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