Eddie Parker....Love you Baby

[Blackpoolsoul]

1 hour ago, Sebastian said:

Might as well stick these two press clippings from Billboard (May 1970) and Record World (July 1970) up here. Despite what has been claimed by Lorraine Chandler in the past, there is no way that those Googa Mooga releases were released without knowledge from the rights owners.

 

 

 

 

 

Yet there is no publishing on the labels perhaps it wasn't required in France

[Sebastian]

1 hour ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

Yet there is no publishing on the labels perhaps it wasn't required in France

Most likely not required. These 45s were supposed to be sold with the picture sleeves which had plenty of relevant info such as personnel etc.

Also mentions Sepia, Ashford etc on both labels and sleeves. 
 

 

[Bo Diddley]

On 11/07/2024 at 20:34, Frankie Crocker said:

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the hand-written dates were put on the records by a Soul/Gospel DJ in the Washington DC area, possibly Maryland/Virginia. The presumption is that when he received records from a sales rep, he dated them being a fastidious person. The date could of course relate to the time he filed the records in the many cabinets he had. The records are from a large hoard sourced in an estate sale last Autumn - this treasure trove is being dripped out on eBay, most Soul items having a handwritten date on them. Normally, we collectors prefer to have our purchases without WOL, but in this case, the dates have helped to narrow down the window when Eddie Parker was pressed. Any further Ashford records with date stamps from radio stations would therefore be of interest to us.

Hi,

I posted a scan of my copy in the previous thread. However, may as well add to this one so they are all in the same place.

On mine, they went slightly "rogue" and used a red pen with dashes between the numbers !

[Frankie Crocker]

21 minutes ago, Bo Diddley said:

Hi,

I posted a scan of my copy in the previous thread. However, may as well add to this one so they are all in the same place.

On mine, they went slightly "rogue" and used a red pen with dashes between the numbers !

Thanks for posting. There are no demo or issue copies on Popsike showing dates. A couple show XOL of a sort indicating sales reps’ recommendations. Your copy may be part of the second Jack Ashford bulk order if it is without the large even Archer stamp. If it is, it should the miniature WME stamp that is difficult to decipher. If it has a very large WME stamp, this would be if considerable interest as it could indicate Mack Evans cut two lacquers for Eddie Parker when in fact just one would be the norm. Two lacquers could possibly indicate a remastering tweak - something for the experts to look into if they can compare the two copies with different WME inscriptions.

This thread still has a way to run yet. Nobody has said anything about the bootleg pressing that I suspect was done during the mid to late 70’s hey-day of Wigan Casino - was Simon Soussan behind this? Although I’ve not heard it, Lorraine Chandler did a version of Love You Baby on the Black Magic label for Selectadisc - Lorraine denied involvement and it was reputed Soussan was behind this version. Has anyone out there got information related to these topics?

[Theothertosspot]

47 minutes ago, Frankie Crocker said:

 

"Although I’ve not heard it, Lorraine Chandler did a version of Love You Baby on the Black Magic label for Selectadisc - Lorraine denied involvement and it was reputed Soussan was behind this version"

 

There was also a bootleg in the 70's by Lorraine Chandler on a light blue Ashford label, backed with "Tell Me Your Mine"

I thought that was Soussans boot (done around the same time as Connie Clark - My Sugar Baby, also done by Soussan)

[Shinehead]

2 hours ago, Frankie Crocker said:

 Although I’ve not heard it, Lorraine Chandler did a version of Love You Baby on the Black Magic label for Selectadisc -

Deffo not Lorraine.

Edited July 13 by Shinehead

[Chalky]

18 hours ago, Frankie Crocker said:

Although I’ve not heard it, Lorraine Chandler did a version of Love You Baby on the Black Magic label for Selectadisc - Lorraine denied involvement and it was reputed Soussan was behind this version. Has anyone out there got information related to these topics?

It is definitely not Lorraine singing, she confirmed that on this site.  Soussan was behind it, Neil Ruston asked Jack about it BITD and jack said he was approached by SS and told Neil the singer used, he mentioned her name in Echoes when hie was writing back then. Neil told this story on here in one of the topics.

[Wheelsville1]

On 13/07/2024 at 12:27, Sebastian said:

Most likely not required. These 45s were supposed to be sold with the picture sleeves which had plenty of relevant info such as personnel etc.

Also mentions Sepia, Ashford etc on both labels and sleeves. 
 

 

I always wondered why Al Gardner is so much more scarce on sepia than the other two releases on that label.

[Patto]

Would still like some info on this one please...Bought as a legit 70s reissue just to play at home...Think its quite scarce which if true is strange for a reissue...Vinyl,,bevelled edge...A1A in runout and a very small NSC in a circle Stamp...Can anyone place a year on this one please and anyone else have one.

 

 

Edited July 14 by Patto

[Frankie Crocker]

2 hours ago, Chalky said:

It is definitely not Lorraine singing, she confirmed that on this site.  Soussan was behind it, Neil Ruston asked Jack about it BITD and jack said he was approached by SS and told Neil the singer used, he mentioned her name in Echoes when hie was writing back then. Neil told this story on here in one of the topics.

Thanks. I knew Lorraine was surprised to learn of this and denied involvement. I’m curious to know where Soussan sourced the backing track from - was it dubbed from an original or did he have access to a masterplate? With Soussan linked to the Selectadisc release, it’s not a wild guess to connect him to the small uneven Archer bootleg QED.

[Chalky]

1 hour ago, Frankie Crocker said:

Thanks. I knew Lorraine was surprised to learn of this and denied involvement. I’m curious to know where Soussan sourced the backing track from - was it dubbed from an original or did he have access to a masterplate? With Soussan linked to the Selectadisc release, it’s not a wild guess to connect him to the small uneven Archer bootleg QED.

Sure Neil said he went to Jack Ashford.

[Frankie Crocker]

4 hours ago, Chalky said:

Sure Neil said he went to Jack Ashford.

Maybe Neil could add to the thread… Given the record was pressed on superior British vinyl, it would be good to know where and how - having now heard the female version, it has certainly been tinkered with by a sound engineer. Only Jack can enlighten us on the licensing of the Selectadisc release and how his Ashford so g came to be repackaged.

[Imperial C]

This should be included

[Frankie Crocker]

22 minutes ago, Imperial C said:

This should be included

Most definitely. Never seen one before. Pressed in Canada no doubt with the full backing of Jack Ashford. Would be good to know the timeline on this but surely follows the Archer pressing job.

[Candiman]

This is a Summit Distributors list (Chicago area) dated 7th February 1969.

It has Love You Baby listed in the "Up And Coming" section. This would tend to confirm a release date of Jan/Feb 1969.  

 

Edited September 5 by Candiman

[Blackpoolsoul]

50 minutes ago, Candiman said:

This is a Summit Distributors list (Chicago area) dated 7th February 1969.

It has Love You Baby listed in the "Up And Coming" section. This would tend to confirm a release date of Jan/Feb 1969.  

 

This is interesting as all the dates I have seen have been 1968

[Chalky]

5 hours ago, Candiman said:

This is a Summit Distributors list (Chicago area) dated 7th February 1969.

It has Love You Baby listed in the "Up And Coming" section. This would tend to confirm a release date of Jan/Feb 1969.  

 

Not necessarily the release date.  depending on how Jack promoted it, presumably by himself to begin with it might take some time to get it hawked round radio stations and to distributors.

[Candiman]

Yes, understand that could be a possibility.

[Frankie Crocker]

7 hours ago, Candiman said:

This is a Summit Distributors list (Chicago area) dated 7th February 1969.

It has Love You Baby listed in the "Up And Coming" section. This would tend to confirm a release date of Jan/Feb 1969.  

 

Thanks for this really useful document. As you suggest, Eddie Parker was due for distribution in February 1969, a time that ties in with the hand written dates on the four copies featured in this thread. Summit distributed in the Chicago area, a market of considerable potential - this in itself is significant as it boosts the numbers of the record pressed in addition to the Detroit quota pressed by Archer and speculatively, the bulk of the pressing from Nashville which surely was distributed from that city.

Of course it would be interesting to know if Summit distributed Archer stamped stock or WME stamped records! Anyone out there who bought Eddie Parker in Chicago during early 1969?

[Nick Soule]

While Nashville Matrix did all of the metalwork, including making the stampers, the pressing plants added their own identifiers/stamps to the stampers by hand once received from the plant. Like anything done by humans, this is prone to error, and there are numerous examples of inconsistencies with the placement or even the presence of pressing plant identifier stamps on runs of the same record from plants with multiple pressing machines that received multiple sets of stampers from the plating facility. Archer has multiple pressing machines.

I'm doubtful that the non-Archer stamped copy is a Southern Plastics pressing. Archer and SP used the same label printer, so you wouldn't be able to tell by that, but they also used the same plating facility and had their own assigned client codes. The presence of '95', which was Archer's client code with Nashville Matrix, instead of '5', which was SP's client code with Nashville Matrix, on both copies makes it more likely that the non-stamped copy was just pressed on a different machine with a stamper that they didn't add their identifier to while another machine did the promos and some stock copies.

[Roburt]

The Canadian (Stone SX 736) copy must date from around mid to late 1968

It seems Stone SX 726 (Jackie Edwards) dates from Dec 67, while Stone SX 728 is assigned a release date of March 68. Then SX 740 is said to be from May 69.

So it appears Stone 45 releases were tailing off in 1968, with those numbered above SX 728 (but below # 740) escaping at different times through 1968. Stone SX 741 (Johnny Cowell And His Orchestra And Chorus)  has a 1968 date assigned to it, so I guess # 740's dating as May 69 may well be wrong, especially as these tracks also got a US release; the demo being dated to March 69, the issue April 69. The group involved (on this 45) were from Sweden & their 2 tracks were released back there (on separate 45's) in March 68 & Sept 68. So I'd guess the very earliest the Canadian & US releases  could have come out was (say) late 68. Johnny Cowell And His Orchestra And Chorus also had a 45 & LP out on the Scope label & they're also assigned a 1968 release date. Which points to their Stone 45 being a 68 release I guess. These Scope releases featured tracks produced by Bob Stone; the owner of the Stone label. Johnny Conwell was mainly known as a song writer (his songs being hits in the US for major artists there). He wanted to become Canada's answer to Herb Alpert in the mid 60's. There was a big article on him in the Canadian music press in July 68. so it's a fair guess to say his LP (& scope 45) was coming out around then. Scope Records was also owned by Bob Stone of RJS (Robert J Sone Records). The same Canadian music publication also states that Conwell was to put out a follow up to his big selling (in Canada) recent album 'Winter Love" (a Cascade label release -- Cascade being a sister label to Scope & also run by Bob Stone). 

Stone SX 731 was also by a Swede but it didn't seem to gain a 45 release anywhere but Canada, so foreign versions of this are no help in dating it. Same situation with Stone SX 733, another Swedish group, one of the cuts on the Canadian 45 dating back to 1967 in Sweden.    

Stone obviously did a deal with a Swedish record company & this may well have been reported in the Canadian music press (or in the section of Billboard that dealt with happenings in countries outside the US -- such sections appeared in every edition of Billboard). Anyway, I'm getting off track. 

Stone SX 735 was by The Metropolitan Toronto Police Association Male Chorus & they also had an LP out on Stone in 68; but I can't put an accurate date to either. 

SO if Stone 726 was from Dec 67 AND Stone 740 was (say) a late 68 release ... we can GUESS at 736 dating from the period around Sept 68. I'd say it must have escaped in Canada way before late March 69.  

 

Edited September 6 by Roburt

[Roburt]

A bit more info ... The Precisions "Instant Heartbreak" was issued as Stone SX 727 and that was a US 45 release in Feb 68. As the Precisions "If This Is Love" had done well in Canada (Stone SX 717 - Sept 67), it's a fair guess to say that SX 727 came out in Canada around March 68. 

So if SX 727 came out in March 68 & SX740 being a Dec 68 release ... then SX 736 would again seemed to have a Canadian release date around Sept 68.   

[Frankie Crocker]

10 hours ago, Nick Soule said:

While Nashville Matrix did all of the metalwork, including making the stampers, the pressing plants added their own identifiers/stamps to the stampers by hand once received from the plant. Like anything done by humans, this is prone to error, and there are numerous examples of inconsistencies with the placement or even the presence of pressing plant identifier stamps on runs of the same record from plants with multiple pressing machines that received multiple sets of stampers from the plating facility. Archer has multiple pressing machines.

I'm doubtful that the non-Archer stamped copy is a Southern Plastics pressing. Archer and SP used the same label printer, so you wouldn't be able to tell by that, but they also used the same plating facility and had their own assigned client codes. The presence of '95', which was Archer's client code with Nashville Matrix, instead of '5', which was SP's client code with Nashville Matrix, on both copies makes it more likely that the non-stamped copy was just pressed on a different machine with a stamper that they didn't add their identifier to while another machine did the promos and some stock copies.

Thanks for posting this Nick - you pretty much contend that all Eddie Parker issues have come from the Archer plant, some without the Archer stamp. I speculated on this earlier in the thread but dismissed the notion as highly implausible. True, Archer had multiple presses back in the late 60’s but I just don’t see this highly reputable outfit being short of an Archer stamp on a machine, especially when pressing a record for a key figure in the music business who owned the label. In any case, as the Eddie Parker bulk pressing was a ‘second issue’ or follow-up order, why not just use the press with the Archer stamp? I very much doubt Jack Ashford commissioned a second order specifically without the Archer stamp - I’ve tried phoning and emailing the Archer family for details but have had no success in this. It would be interesting to learn if other records left the Archer plant with and without the Archer stamp- this could confirm the different press machine stamper theory.

Although I’m no expert when it comes to matrix numbers, I would have thought they were cut into the lacquer and would be on the masterpress(es). The 95 in the record runout is common to all Eddie Parker records regardless of where they were pressed - I would think that any record pressed in multiple locations would retain a common matrix number. If Southern Plastics did press the record, it would be easy to leave their code off, especially as it was an Archer commission for accounting purposes.

It would be wonderful news to learn that all 60’s Eddie Parker issues, with and without the Archer stamp, came from the Archer plant. Maybe some day this could be confirmed, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that. In fact, if we accept that the Archer presses were different and had dodgy stampers, it’s only one step away from saying the records with the small uneven Archer stamp came from the Archer plant; these are universally regarded as 70’s bootlegs, but so far, no information has emerged on their origins.

I accept that there’s still much to be learned about regarding the story of Eddie Parker. If further distributor documents turn up, that would shed more light on the discussion. In the meantime, all we can do is kick the topic around in the hope that someone around in the late 60’s can confirm the details we are speculating on.

[Chalky]

18 minutes ago, Frankie Crocker said:

Thanks for posting this Nick - you pretty much contend that all Eddie Parker issues have come from the Archer plant, some without the Archer stamp. I speculated on this earlier in the thread but dismissed the notion as highly implausible. True, Archer had multiple presses back in the late 60’s but I just don’t see this highly reputable outfit being short of an Archer stamp on a machine, especially when pressing a record for a key figure in the music business who owned the label. In any case, as the Eddie Parker bulk pressing was a ‘second issue’ or follow-up order, why not just use the press with the Archer stamp? I very much doubt Jack Ashford commissioned a second order specifically without the Archer stamp - I’ve tried phoning and emailing the Archer family for details but have had no success in this. It would be interesting to learn if other records left the Archer plant with and without the Archer stamp- this could confirm the different press machine stamper theory.

Although I’m no expert when it comes to matrix numbers, I would have thought they were cut into the lacquer and would be on the masterpress(es). The 95 in the record runout is common to all Eddie Parker records regardless of where they were pressed - I would think that any record pressed in multiple locations would retain a common matrix number. If Southern Plastics did press the record, it would be easy to leave their code off, especially as it was an Archer commission for accounting purposes.

It would be wonderful news to learn that all 60’s Eddie Parker issues, with and without the Archer stamp, came from the Archer plant. Maybe some day this could be confirmed, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that. In fact, if we accept that the Archer presses were different and had dodgy stampers, it’s only one step away from saying the records with the small uneven Archer stamp came from the Archer plant; these are universally regarded as 70’s bootlegs, but so far, no information has emerged on their origins.

I accept that there’s still much to be learned about regarding the story of Eddie Parker. If further distributor documents turn up, that would shed more light on the discussion. In the meantime, all we can do is kick the topic around in the hope that someone around in the late 60’s can confirm the details we are speculating on.

The stampers do not last forever as you probably well know.  So depending on how many were pressed in the initial run, a second stamper would be made for the next run.

[Solidsoul]

1 hour ago, Frankie Crocker said:

Thanks for posting this Nick - you pretty much contend that all Eddie Parker issues have come from the Archer plant, some without the Archer stamp. I speculated on this earlier in the thread but dismissed the notion as highly implausible. True, Archer had multiple presses back in the late 60’s but I just don’t see this highly reputable outfit being short of an Archer stamp on a machine, especially when pressing a record for a key figure in the music business who owned the label. In any case, as the Eddie Parker bulk pressing was a ‘second issue’ or follow-up order, why not just use the press with the Archer stamp? I very much doubt Jack Ashford commissioned a second order specifically without the Archer stamp - I’ve tried phoning and emailing the Archer family for details but have had no success in this. It would be interesting to learn if other records left the Archer plant with and without the Archer stamp- this could confirm the different press machine stamper theory.

Although I’m no expert when it comes to matrix numbers, I would have thought they were cut into the lacquer and would be on the masterpress(es). The 95 in the record runout is common to all Eddie Parker records regardless of where they were pressed - I would think that any record pressed in multiple locations would retain a common matrix number. If Southern Plastics did press the record, it would be easy to leave their code off, especially as it was an Archer commission for accounting purposes.

It would be wonderful news to learn that all 60’s Eddie Parker issues, with and without the Archer stamp, came from the Archer plant. Maybe some day this could be confirmed, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that. In fact, if we accept that the Archer presses were different and had dodgy stampers, it’s only one step away from saying the records with the small uneven Archer stamp came from the Archer plant; these are universally regarded as 70’s bootlegs, but so far, no information has emerged on their origins.

I accept that there’s still much to be learned about regarding the story of Eddie Parker. If further distributor documents turn up, that would shed more light on the discussion. In the meantime, all we can do is kick the topic around in the hope that someone around in the late 60’s can confirm the details we are speculating on.

If the Archer pressing plant was ok with pressing records without the Archer stamp, why would they bother with it at all? It becomes pointless!

This makes me think they are different pressing plants.

[Frankie Crocker]

1 hour ago, Chalky said:

The stampers do not last forever as you probably well know.  So depending on how many were pressed in the initial run, a second stamper would be made for the next run.

True. Archer was really only a small plant, the first in Detroit and although inundated with work it seems, the records pressed were generally for limited distribution in finite numbers. The press machine that did the white demos and a limited edition of issues may have been used on another record before Jack decided on a bulk run, anything’s possible. The large, even, embossed Archer stamp on the Eddie Parker record is loud and clear showing no signs of wear.

[Frankie Crocker]

47 minutes ago, Solidsoul said:

If the Archer pressing plant was ok with pressing records without the Archer stamp, why would they bother with it at all? It becomes pointless!

This makes me think they are different pressing plants.

I tend to agree. As a ‘boutique’ pressing plant in family ownership, I bet they took massive pride in their workmanship. The Archer stamp itself is one of the best and most prominent on any record. The fact the firm still exists today and is operated by a third generation Archer tells you it has always been a high quality operation - I very much doubt they used worn or missing stampers on their presses.

[Chalky]

25 minutes ago, Frankie Crocker said:

True. Archer was really only a small plant, the first in Detroit and although inundated with work it seems, the records pressed were generally for limited distribution in finite numbers. The press machine that did the white demos and a limited edition of issues may have been used on another record before Jack decided on a bulk run, anything’s possible. The large, even, embossed Archer stamp on the Eddie Parker record is loud and clear showing no signs of wear.

I doubt Archer or any other plant would turn down any order, big or small.  There is no knowing how many were pressed of Love You Baby, one can only assume it sold well to warrant further presses.

[Frankie Crocker]

3 minutes ago, Chalky said:

I doubt Archer or any other plant would turn down any order, big or small.  There is no knowing how many were pressed of Love You Baby, one can only assume it sold well to warrant further presses.

The number of surviving copies on Popsike and seen for sale, suggest the number of records pressed was limited. Sure, some are in collections but we must be talking dozens here rather than hundreds or thousands. To some extent, this was a vanity project with one man, not a company, behind the release - Jack co-wrote the song, produced it and started his own label to release it. Pressing records was an expensive business, and as we well know, local labels generally didn’t prosper. Jack had massive confidence in Eddie Parker and being a shrewd businessman would have had a pilot run of demos done early on for radio DJ’s to provoke interest in what was to be the imminent bulk pressing; this is now looking more like a carefully planned and cleverly coordinated contract aimed at keeping costs down.

[Chalky]

50 minutes ago, Frankie Crocker said:

The number of surviving copies on Popsike and seen for sale, suggest the number of records pressed was limited. Sure, some are in collections but we must be talking dozens here rather than hundreds or thousands. To some extent, this was a vanity project with one man, not a company, behind the release - Jack co-wrote the song, produced it and started his own label to release it. Pressing records was an expensive business, and as we well know, local labels generally didn’t prosper. Jack had massive confidence in Eddie Parker and being a shrewd businessman would have had a pilot run of demos done early on for radio DJ’s to provoke interest in what was to be the imminent bulk pressing; this is now looking more like a carefully planned and cleverly coordinated contract aimed at keeping costs down.

There was a market before eBay you know.  I've seen plenty of copies sold privately too, sold copies myself.  The first archer press certainly sold well enough to warrant further presses in other areas.  Going round in circles here.

[Peter99]

9 minutes ago, Chalky said:

There was a market before eBay you know.  I've seen plenty of copies sold privately too, sold copies myself.  The first archer press certainly sold well enough to warrant further presses in other areas.  Going round in circles here.

Well I'm lost for sure. I can't keep up with the thread. Can't we have - original press, second press, something simple. A bit like me.

Simple.

Peter

[Dylan]

29 minutes ago, Peter99 said:

Well I'm lost for sure. I can't keep up with the thread. Can't we have - original press, second press, something simple. A bit like me.

Simple.

Peter

I gave up I’m not sure that everybody agrees yet so no 100% confirmation

 

small archer stamp seems to be definitive original opinions differ on some other variants 

 

 

[Solidsoul]

1 hour ago, Chalky said:

There was a market before eBay you know.  I've seen plenty of copies sold privately too, sold copies myself.  The first archer press certainly sold well enough to warrant further presses in other areas.  Going round in circles here.

The first large Archer press is hard to get. It's not common like all the other presses.  I haven't seen one for sale for years now, and I have looked a lot.

The copies that were about must be all locked up in collections. If there are plenty of copies why aren't there any for sale?  Who has seen a large Archer stamp copy for sale in recent years?

But I agree, this thread is going round and round in circles.

Edited September 6 by Solidsoul

[Solidsoul]

3 minutes ago, Dylan said:

I gave up I’m not sure that everybody agrees yet so no 100% confirmation

 

small archer stamp seems to be definitive original opinions differ on some other variants 

 

 

The large Archer stamped copy is the first issue. Just like the demo.

[Dylan]

6 minutes ago, Solidsoul said:

The large Archer stamped copy is the first issue. Just like the demo.

My mistake I meant large.  There is the other untidy stamp that looks wrong.

[Jimmy Mack]

15 minutes ago, Solidsoul said:

The first large Archer press is hard to get. It's not common like all the other presses.  I haven't seen one for sale for years now, and I have looked a lot.

If there is plenty of copies why does nobody see them?  Who has seen a large Archer stamp copy for sale recently?

But I agree this thread is going round and round in circles.

I have one but not for sale ,I'll look it out and post 

[Nick Soule]

4 hours ago, Frankie Crocker said:

It would be interesting to learn if other records left the Archer plant with and without the Archer stamp- this could confirm the different press machine stamper theory.

Yes, I essentially said this to be true in my initial post. The Superlatives on Westbound 144 is the first one that comes to mind and exists with the 'ARCHER' stamp on the A-side only, on the B-side only, and absent altogether. Archer is a small pressing plant that was extremely busy in the 60s and lacked a lot of quality control standards that they have now. There are also numerous records that were pressed at Archer that lack the stamp altogether - The Four Sonics - Plus One on Sepia is a good example of another Jack Ashford-related record that was pressed at Archer but lacks an 'ARCHER' stamp. 

4 hours ago, Frankie Crocker said:

Although I’m no expert when it comes to matrix numbers, I would have thought they were cut into the lacquer and would be on the masterpress(es).

The 'ARCHER' stamp is raised. If it were cut/pressed into the lacquer, it would be below the surface. They were stamped in-house after receiving the metal stampers from Nashville Matrix. 

4 hours ago, Frankie Crocker said:

The 95 in the record runout is common to all Eddie Parker records regardless of where they were pressed - I would think that any record pressed in multiple locations would retain a common matrix number. If Southern Plastics did press the record, it would be easy to leave their code off, especially as it was an Archer commission for accounting purposes.

I'll try to clarify the client codes here. '95' was Archer's client code with Nashville Matrix that was etched by Nashville Matrix into the lacquer master they were sent by Archer before the metalwork was performed. Once the stampers were made, they sent them back to Archer. The only way that Southern Plastics would be able to press a record with Archer's client code in the runout is if they were sent the stampers by Archer. 

There are some exceptions where client codes were assigned to record labels rather than pressing plants. Motown is probably the best example - they had the client code '10' with Nashville Matrix. Motown would place orders for stampers to be made, Nashville Matrix would etch '10' into lacquer then make the stampers, Nashville Matrix would then send the stampers to Motown, who then sent them out to American Record Pressing and Southern Plastics to press the records. If you compare SP and ARP Motown 45s, the stampers are exactly the same, but the ARP ones have their 'ARP' stamp. And there are numerous examples of ARP pressings that have their stamp in varying places, absent on one side, or absent altogether.

Anyway, like you said, '95' is present on all pressings of the Eddie Parker 45 - Jack Ashford did not have his own client code with Nashville Matrix, so he ordered the records from Archer, who had Nashville Matrix make the stampers, and then Archer pressed the records.  

[Solidsoul]

36 minutes ago, Nick Soule said:

Yes, I essentially said this to be true in my initial post. The Superlatives on Westbound 144 is the first one that comes to mind and exists with the 'ARCHER' stamp on the A-side only, on the B-side only, and absent altogether. Archer is a small pressing plant that was extremely busy in the 60s and lacked a lot of quality control standards that they have now. There are also numerous records that were pressed at Archer that lack the stamp altogether - The Four Sonics - Plus One on Sepia is a good example of another Jack Ashford-related record that was pressed at Archer but lacks an 'ARCHER' stamp. 

The 'ARCHER' stamp is raised. If it were cut/pressed into the lacquer, it would be below the surface. They were stamped in-house after receiving the metal stampers from Nashville Matrix. 

I'll try to clarify the client codes here. '95' was Archer's client code with Nashville Matrix that was etched by Nashville Matrix into the lacquer master they were sent by Archer before the metalwork was performed. Once the stampers were made, they sent them back to Archer. The only way that Southern Plastics would be able to press a record with Archer's client code in the runout is if they were sent the stampers by Archer. 

There are some exceptions where client codes were assigned to record labels rather than pressing plants. Motown is probably the best example - they had the client code '10' with Nashville Matrix. Motown would place orders for stampers to be made, Nashville Matrix would etch '10' into lacquer then make the stampers, Nashville Matrix would then send the stampers to Motown, who then sent them out to American Record Pressing and Southern Plastics to press the records. If you compare SP and ARP Motown 45s, the stampers are exactly the same, but the ARP ones have their 'ARP' stamp. And there are numerous examples of ARP pressings that have their stamp in varying places, absent on one side, or absent altogether.

Anyway, like you said, '95' is present on all pressings of the Eddie Parker 45 - Jack Ashford did not have his own client code with Nashville Matrix, so he ordered the records from Archer, who had Nashville Matrix make the stampers, and then Archer pressed the records.  

You raise a lot of good points, but I have a Four Sonics on Sepia that has a large Archer stamp.

I have also got the one without the stamp to compare. They have a different vinyl profile. The outer edge is sharper on the Archer stamped press.

Edited September 6 by Solidsoul

[Chalky]

1 hour ago, Solidsoul said:

The first large Archer press is hard to get. It's not common like all the other presses.  I haven't seen one for sale for years now, and I have looked a lot.

The copies that were about must be all locked up in collections. If there are plenty of copies why aren't there any for sale?  Who has seen a large Archer stamp copy for sale in recent years?

But I agree, this thread is going round and round in circles.

It bis definitely a keeper mate, you'd be daft to sell something so good as this nowadays cause you would struggle to get one back

[Frankie Crocker]

42 minutes ago, Nick Soule said:

Yes, I essentially said this to be true in my initial post. The Superlatives on Westbound 144 is the first one that comes to mind and exists with the 'ARCHER' stamp on the A-side only, on the B-side only, and absent altogether. Archer is a small pressing plant that was extremely busy in the 60s and lacked a lot of quality control standards that they have now. There are also numerous records that were pressed at Archer that lack the stamp altogether - The Four Sonics - Plus One on Sepia is a good example of another Jack Ashford-related record that was pressed at Archer but lacks an 'ARCHER' stamp. 

The 'ARCHER' stamp is raised. If it were cut/pressed into the lacquer, it would be below the surface. They were stamped in-house after receiving the metal stampers from Nashville Matrix. 

I'll try to clarify the client codes here. '95' was Archer's client code with Nashville Matrix that was etched by Nashville Matrix into the lacquer master they were sent by Archer before the metalwork was performed. Once the stampers were made, they sent them back to Archer. The only way that Southern Plastics would be able to press a record with Archer's client code in the runout is if they were sent the stampers by Archer. 

There are some exceptions where client codes were assigned to record labels rather than pressing plants. Motown is probably the best example - they had the client code '10' with Nashville Matrix. Motown would place orders for stampers to be made, Nashville Matrix would etch '10' into lacquer then make the stampers, Nashville Matrix would then send the stampers to Motown, who then sent them out to American Record Pressing and Southern Plastics to press the records. If you compare SP and ARP Motown 45s, the stampers are exactly the same, but the ARP ones have their 'ARP' stamp. And there are numerous examples of ARP pressings that have their stamp in varying places, absent on one side, or absent altogether.

Anyway, like you said, '95' is present on all pressings of the Eddie Parker 45 - Jack Ashford did not have his own client code with Nashville Matrix, so he ordered the records from Archer, who had Nashville Matrix make the stampers, and then Archer pressed the records.  

Thanks again for adding to the thread Nick. I’m not able to dig out my Archer stamped records at short notice but will endeavour to do so in the months ahead. If you read back over page 1 of the thread, you will see that Warren McCleallan Evans scribed the matrix number on the lacquer in a Nashville studio - as he did this for Archer, the number 95 was included. Nashville matrix made the metal plates to press the records but we do not know how many were made - normally there is only one lacquer but there could be 2, 4, 6, 8 etc master discs depending on pressing plant requirements. One ponderable is did some of the master discs go to Southern Plastics or another pressing plant QED? Some of the master discs went to the Archer plant in Detroit where the presses added the raised Archer stamp to the Ashford record.

Maybe operations at Archer were not as high quality as I suspected so it may well be that every single copy of Eddie Parker was pressed at Archer, some with a company stamp and many more without. If so, why have record collectors far more knowledgable and experienced than myself differentiated between the two variations classed as definite original and second issue for 50 years?

Going forward then, lucky owners of Eddie Parker with the tiny WME etching may well possess a true original whether it was pressed at Archer or another plant.

[Nick Soule]

29 minutes ago, Solidsoul said:

You raise a lot of good points, but I have a Four Sonics on Sepia that has a large Archer stamp.

I have also got the one without the stamp to compare. They have a different vinyl profile. The outer edge is sharper on the Archer stamped press.

Aha! Good to know that one exists with and without an 'ARCHER' stamp too. The difference in vinyl profile you mention doesn't suggest that it was pressed at a later time or at a different pressing plant, just a different machine. 

[Nick Soule]

6 hours ago, Frankie Crocker said:

One ponderable is did some of the master discs go to Southern Plastics or another pressing plant QED?

Although Archer used Nashville-based companies for mastering, plating, and label printing services, Archer had no connection to Southern Plastics. The typical pressing process works like this:

1. The label gives the master tape to the pressing plant.
2. The pressing plant sends the master tape to the mastering facility.
3. The mastering facility masters the recording and sends the lacquered master to the plating/metalwork facility.
4. The plating facility makes the metal father from the master lacquer.
5. The plating facility makes the metal mother from the metal father.
6. As many stampers as ordered are made from the metal mother.
7. The stampers are returned to the pressing plant that ordered them.   

I think it's extremely unlikely that Jack Ashford specifically ordered two sets of stampers through Archer, had Archer press one run of promos and stock copies (with the stamp) using one set of stampers, and had Southern Plastics press a separate run of just stock copies (without the stamp) using the other stampers he received from Archer and with the exact same labels from the same printer. 

Pressing plants either saved the stampers for a period of time or sent them back to the labels after production. This was done so that the wait time for getting new stampers made could be avoided or at least circumvented if the record became a hit, and more copies could be pressed immediately to meet demand. Most stampers can press about 1,000-1,500 records, so it stands to reason that any repress would've just reused the 'ARCHER' stampers if the first run was as limited as suggested in earlier posts. It's possible that there was some issue in the pressing process that damaged the original stamper and a second stamper was made to finish out the run in such a hurry that they didn't add the 'ARCHER' stamp, but it seems like those stories usually get remembered (i.e. Gwen Owens, Four Voices, etc.), and given the precedence of variations with the placement or presence of 'ARCHER' stamps, I'm inclined to believe that the stamped and non-stamped copies of Eddie Parker were pressed at the same time on different machines. 

6 hours ago, Frankie Crocker said:

If so, why have record collectors far more knowledgable and experienced than myself differentiated between the two variations classed as definite original and second issue for 50 years?

I think more information about the intricacies/minutia/sloppiness of pressing plants has been learned in the last 10 years than the 40 that preceded. There are lots of collectors and dealers that in general know more than I do, but still think the Nashville Matrix stamp says "Nashville Mains" and that the vinyl ARP-pressed Ann Perry's on Theoda are bootlegs despite predating the Circa-distributed copies by at least 2 years. 

Edited September 7 by Nick Soule

[Solidsoul]

7 hours ago, Nick Soule said:

Although Archer used Nashville-based companies for mastering, plating, and label printing services, Archer had no connection to Southern Plastics. The typical pressing process works like this:

1. The label gives the master tape to the pressing plant.
2. The pressing plant sends the master tape to the mastering facility.
3. The mastering facility masters the recording and sends the lacquered master to the plating/metalwork facility.
4. The plating facility makes the metal father from the master lacquer.
5. The plating facility makes the metal mother from the metal father.
6. As many stampers as ordered are made from the metal mother.
7. The stampers are returned to the pressing plant that ordered them.   

I think it's extremely unlikely that Jack Ashford specifically ordered two sets of stampers through Archer, had Archer press one run of promos and stock copies (with the stamp) using one set of stampers, and had Southern Plastics press a separate run of just stock copies (without the stamp) using the other stampers he received from Archer and with the exact same labels from the same printer. 

Pressing plants either saved the stampers for a period of time or sent them back to the labels after production. This was done so that the wait time for getting new stampers made could be avoided or at least circumvented if the record became a hit, and more copies could be pressed immediately to meet demand. Most stampers can press about 1,000-1,500 records, so it stands to reason that any repress would've just reused the 'ARCHER' stampers if the first run was as limited as suggested in earlier posts. It's possible that there was some issue in the pressing process that damaged the original stamper and a second stamper was made to finish out the run in such a hurry that they didn't add the 'ARCHER' stamp, but it seems like those stories usually get remembered (i.e. Gwen Owens, Four Voices, etc.), and given the precedence of variations with the placement or presence of 'ARCHER' stamps, I'm inclined to believe that the stamped and non-stamped copies of Eddie Parker were pressed at the same time on different machines. 

I think more information about the intricacies/minutia/sloppiness of pressing plants has been learned in the last 10 years than the 40 that preceded. There are lots of collectors and dealers that in general know more than I do, but still think the Nashville Matrix stamp says "Nashville Mains" and that the vinyl ARP-pressed Ann Perry's on Theoda are bootlegs despite predating the Circa-distributed copies by at least 2 years. 

That is not logical!

Why would Archer consistently, record release after release, press some copies with a large Archer stamp and then some more copies without the stamp. Not just a mistake once, but a business plan?  That is not likely!  

They must have been done at separate plants.

It would be like saying Atlantic records did not use three different pressing plants, they did all the label and pressing variations at the same factory.  

[Frankie Crocker]

8 hours ago, Nick Soule said:

Although Archer used Nashville-based companies for mastering, plating, and label printing services, Archer had no connection to Southern Plastics. The typical pressing process works like this:

1. The label gives the master tape to the pressing plant.
2. The pressing plant sends the master tape to the mastering facility.
3. The mastering facility masters the recording and sends the lacquered master to the plating/metalwork facility.
4. The plating facility makes the metal father from the master lacquer.
5. The plating facility makes the metal mother from the metal father.
6. As many stampers as ordered are made from the metal mother.
7. The stampers are returned to the pressing plant that ordered them.   

I think it's extremely unlikely that Jack Ashford specifically ordered two sets of stampers through Archer, had Archer press one run of promos and stock copies (with the stamp) using one set of stampers, and had Southern Plastics press a separate run of just stock copies (without the stamp) using the other stampers he received from Archer and with the exact same labels from the same printer. 

Pressing plants either saved the stampers for a period of time or sent them back to the labels after production. This was done so that the wait time for getting new stampers made could be avoided or at least circumvented if the record became a hit, and more copies could be pressed immediately to meet demand. Most stampers can press about 1,000-1,500 records, so it stands to reason that any repress would've just reused the 'ARCHER' stampers if the first run was as limited as suggested in earlier posts. It's possible that there was some issue in the pressing process that damaged the original stamper and a second stamper was made to finish out the run in such a hurry that they didn't add the 'ARCHER' stamp, but it seems like those stories usually get remembered (i.e. Gwen Owens, Four Voices, etc.), and given the precedence of variations with the placement or presence of 'ARCHER' stamps, I'm inclined to believe that the stamped and non-stamped copies of Eddie Parker were pressed at the same time on different machines. 

I think more information about the intricacies/minutia/sloppiness of pressing plants has been learned in the last 10 years than the 40 that preceded. There are lots of collectors and dealers that in general know more than I do, but still think the Nashville Matrix stamp says "Nashville Mains" and that the vinyl ARP-pressed Ann Perry's on Theoda are bootlegs despite predating the Circa-distributed copies by at least 2 years. 

Picking up on some of the points raised Nick, Archer may have had no connection with Southern Plastics, but Jack Ashford was calling the shots - he opted for Warren McCleallan Evans and Nashville Matrix which was across the road from the Southern Plastics pressing factory. Archer as a small business could not handle large orders of the sort Motown wanted so they went to Southern Plastics - the capacity of Archer was limited and the presses there might not have been able to produce the quantity of records Jack Ashford wanted at a budget price.

You mention multiple stampers - this could explain why bootlegs appeared at a later stage. The unauthorised Lorraine Chandler version on Black Magic could possibly have come from one of the multiple stampers that Simon Soussan accessed?

The more I think about it, the mystery of various/missingArcher stamps is definitely worth digging into. I don’t yet have a first press Eddie Parker to study in detail and compare with the WME copies I have (and a small uneven Archer stamped bootleg). Maybe one day someone will confirm where the Ashford records were pressed - as things stand, it could be one or two plants depending on the numbers pressed up, but most importantly, the WME copies are original USA late 68/early 69 records whether they have an Archer stamp not.

 

Edited September 7 by Frankie Crocker
SP&G

[Chalky]

51 minutes ago, Frankie Crocker said:

You mention multiple stampers - this could explain why bootlegs appeared at a later stage. The unauthorised Lorraine Chandler version on Black Magic could possibly have come from one of the multiple stampers that Simon Soussan accessed?

 

It's not Lorraine, Soussan got the backing from Jack and used a different singer, he didn't get one of the multiple stampers.

[Roburt]

Back to the ... pressed By Southern Plastics or not situation ...

it seems that at the time this 45 was made, Southern Plastics was a very busy facility. They had multiple customers, some very big (majors), some small (Ashford). But they were usually being asked to press up around 70,000 x 45s each day on their 27 pressing machines. Their top capacity (if no LP's were being made that day) was 100,000 45's per day. In the months up to each Xmas, they would be up towards their 100,000 / day on most occasions. 

I would say that the Ashford 45 order was very 'small fry' for the plant. Maybe, if they were really busy, the Ashford 45 order was pressed up on different machines as they became free (after a large number of a particular MAJOR LABEL'S 45 came to the end of it's run). If that's the case, then different lacquers / stampers would have been necessary to make the Ashford 45's on different machines in the plant. So Eddie Parker's 45's could well have been made on different pressing machines BUT all were done @ Southern Plastics.

It's all conjecture of course as no doubt everyone actually involved has long since passed.  

A side question ... were Southern Record Distributors of Nashville and Southern Plastics of Nashville linked companies ??

[Frankie Crocker]

58 minutes ago, Roburt said:

Back to the ... pressed By Southern Plastics or not situation ...

it seems that at the time this 45 was made, Southern Plastics was a very busy facility. They had multiple customers, some very big (majors), some small (Ashford). But they were usually being asked to press up around 70,000 x 45s each day on their 27 pressing machines. Their top capacity (if no LP's were being made that day) was 100,000 45's per day. In the months up to each Xmas, they would be up towards their 100,000 / day on most occasions. 

I would say that the Ashford 45 order was very 'small fry' for the plant. Maybe, if they were really busy, the Ashford 45 order was pressed up on different machines as they became free (after a large number of a particular MAJOR LABEL'S 45 came to the end of it's run). If that's the case, then different lacquers / stampers would have been necessary to make the Ashford 45's on different machines in the plant. So Eddie Parker's 45's could well have been made on different pressing machines BUT all were done @ Southern Plastics.

It's all conjecture of course as no doubt everyone actually involved has long since passed.  

A side question ... were Southern Record Distributors of Nashville and Southern Plastics of Nashville linked companies ??

Thanks for this Rob. Are you saying for sure that Ashford was a customer of Southern Plastics? Are we saying Jack Ashford placed orders with SP or was the Ashford record pressed up? Yes, we’re talking a ‘small fry’ order here, probably in the low thousands at a best guess.

At present, I’m surmising SP pressed the bulk order of Eddie Parker based on the fact the factory was over the road from the Nashville Matrix plating facility - pure conjecture for sure but logically geographically. The distribution network in Nashville might have played a part in the widespread scattering of the record in the Mid-West and towards the east coast where samples turned up near Washington DC.

We know now the Ashford record was distributed from Chicago and Detroit; we also know the approximate time it was pressed and distributed. Further documentation on distribution companies may well help us ascertain where the record was pressed and how many copies were made.

[Solidsoul]

1 hour ago, Roburt said:

Back to the ... pressed By Southern Plastics or not situation ...

it seems that at the time this 45 was made, Southern Plastics was a very busy facility. They had multiple customers, some very big (majors), some small (Ashford). But they were usually being asked to press up around 70,000 x 45s each day on their 27 pressing machines. Their top capacity (if no LP's were being made that day) was 100,000 45's per day. In the months up to each Xmas, they would be up towards their 100,000 / day on most occasions. 

I would say that the Ashford 45 order was very 'small fry' for the plant. Maybe, if they were really busy, the Ashford 45 order was pressed up on different machines as they became free (after a large number of a particular MAJOR LABEL'S 45 came to the end of it's run). If that's the case, then different lacquers / stampers would have been necessary to make the Ashford 45's on different machines in the plant. So Eddie Parker's 45's could well have been made on different pressing machines BUT all were done @ Southern Plastics.

It's all conjecture of course as no doubt everyone actually involved has long since passed.  

A side question ... were Southern Record Distributors of Nashville and Southern Plastics of Nashville linked companies ??

But it's not just the Eddie Parker records.  The Four Sonics on Sepia has Archer stamped copies and there are non-Archer stamped copies as well. So this was happening with other releases as well. Probably some Westbound releases as well.

Why would this keep happening at the same factory? Apart from a mistake, what's the point with stamps if your not going to do all copies?

That's why I think it's different pressing plants with different way's of working.

Edited September 7 by Solidsoul

[Chalky]

I with @Nick SouleI don't see Ashford dealing with different plants, not for Detroit and Chicago distribution.  The non stamp copies being an oversight which isn't beyond the realms of possibility given how busy they were with tight deadlines to meet.

Edited September 7 by Chalky

[Nick Soule]

3 hours ago, Solidsoul said:

That is not logical!

Why would Archer consistently, record release after release, press some copies with a large Archer stamp and then some more copies without the stamp. Not just a mistake once, but a business plan?  That is not likely!  

They must have been done at separate plants.

It would be like saying Atlantic records did not use three different pressing plants, they did all the label and pressing variations at the same factory.  

I have collected, researched, and documented records pressed at Archer for the last 16 years. I love all things Archer, but you are giving them far too much credit with this idea that they're a meticulous and organized pressing plant that carefully adds an 'ARCHER' stamp to every pressing. Why isn't the stamp on both sides of the Eddie Parker then? Why do records like the Magictones on Westbound 145 exist with an 'ARCHER' stamp on the A-side only on some copies while other copies of the same record have it on the B-side only? Why do records pressed at Archer exist with no 'ARCHER' stamp at all? The Tomangoe's on Washpan is a great example of an Archer pressing with no 'ARCHER' stamp - just the catalog number, a Nashville Matrix stamp, and an etched '95', which again was Archer's exclusive client code with Nashville Matrix that they only added to stampers ordered by and pressed at Archer. 

The theory that Jack Ashford somehow called up Nashville Matrix and the label printer, knew the invoice numbers from the orders Archer placed, and had a set of the stampers and several hundred labels diverted to Southern Plastics to press up a couple hundred 45s to give to an Ashford Records promo rep in the South is just bizarre, sorry. While Archer was a disorganized busy little pressing plant, Southern Plastics was a large plant that did contract work for major labels and was very professional and precise, and they would've added their own identifying marks to anything they pressed, even for a small independent label like Ashford. 

I can accept the possibility that the non-Archer stamped copies are a second run that was pressed within a few months (at most) of the promo and stock 'ARCHER' stamped copies, but I still insist that it's unlikely they weren't pressed concurrently on separate machines without some recollection/story of the original stampers being damaged on the initial run. 

The uneven 'ARCHER' stamp is obviously a bootleg that could've been pressed anywhere.

The 'NSC' marked copies are bootlegs made by Ron Murphy in the 80s and pressed at Archer.  

Edited September 7 by Nick Soule