Various Musings On The Salvadors

[Billy Jo Jim Bob]

what a load of b*llocks this thread is i'm guilty of playing a second issue on Saturday there I've said it   

Your playing "pressings" Ted, and I thought they were carvers    

Edited February 7, 2015 by pikeys dog
swearing - workplace filters

[El Corol]

what a load of b*llocks this thread is i'm guilty of playing a second issue on Saturday there I've said it

Although I take your point and the humour in it, I have to say this thread isn't a load of b*llocks as it's main purpose has been to undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press being the first press over the "dimpled press".

Unless of course you are going to play a boot on Saturday : )

Edited February 7, 2015 by pikeys dog
swearing - workplace filters

[Ted Massey]

Although I take your point and the humour in it, I have to say this thread isn't a load of b*llocks as it's main purpose has been to undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press being the first press over the "dimpled press".

Unless of course you are going to play a boot on Saturday : )

how do we actually know that is the first press it was 40 years ago I cant remember 10 years ago lol. some one might have said these are a bit thin and they have dimples in folks arnt going to like these and probably reject them so they made them heavier

Edited February 7, 2015 by pikeys dog
swearing - workplace filters

[Pete S]

how do we actually know that is the first press it was 40 years ago I cant remember 10 years ago lol. some one might have said these are a bit thin and they have dimples in folks arnt going to like these and probably reject them so they made them heavier

 

We don't know.  Nobody knows.  And who really cares?  What's to stop people saying the St Louis one is the second pressing - which I think it is.

[Ady Potts]

My one came from St. Louis. It has the two pimple/dimples. But it has the darker labels. Plus it has a 1966 date on the 'I wanna dance' side. Vinyl seems pretty thick to me. Now who's nicked my fookin vernier ?!

[Pete S]

My one came from St. Louis. It has the two pimple/dimples. But it has the darker labels. Plus it has a 1966 date on the 'I wanna dance' side. Vinyl seems pretty thick to me. Now who's nicked my fookin vernier ?!

 

So now you have the only original in existence, the Chicago press is the 2nd issue and the St Louis press with no dimples is the 3rd press 

[El Corol]

how do we actually know that is the first press it was 40 years ago I cant remember 10 years ago lol. some one might have said these are a bit thin and they have dimples in folks arnt going to like these and probably reject them so they made them heavier

I am actually agreeing with you, this is all guess work unless someone has absolute proof.

[Julianb]

The plot thickens ( well, the vinyl at least)  

[Stanley]

The plot thickens ( well, the vinyl at least)  

is anyone getting pressed off with this ?

[spot]

Who actually gives a rats behind, other than someone buying it, my rare Green bootleg i gave to Snowy could hardly be told from a real one, it's all gone a bit Pete Tong this thread & very anal.    

Spot.  

[Premium Stuff]

Well, if I was the person selling this epic Salvadors record on John's auction I think I might be pretty well pissed off with this thread - because it just seems to be focused on running down the record and the auction. Much of what has been said has been pretty negative, as well as uninformed.

 

Would have been nice to see some properly informed and evidence-based comments. However, as El Corol stated above, the thread's "... main purpose has been to undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press being the first press over the "dimpled press".      What is that all about?

 

I think it's pretty safe and clear to conclude that the copy on John's auction is the first press - it's just very basic and straightforward deduction. It's actually implausible that it could be any other way, because the dead wax markings on the two presses are identical - apart from the dimples. Does anyone really doubt that the original master was clean and that the dimples appeared later on? Does anyone really believe that the dimples were somehow removed to create a clean master plate? Anyone who suggests that the non-dimpled version wasn't the first press off that master plate is either a numpty or is probably just being deliberately mischievous.

 

In the old days on Soulsource, before many of the good people left, there would have been a real community spirit around trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing. Now it's all just about running down prices, slagging off people's sales, comedy sale of the day, and having a go at people. We aren't allowed to slag off sales on Soulsource under the site rules. It would be decent not to slag off non-Soulsource sales too.

 

Regarding where and when these records were pressed - well that's very interesting. But in this thread there's not actually much that has been said which is credible, constructive or evidence-based to substantiate a different conclusion. It's just all been about running down the write up on the auction (and please do also take into account the old thread too - link posted previously - which set out the key details between the two presses years ago).

 

As far as I understand it, the non-dimpled copy on the auction (and one or more of the previous similar copies referred to above) were found in St Louis. Personally, I have taken this to mean there was a St Louis issue and a Chicago issue - as in the records were distributed in those locations. Maybe the word "release" is better than "press" here? Regardless, it just seems to me that much of the chat above is deliberately focused on talking the record down, rather than contributing towards a properly informed debate about provenance.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there can't reasonably be any answer other than that the one on Johns' auction is the true first press. In my book that makes it more desirable than the other press - and so it is the most desirable version there is of this iconic (no perfect) rare Northern Soul classic.

 

Like I said, if it was me selling the record on the auction I would be pissed off with this load of negative uninformed tosh   

 

Richard

Edited August 5, 2014 by Premium Stuff

[Tai-pan]

Small torch,small magnifying glass and a micrometer.

The Allnighter Record Buyers Kit.( Available now at KH.analcollectors.com.)

 

Kev, do you have the correct website address, just tried and its coming up 'not found"? Cheers.

[Mike]

In the old days on Soulsource, before many of the good people left, there would have been a real community spirit around trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing. Now it's all just about running down prices, slagging off people's sales, comedy sale of the day, and having a go at people. We aren't allowed to slag off sales on Soulsource under the site rules. It would be decent not to slag off non-Soulsource sales too.

if you wish to post feedback about soul source then its best to do it in the support forum

doing it in threads like this just damages the actual thread

sure that have spoke to you about this before so try and do it next time yep ?

thanks now

mike

a quick question Richard

 

edited 

Edited August 6, 2014 by mike
edited

[Ritchieandrew]

Is this Richard Watt's old copy, that J.M. has for Auction.??

[Pete S]

Well, if I was the person selling this epic Salvadors record on John's auction I think I might be pretty well pissed off with this thread - because it just seems to be focused on running down the record and the auction. Much of what has been said has been pretty negative, as well as uninformed.

 

Would have been nice to see some properly informed and evidence-based comments. However, as El Corol stated above, the thread's "... main purpose has been to undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press being the first press over the "dimpled press".      What is that all about?

 

I think it's pretty safe and clear to conclude that the copy on John's auction is the first press - it's just very basic and straightforward deduction. It's actually implausible that it could be any other way, because the dead wax markings on the two presses are identical - apart from the dimples. Does anyone really doubt that the original master was clean and that the dimples appeared later on? Does anyone really believe that the dimples were somehow removed to create a clean master plate? Anyone who suggests that the non-dimpled version wasn't the first press off that master plate is either a numpty or is probably just being deliberately mischievous.

 

In the old days on Soulsource, before many of the good people left, there would have been a real community spirit around trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing. Now it's all just about running down prices, slagging off people's sales, comedy sale of the day, and having a go at people. We aren't allowed to slag off sales on Soulsource under the site rules. It would be decent not to slag off non-Soulsource sales too.

 

Regarding where and when these records were pressed - well that's very interesting. But in this thread there's not actually much that has been said which is credible, constructive or evidence-based to substantiate a different conclusion. It's just all been about running down the write up on the auction (and please do also take into account the old thread too - link posted previously - which set out the key details between the two presses years ago).

 

As far as I understand it, the non-dimpled copy on the auction (and one or more of the previous similar copies referred to above) were found in St Louis. Personally, I have taken this to mean there was a St Louis issue and a Chicago issue - as in the records were distributed in those locations. Maybe the word "release" is better than "press" here? Regardless, it just seems to me that much of the chat above is deliberately focused on talking the record down, rather than contributing towards a properly informed debate about provenance.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there can't reasonably be any answer other than that the one on Johns' auction is the true first press. In my book that makes it more desirable than the other press - and so it is the most desirable version there is of this iconic (no perfect) rare Northern Soul classic.

 

Like I said, if it was me selling the record on the auction I would be pissed off with this load of negative uninformed tosh   

 

Richard

 

What utter, utter b*llocks.  People have been giving well thought out theories on here which are just as credible as the one on the auction.  Someone has to come up with these things in the first place, how do you know which version is correct, and what do you have to say about Ady Potts' third version?

Get your head out of John Manship's arse.

Edited February 7, 2015 by pikeys dog
swearing - workplace filters

[Pete S]

 

In the old days on Soulsource, before many of the good people left, there would have been a real community spirit around trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing. Now it's all just about running down prices, slagging off people's sales, comedy sale of the day, and having a go at people. We aren't allowed to slag off sales on Soulsource under the site rules. It would be decent not to slag off non-Soulsource sales too.

 

 

This whole thread has been about trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing.  Four pages of debate, what could be healthier than that?  Running down prices - yes, when they are double or triple standard prices...Comedy Sale Of The Day...to point out idiots selling bootlegs for £100 etc, what's wrong with that?

If you're not interested in open debate concerning records and their prices, why bother with Soul Source?

[Frankie Crocker]

Well, if I was the person selling this epic Salvadors record on John's auction I think I might be pretty well pissed off with this thread - because it just seems to be focused on running down the record and the auction. Much of what has been said has been pretty negative, as well as uninformed.

 

Would have been nice to see some properly informed and evidence-based comments. However, as El Corol stated above, the thread's "... main purpose has been to undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press being the first press over the "dimpled press".      What is that all about?

 

I think it's pretty safe and clear to conclude that the copy on John's auction is the first press - it's just very basic and straightforward deduction. It's actually implausible that it could be any other way, because the dead wax markings on the two presses are identical - apart from the dimples. Does anyone really doubt that the original master was clean and that the dimples appeared later on? Does anyone really believe that the dimples were somehow removed to create a clean master plate? Anyone who suggests that the non-dimpled version wasn't the first press off that master plate is either a numpty or is probably just being deliberately mischievous.

 

In the old days on Soulsource, before many of the good people left, there would have been a real community spirit around trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing. Now it's all just about running down prices, slagging off people's sales, comedy sale of the day, and having a go at people. We aren't allowed to slag off sales on Soulsource under the site rules. It would be decent not to slag off non-Soulsource sales too.

 

Regarding where and when these records were pressed - well that's very interesting. But in this thread there's not actually much that has been said which is credible, constructive or evidence-based to substantiate a different conclusion. It's just all been about running down the write up on the auction (and please do also take into account the old thread too - link posted previously - which set out the key details between the two presses years ago).

 

As far as I understand it, the non-dimpled copy on the auction (and one or more of the previous similar copies referred to above) were found in St Louis. Personally, I have taken this to mean there was a St Louis issue and a Chicago issue - as in the records were distributed in those locations. Maybe the word "release" is better than "press" here? Regardless, it just seems to me that much of the chat above is deliberately focused on talking the record down, rather than contributing towards a properly informed debate about provenance.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there can't reasonably be any answer other than that the one on Johns' auction is the true first press. In my book that makes it more desirable than the other press - and so it is the most desirable version there is of this iconic (no perfect) rare Northern Soul classic.

 

Like I said, if it was me selling the record on the auction I would be pissed off with this load of negative uninformed tosh   

 

Richard

A lot of sense here Richard. The Salvadors were essentially a Chicago group it appears. They left St Louis. They somehow hooked up with Jo Armstead and her amazing song writing talent maybe in I967 or shortly after QED. They recorded an obscure track on the Nike label, presumably soon after arriving in Chicago: this Nike label format is different to other artists' releases. Stick By Me Baby appears to be the first release on the Wise World label unless there is a #300 out there? There is another Wise World label, the one the Classics recorded on, presumably a Chicago label but pressed in Detroit? So, speculating further, did the Salvadors take their great song back to St Louis for a Wise World re-press to avoid clashing with the Chicago label or did they just take a second batch of Chicago pressed 45's down to Missouri QED? I do not think there is any evidence of a St Louis pressing at present - all the signs are that the record was pressed twice in the same Chicago plant. Whatever the true story, it is a truly fantastic record and one that no amount of discussion will discredit. Anyone got Joshie Jo's side of the story?

[Pete S]

A lot of sense here Richard. The Salvadors were essentially a Chicago group it appears. They left St Louis. They somehow hooked up with Jo Armstead and her amazing song writing talent maybe in I967 or shortly after QED. They recorded an obscure track on the Nike label, presumably soon after arriving in Chicago: this Nike label format is different to other artists' releases. Stick By Me Baby appears to be the first release on the Wise World label unless there is a #300 out there? There is another Wise World label, the one the Classics recorded on, presumably a Chicago label but pressed in Detroit? So, speculating further, did the Salvadors take their great song back to St Louis for a Wise World re-press to avoid clashing with the Chicago label or did they just take a second batch of Chicago pressed 45's down to Missouri QED? I do not think there is any evidence of a St Louis pressing at present - all the signs are that the record was pressed twice in the same Chicago plant. Whatever the true story, it is a truly fantastic record and one that no amount of discussion will discredit. Anyone got Joshie Jo's side of the story?

 

Who - f*cking - cares.*

 

*sorry thats not aimed at you, just at the ridiculousness of this thread and the whole original second press third press rubbish

Edited August 6, 2014 by Pete S

[Frankie Crocker]

Who - f*cking - cares.*

 

*sorry thats not aimed at you, just at the ridiculousness of this thread and the whole original second press third press rubbish

Hi Pete. I happen to like the Comedy Sale thread. I also think the Salvadors pressing issue is worthy of our consideration. It may come to pass that John has allowed erroneous details to be published in conjunction with an auction item. Hopefully further discussion will throw up the truth, or stimulating reading material in the meantime.

[Chalky]

Well, if I was the person selling this epic Salvadors record on John's auction I think I might be pretty well pissed off with this thread - because it just seems to be focused on running down the record and the auction. Much of what has been said has been pretty negative, as well as uninformed.

 

Would have been nice to see some properly informed and evidence-based comments. However, as El Corol stated above, the thread's "... main purpose has been to undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press being the first press over the "dimpled press".      What is that all about?

 

I think it's pretty safe and clear to conclude that the copy on John's auction is the first press - it's just very basic and straightforward deduction. It's actually implausible that it could be any other way, because the dead wax markings on the two presses are identical - apart from the dimples. Does anyone really doubt that the original master was clean and that the dimples appeared later on? Does anyone really believe that the dimples were somehow removed to create a clean master plate? Anyone who suggests that the non-dimpled version wasn't the first press off that master plate is either a numpty or is probably just being deliberately mischievous.

 

In the old days on Soulsource, before many of the good people left, there would have been a real community spirit around trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing. Now it's all just about running down prices, slagging off people's sales, comedy sale of the day, and having a go at people. We aren't allowed to slag off sales on Soulsource under the site rules. It would be decent not to slag off non-Soulsource sales too.

 

Regarding where and when these records were pressed - well that's very interesting. But in this thread there's not actually much that has been said which is credible, constructive or evidence-based to substantiate a different conclusion. It's just all been about running down the write up on the auction (and please do also take into account the old thread too - link posted previously - which set out the key details between the two presses years ago).

 

As far as I understand it, the non-dimpled copy on the auction (and one or more of the previous similar copies referred to above) were found in St Louis. Personally, I have taken this to mean there was a St Louis issue and a Chicago issue - as in the records were distributed in those locations. Maybe the word "release" is better than "press" here? Regardless, it just seems to me that much of the chat above is deliberately focused on talking the record down, rather than contributing towards a properly informed debate about provenance.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there can't reasonably be any answer other than that the one on Johns' auction is the true first press. In my book that makes it more desirable than the other press - and so it is the most desirable version there is of this iconic (no perfect) rare Northern Soul classic.

 

Like I said, if it was me selling the record on the auction I would be pissed off with this load of negative uninformed tosh   

 

Richard

Given the group were from St Louis there is every chance you will find copies there.

I haven't seen much in the way of trashing an auction, some silly comments yes and from some not much in the way of sense but hey ho what do you expect from some. I have seen one persons view challenged on the origins of the releases and after all why should we the one person's word as gospel. It is after all no different to what has gone on in record bars for years.

What is known is there was two presses. One with damaged stampers. Given some of the input from some there is every reason to believe they were both pressed in Chicago.

The question that remains is which came first and as none of us have any hard evidence it is open to conjecture.

What is pretty sound knowledge is the were done from the same master. Now was the first set of stampers damaged causing the dimples so a second set made for the press on heavier vinyl? Or was the heavier vinyl done, taken away by the group for their own promotion. If that is the case then it could have done well locally or received favourable reviews and so a second press was done. But in the mean time the master was damaged which in turn produced a damaged stamper.

So was the master damaged after first press giving the dimpled second press or was the stamper damaged on the first press giving a dimpled first press and so a second stamper made from the master for the none dimpled press on heavier vinyl?

Most of the facts are there apart from where the disc was pressed and which came first, the rest will be argued over for years to come, probably by those who have one or t'other.

[Stanley]

Is this Richard Watt's old copy, that J.M. has for Auction.??

no it isn,t , he still has his copy

[El Corol]

Well, if I was the person selling this epic Salvadors record on John's auction I think I might be pretty well pissed off with this thread - because it just seems to be focused on running down the record and the auction. Much of what has been said has been pretty negative, as well as uninformed.

 

Would have been nice to see some properly informed and evidence-based comments. However, as El Corol stated above, the thread's "... main purpose has been to undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press being the first press over the "dimpled press".      What is that all about?

 

I think it's pretty safe and clear to conclude that the copy on John's auction is the first press - it's just very basic and straightforward deduction. It's actually implausible that it could be any other way, because the dead wax markings on the two presses are identical - apart from the dimples. Does anyone really doubt that the original master was clean and that the dimples appeared later on? Does anyone really believe that the dimples were somehow removed to create a clean master plate? Anyone who suggests that the non-dimpled version wasn't the first press off that master plate is either a numpty or is probably just being deliberately mischievous.

 

In the old days on Soulsource, before many of the good people left, there would have been a real community spirit around trying to find out the truth about this kind of thing. Now it's all just about running down prices, slagging off people's sales, comedy sale of the day, and having a go at people. We aren't allowed to slag off sales on Soulsource under the site rules. It would be decent not to slag off non-Soulsource sales too.

 

Regarding where and when these records were pressed - well that's very interesting. But in this thread there's not actually much that has been said which is credible, constructive or evidence-based to substantiate a different conclusion. It's just all been about running down the write up on the auction (and please do also take into account the old thread too - link posted previously - which set out the key details between the two presses years ago).

 

As far as I understand it, the non-dimpled copy on the auction (and one or more of the previous similar copies referred to above) were found in St Louis. Personally, I have taken this to mean there was a St Louis issue and a Chicago issue - as in the records were distributed in those locations. Maybe the word "release" is better than "press" here? Regardless, it just seems to me that much of the chat above is deliberately focused on talking the record down, rather than contributing towards a properly informed debate about provenance.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there can't reasonably be any answer other than that the one on Johns' auction is the true first press. In my book that makes it more desirable than the other press - and so it is the most desirable version there is of this iconic (no perfect) rare Northern Soul classic.

 

Like I said, if it was me selling the record on the auction I would be pissed off with this load of negative uninformed tosh   

 

Richard

Richard, on reflection what I said about the purpose of the thread being to "undermine the whole supposedly St Louis press........" was badly worded and probably does give the wrong impression. I would actually say that for me the purpose of the thread has been to question the validity of the argument that the first press is definately from St Louis.

 

As Pete S says, four pages of debate can't be a bad thing and I haven't seen it as a "slaggin off" of the sale, but of course JM is going to get mentioned as he is conducting the sale and its his site which is stating its the first press.

 

Maybe its all about perception.

 

FrankieCrocker and Chalky in their above posts have both summarised some of the thinking about the press's/releases's of SBMB that this thread has highlighted (for me at least) so I wouldn't call it "negative uninformed tosh" its supposition based on what facts/information is known, just the same as what your argument is based on.

 

Rob

Edited August 6, 2014 by El Corol

[Guest SteveJohnston]

Well this really has been interesting reading more twists & turns than a …….road with lots of bends!.....

 

If I could afford to own an original of this record, then the one on JM’s auction is the one to own it’s got to be much more desirable & valuable over the one with dimples/pimples. Saying that I would welcome with open arms, any original of this record into my collection.

 

Steve J

[Premium Stuff]

Get your head out of John Manship's arse.

 

I rest my case regarding the level of intelligence in the debate 

[Pete S]

I rest my case regarding the level of intelligence in the debate 

 

I thought that was a reasonable summing up!  

[Des Crombie]

Sorry I've came to this thread a bit late but I'm not convinced about the darker labels. Mine has labels that are as dark and bright silver text as the one shown on auction. In fact it sounds very similar to how Pottsy describes his copy with fairly thick vinyl too. I'd have to see two side by side.

The two pimples (I can confirm they are pimples and not dimples) suggests that one of the stampers was flawed. So if you believe that only one stamper was ever made then that would infer that the first records pressed did not have pimples, then subsequent records pressed did.

However, if you conclude, as commonly the case, that more than one stamper was made then it is possible that the first records to be pressed may have had pimples. Of course if there were two sets of stampers it's also possible that more than one machine could have been stamping at the same time, one with, one without pimples.

As for the thickness of the vinyl again not convinced that all records ran off have exactly the same thickness of vinyl. Can anyone shed light on this aspect? Doing my head in thinking about it.

At the end of the day with or without pimples they are both originals.

Whether anyone wants to pay a premium for a pimple-less copy is up to them and the prerogative of the seller to promote this as a positive selling point. Personally the pimples don't bother me as they don't effect play and add to the mystique and story of these records. Though can see why someone may want to pay more for less pimples.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Des Crombie

[dean jj]

Dear Gents,

I got lost as the bus pulled out of the depot but my Salvadors has no dimples/pimples/labels dark blue/ various matrix marks scratched out and quite large 62 771 hand added to the run out groove. Would anyone be able to guesstamate heritage and value from that info?

It would be very kind if someone could steer me through the maze.

cheers

dean

[Chris O]

Bought the double dimple salvadors as a booty in the 8ts. Kept it coz I loved it, coudnt afford a real one and because the sound quality was great, though them dimples bugged me, had it many years then sold it as a bootleg £3 . Think I even made a profit..Yeh,. Should of guessed by the quality but I was young and stupid.

[Guest]

Dear Gents,

I got lost as the bus pulled out of the depot but my Salvadors has no dimples/pimples/labels dark blue/ various matrix marks scratched out and quite large 62 771 hand added to the run out groove. Would anyone be able to guesstamate heritage and value from that info?

It would be very kind if someone could steer me through the maze.

cheers

dean

If you`ve had it since the 70s it will be one of the 1st boots!

Depending on how many dafties there are on Ebay (if you list it) £20 to whatever they are prepared to pay. Seen it go for under a tenner and over £100.

[dean jj]

Thank you for your reply: cost me 3/4 quid in the early 80's. Nobody has asked me to DJ northern since the 90's [wouldn't have played it] so i can shuffle round the living room on the odd  moment without shame or blame !

many thanks

dean

[Jaco]

Well at £4,800 it looks like the buyer ignored this thread and the 'attempt to talk the record down'

[El Corol]

Well at £4,800 it looks like the buyer ignored this thread and the 'attempt to talk the record down'

Sorry I just don't agree with what you say about "talking the record down". No-one has slagged the record off, said its poor, said its overrated, etc. All the thread has done is question and tried to clarify which of any of the release's/pressings is the first.

[Pete S]

Sorry I just don't agree with what you say about "talking the record down". No-one has slagged the record off, said its poor, said its overrated, etc. All the thread has done is question and tried to clarify which of any of the release's/pressings is the first.

 

I think that's why he put it in inverted commas, he agrees with you, as do I

[El Corol]

I think that's why he put it in inverted commas, he agrees with you, as do I

Valid point, maybe I misread that one.

[Jaco]

I think that's why he put it in inverted commas, he agrees with you, as do I

Correct.

[El Corol]

Correct.

My apologies.

[Jaco]

My apologies.

No need, but thanks.

[Frankie Crocker]

Ahem, WHO did the write-up?

So Theresa, if you don't mind me asking, what sort of commission do you get on these big ticket items? Surely John doesn't pay you a flat-rate for your prose? I for one eagerly await a glossy book of US auction items in the not too distant future...

[Jim Ohara]

Did you have a Salvadors for sale? How did I miss that.

 

How much did it go for?

 

Still one of the greatest Northern records ever produced, regardless of where it was recorded, label colour, it gets the dangly bits standing to attention straight out from the intro. Or is that just me.....

Actually james , I must agree with you on this, gets me ever so excited too!  - bloody awesome record and one that should have people scrambling to the dance floor - it has everything a good northern record should have, great pave, vocals, backing vocals, brilliant intro - what more can I say - it's one of those whee you can just lose yourself and be at one with that lovely little piece of 7" vinyl ........

[Stanley]

as face lifts seem to be the norm,decided to get rid of me pimples and get a flawless one thats really amazing !anyone else had them both in there hands ?

[Mellorful]

I understand Jo Armstead wrote the tune, perhaps Joshie could shed some light on the matter because you would expect the Salvadors would need to get her permission to record it etc. 

All you have to do is locate Joshie (the last I heard she was in Chicago).

https://www.soulwalking.co.uk/Joshie%20Jo%20Armstead.html

She is a hell of a soul singer and I wish she would tour; perhaps Richard could persuade Joshie to perform at Prestatyn. 

[Pete S]

as face lifts seem to be the norm,decided to get rid of me pimples and get a flawless one thats really amazing !anyone else had them both in there hands ?

 

Nobody else is daft enough to replace a perfectly good one with another one 

[Guest]

Nobody else is daft enough to replace a perfectly good one with another one 

Errrr.....I beg to differ. Sold my VG one about 8 yrs ago for....at that time a silly amount (I thought) and bought a really trashed copy which plays great.

[Stanley]

Nobody else is daft enough to replace a perfectly good one with another one 

i take your point pete, but when a virtually unplayed copy never spun by a dj etc becomes available with history behind it as a collector i,m interested.bet loads of members on here have sold a 45,only to buy another copy back as they still liked it ?

[Pete S]

i take your point pete, but when a virtually unplayed copy never spun by a dj etc becomes available with history behind it as a collector i,m interested.bet loads of members on here have sold a 45,only to buy another copy back as they still liked it ?

 

Yeah but not two at the same time?  (Although I did once have a UK single on acetate, demo and issue, all the same record)

[Stanley]

Yeah but not two at the same time?  (Although I did once have a UK single on acetate, demo and issue, all the same record)

why not , i had 3 copies of yvonne vernee, and at one time we came back with 4 copies of the professionals 2 four tracks,6 hyperians and so on, those were great days,hardly likely to happen again tho pete.best g

[Mellorful]

Yeah but not two at the same time?  (Although I did once have a UK single on acetate, demo and issue, all the same record)

I know I have several copies of the same tune but its not special like The Salvadors.

Loretta Williams - Baby cakes 1x White Jotis demo, 2 x Jotis issue & 1 x UK Atlantic issue, when I have enough pennies available I would like to obtain the ATCO issue and if they exist the UK Atlantic demo and ATCO demo.

My OCD gets the better of me when it comes to vinyl but I'm sure there will be lots of others with a similar habit.