Tyrone Barkley - Man of Value

[Ageing Face]

Hi All,

Looking for some advice, I have just bought a copy of Tyrone Barkley Man of Value on Midsong International WDJ, I bought it as NM but now it’s arrived it looks a bit too good for a 40 year old record so wondering if there is any way to check if I have an original pressing or a repress?

Thanks in advance 

[Woodbutcher]

If it's listed as NM and arrived as NM then it should look like a new 45 surely ... 

[Chalky]

It was reissued/booted on the demo.  Have you a scan of the one you bought and what is in the run out?

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Chalky

[Ageing Face]

It looks like it says man of value in the run out, but it is only faint

[Tlscapital]

As Chalky says and the fonts of some typos are significantly different from the original promo white label variant (3 pressing plants involved for the original pressings in 1979) here below and the outer edge of the molded label has a rounded dip. Telling that yours here above is the reissue or bootleg. I don't know what's the real nature of this later made for the NS scene pressing...

[Ageing Face]

Thought it looked too good. Looks like I got stung 

[Tlscapital]

16 minutes ago, Ageing Face said:

Thought it looked too good. Looks like I got stung 

Yep. Get your money back ?

[Ageing Face]

I can try. It depends how ethical the seller wants to be. I’ll not hold my breath 

[Chalky]

11 hours ago, Ageing Face said:

It looks like it says man of value in the run out, but it is only faint

as @Tlscapital says you have the boot/reissue or whatever you wish to call it

[Ageing Face]

Just checked the listing. It says that it was first released in 1979, but doesn’t say that this record was released in 1979 and the seller says he sold it in good faith. It looks like instead of saving myself a tenner I’ve wasted £40. 
We live & learn

[Tlscapital]

23 minutes ago, Ageing Face said:

Just checked the listing. It says that it was first released in 1979, but doesn’t say that this record was released in 1979 and the seller says he sold it in good faith. It looks like instead of saving myself a tenner I’ve wasted £40. 
We live & learn

When the description is of the record "history" and not of the actual record offered for sale I call it what it is ; a seller's technique into fooling.

Such perversion (because it serves only his interest to the depend of the other) in 'illusion' is a common practice in consumerism's commercialism.

[Chalky]

48 minutes ago, Ageing Face said:

Just checked the listing. It says that it was first released in 1979, but doesn’t say that this record was released in 1979 and the seller says he sold it in good faith. It looks like instead of saving myself a tenner I’ve wasted £40. 
We live & learn

I don't doubt he sold in good faith but he should still reimburse you if you aren't happy.  How did you pay?

[Ageing Face]

PayPal

[Paul-s]

1 hour ago, Ageing Face said:

Just checked the listing. It says that it was first released in 1979, but doesn’t say that this record was released in 1979 and the seller says he sold it in good faith. It looks like instead of saving myself a tenner I’ve wasted £40. 
We live & learn

Which seller?

[Ageing Face]

11 minutes ago, Paul-s said:

Which seller?

It was US EBay 

[Chalky]

3 hours ago, Ageing Face said:

PayPal

F&F? If not then if he refuses to refund put a claim in

[Ageing Face]

I’ve sent a request for $30 refund. I’m happy to give him £10 for the record & pay the postage, but not to pay original issue price for a bootleg 

[Happy Feet]

Probably a Welsh / Kidderminster connection, still a lot knocking about , even coming back from the States it  wouldn't surprise me .

[Eddiefoster]

14 hours ago, Ageing Face said:

Just checked the listing. It says that it was first released in 1979, but doesn’t say that this record was released in 1979 and the seller says he sold it in good faith. It looks like instead of saving myself a tenner I’ve wasted £40. 
We live & learn

With the tenner you saved you could buy the Lou Rawls version and make up for it 

[Benji]

There are quite a few M- copies of the bootleg on Discogs for sale. Is this a recent pressing? And if it is, why? Any demand for it?

[Happy Feet]

More than likely yes , greed .

[Mick Reed]

Contact ebay money back gaurantee not as described bootleg.

[Dave Pinch]

On 08/11/2023 at 22:22, Ageing Face said:

Thought it looked too good. Looks like I got stung 

i wouldnt let it go gary.. ask for a refund or put a claim in if seller doesnt play ball

[Ageing Face]

48 minutes ago, Dave Pinch said:

i wouldnt let it go gary.. ask for a refund or put a claim in if seller doesnt play ball

At the moment there’s been no response to my request. I’ll give them until Monday & then take it further. 
I had the option to buy reissues for less money, but I chose this seller because it was more expensive and I therefore assumed it was an original. 

 

[Tlscapital]

35 minutes ago, Ageing Face said:

At the moment there’s been no response to my request. I’ll give them until Monday & then take it further. 
I had the option to buy reissues for less money, but I chose this seller because it was more expensive and I therefore assumed it was an original. 

 

FWIW I much prefer the visual of the stocker (especially in company sleeve) but it's also cheaper and mostly not prone to such 'trouble' if ever. But the promo is indeed rarer.

[Ageing Face]

30 minutes ago, Tlscapital said:

FWIW I much prefer the visual of the stocker (especially in company sleeve) but it's also cheaper and mostly not prone to such 'trouble' if ever. But the promo is indeed rarer.

I have seen a Stocker on Manship. I’ll probably buy that to replace this one & then let the repress go