Del - Larks help needed please

[Soul16]

I recently sold my Del-Larks pressing on ebay that I bought via Mick Flello in the 1970's.

The buyer has suggested that it is in fact a 2004 pressing - it most definitely isn't - and wants a full or partial refund (see his ebay message and photos of my record attached)

I would appreciate it if one or two of you knowledgeable guys could respond to this post so that I can assure this buyer that his 45 is indeed from the 1970's!

Thank you,

Andrew

[Spook]

The pressing I had in the 70's was light blue.

 

[Steviehay]

70s pressing as far as I know was this one 

[Soul16]

Interesting, mine is 100% 70's too...

I've owned it since I was 15/16 years old - I'm now 59...

Maybe it's a rare boot! I'll let the thread carry on for a while and see where we end up. I'm more than happy to get it back and refund the buyer if that's how it works out. 

 

[Godzilla]

1 hour ago, Soul16 said:

I recently sold my Del-Larks pressing on ebay that I bought via Mick Flello in the 1970's.

The buyer has suggested that it is in fact a 2004 pressing - it most definitely isn't - and wants a full or partial refund (see his ebay message and photos of my record attached)

I would appreciate it if one or two of you knowledgeable guys could respond to this post so that I can assure this buyer that his 45 is indeed from the 1970's!

Thank you,

Andrew

 

We sold those blue/white boots in our shop in the 70s. Didn’t see the plain blue till a bit later. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Godzilla

[Chris Sayce]

it is the 70s pressing wirh the white edging at the top the newer ones dont have that

[Pga1]

Hiya, there is a more recent boot that looks like your 7ts disc. Not sure about run out markings etc, cheers

[Mark B]

It shows as 2004 on discogs, check with John manship he will know.

[Godzilla]

3 minutes ago, Mark B said:

It shows as 2004 on discogs, check with John manship he will know.

No need. As I said we sold them in the shop in the 70s.

1978 in fact...

https://www.45cat.com/record/nc451866us

[Soul16]

13 minutes ago, Mark B said:

It shows as 2004 on discogs, check with John manship he will know.

Thanks anyway, but John might have better things to do I guess.

Catalogue number on label says 2004, but that isn't the date of my 45.

[Stretfordender]

The recent boot doesn't have the hyphen in the artist's name as your 70's one does, perhaps you should show them this picture

[Ian Parker]

i had the exact same , in the late 70's .     the buyer is trying to pull a fast one !  

    if you refund,  there may be a  big chance you aint getting the record back 

[Soul16]

7 minutes ago, Ian Parker said:

i had the exact same , in the late 70's .     the buyer is trying to pull a fast one !  

    if you refund,  there may be a  big chance you aint getting the record back 

It has crossed my mind, but I have no choice but to take what he says at face value. I don’t think that I have to refund before I receive the record back in any case. I could always opt to go and collect it instead.

[Solidsoul]

1 hour ago, Ian Parker said:

i had the exact same , in the late 70's .     the buyer is trying to pull a fast one !  

    if you refund,  there may be a  big chance you aint getting the record back 

I would never refund until I got the record back. That is the usual procedure in record buying and selling surely?

[Soul16]

5 minutes ago, Solidsoul said:

I would never refund until I got the record back. That is the usual procedure in record buying and selling surely?

Yes, that is a selectable option. However, I may be better off arranging to go and collect it in person - I wouldn’t want it getting lost... that would be exceptionally bad luck.

[Benji]

My opinion (and I had a similar experience):

Based on the pictures posted in this thread buyer is wrong, seller is right. No need to refund.

I'd show the buyer the pictures of the 70s pressing and the recent one. Unless buyer is blind they'd spot the difference.

[Mick Reed]

12 hours ago, Ian Parker said:

i had the exact same , in the late 70's .     the buyer is trying to pull a fast one !  

    if you refund,  there may be a  big chance you aint getting the record back 

You only refund when you pay for him to send it tracked postage to you.You then pay refund on return.

[Ian Parker]

2 hours ago, Mick Reed said:

You only refund when you pay for him to send it tracked postage to you.You then pay refund on return.

i understand totally.....      but if the seller refuses to pay for tracking,  its a difficult scenario (which happens)

[Ted Massey]

19 hours ago, Soul16 said:

I recently sold my Del-Larks pressing on ebay that I bought via Mick Flello in the 1970's.

The buyer has suggested that it is in fact a 2004 pressing - it most definitely isn't - and wants a full or partial refund (see his ebay message and photos of my record attached)

I would appreciate it if one or two of you knowledgeable guys could respond to this post so that I can assure this buyer that his 45 is indeed from the 1970's!

Thank you,

Andrew

I had one of them in the early 80,s (def the same label) bought from a record fair in West Bromwich sold when i got a real un 

[Soul16]

12 minutes ago, Ian Parker said:

i understand totally.....      but if the seller refuses to pay for tracking,  its a difficult scenario (which happens)

I've paid for tracking  so fingers crossed Whole business is a pain in the neck!

[Mick Reed]

1 hour ago, Ian Parker said:

i understand totally.....      but if the seller refuses to pay for tracking,  its a difficult scenario (which happens)

Its up to the seller to pay for postage,not right but thats ebays policy.

[Happy Feet]

Surely the buyer should have done his / hers homework , 

A record that has been booted at least 3 times and visually on eBay can be seen and questions asked prior to purchase , the buyer is to blame .

Good luck Soul16 , hope it goes the right way .

Edited November 18, 2022 by Happy Feet

[Steviehay]

13 hours ago, Ted Massey said:

I had one of them in the early 80,s (def the same label) bought from a record fair in West Bromwich sold when i got a real un 

Lucky sod 

[Soul16]

Buyer also sent me this image as evidence that I lied about my record being from the 1970’s, but 2004 instead. As mentioned earlier, the more modern boot is missing the hyphen between Del and Larks. 2004 is the catalogue number printed on the label

Edited November 19, 2022 by Soul16
Wording

[Ady Potts]

This is what the old 70's boot has in the run out...

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Pottsy

[Soul16]

Well, after pointing my buyer in the direction of this thread, he remains unconvinced and it seems the record is being returned on the basis of a single misconstrued Discogs image.

Thanks to all of you for the information and confirmation that you’ve provided - it all adds to the goldmine of knowledge that is Soul Source.

Andrew 

[Chalky]

26 minutes ago, Soul16 said:

Well, after pointing my buyer in the direction of this thread, he remains unconvinced and it seems the record is being returned on the basis of a single misconstrued Discogs image.

Thanks to all of you for the information and confirmation that you’ve provided - it all adds to the goldmine of knowledge that is Soul Source.

Andrew 

Upload your image

[Happy Feet]

Sounds to me he may have found a cheaper copy elsewhere etc etc ?

[Soul16]

18 minutes ago, Chalky said:

Upload your image

Hi Chalky,

Photos of the record I sold are in my 1st post, these are what I used on ebay. Image that buyer sent from discogs is above Pottsy's post of the run-out area.

[Godzilla]

Further bit of info:

The recent boots have the blue area all in a solid patch of colour, whereas on the 70s boot the blue looks kind of washy, scratchy or patchy (chose your own adjective). You can see a bit in pics and scans, but when it's in your hand it's really evident. I think some even have a little smudge of blue in the white. All of the ones we got at the time were like this.

Looks like your guy has some duff info and is going to be inflexible though - and you'd lose a paypal claim, as they're weighted towards the buyer and if he says not as described that's it. You'll probably just have to refund, accept the slight loss and move on. I'd do a brief post on Vinyl Vigilante too, so that anyone who wants to block him can. Very happy for the buyer to read this of course, as he's just plain wrong.

Good luck mate

Paul (Godz)

Edited November 19, 2022 by Godzilla
typo

[Solidsoul]

At the end of the day if he is not happy with the purchase, he should be able to send it back for a refund.

I have had to refund lots of records for all sorts of daft reasons!!!  It is just something that goes with selling records by post!

Edited November 19, 2022 by Solidsoul

[Chalky]

7 hours ago, Soul16 said:

Hi Chalky,

Photos of the record I sold are in my 1st post, these are what I used on ebay. Image that buyer sent from discogs is above Pottsy's post of the run-out area.

I meant to discogs

 

[Soul16]

1 hour ago, Chalky said:

I meant to discogs

 

Good idea, might just do that.

[Hill868]

There are two different 70's boots ....the light blue one (got rid of years ago), and the blue/white one which looks better but still a wrong 'un (still got one somewhere)

[Larsc]

On 19/11/2022 at 22:32, Soul16 said:

Good idea, might just do that.

Don't replace the newer one, just add your version as a unique release. If you upload to the 2000s release it will just be disabled.

On 17/11/2022 at 17:03, Steviehay said:

70s pressing as far as I know was this one 

I'd like to know the runouts for this version. It looks like it was pressed by Oneida who did a lot of custom pressing jobs (and a few bootlegs).