, if you’re a real collector and fan, like me, the first thing you will do is put it on the turntable, so there goes the “unplayed” designation as well. But you have a pristine copy of one of the great jazz records of the era. How sweet is that — if, indeed, it is an original pressing. If not, well, the music is still great. For comparison’s sake, here’s a copy of Waltz for Debby that just closed on eBay. This one was probably in VG+ condition for the record and VG+ for the cover, and it was clearly a deep groove, blue label original. It sold for $415.
My Blue Label Orpheum Mono Orpheum pressing(not original obviously) has the same features on the cover as this one. I don’t have an original to compare it to, but looking at the cover I can’t tell a difference, clearly the label is different but you can’t find this out without opening. All features(that I can see from the photos) are identical on my Orpheum which would make me nervous if I was a bidder here.
I’m not opposed to paying big bucks for a premium copy of a record and IF this is original it’s seems that it’s about as premium as it gets. If this was one of my must have records I might bid and take the risk but honestly I’m not a huge Bill Evans fan(like and appreciate but I don’t LOVE him) so I’m not in on this one. I hope whoever gets it finds an original but there is a possibility it’s a mid-60s Orpheum. If any bidder has any questions about my copy please feel free, I just wish I had an original to compare and do a more thorough investigation.
RE:”Waltz” and the other early Evans/Lafaro/Motian trio recordings on Riverside-can someone please clarify the “Bill Grauer,Inc.” issue? Are only the first year issues w/o the “INC.” and thus a first “original” pressing? When did the “Inc.” become a part of the Riverside label? Both editions sound great to me,but if someone is paying that kind of bread,they should have all the info available,right?
The “Inc.” on the bottom line of the label text first appeared in 1960. Accoring to what I’ve read this started on release number 329 and went to 476 (except 331, 332, 333 & 339).
There are two generations of Deep Groove reel mike label of this Waltsz For Debby album. . The original has a large label with a wide DG. The cover must have same lettering on top right as the one featured in the auction. (the sealed one). The other DG edition has a narrower DG and large black lettering on top back RS 9399 on left and RLP 399 on right.
Anyone buying such a pricey record should be aware that many of the later riverides are noisy due to the inferior quality of the vinyl…
“Anyone buying such a pricey record should be aware that many of the later riverides are noisy due to the inferior quality of the vinyl.”
It’s not just the later ones, I’ve had a few original Riversides that were pressed on noisy vinyl.
Many sessions recorded for Riverside were fantastic (musicwise) but often not so well recorded (no RVG here) and pressings were often lousy too. Same with Atlantic: many fantastic sessions but often poorly recorded…