maslar

I don't think it's the quantity that's the issue from a collector/price perspective (although you wouldn't expect there to be too many produced). It's the fact that there really has to be something to them that makes them collectible. I don't own any test pressings but I've always thought that they had to be viewed on a case by case basis. There isn't one hard and fast rule. Generally LPs have more potential to be of interest since there is more chance of alternative mixes etc. At the other end are the "white label" singles. maybe hand written, that may not even be real test pressings. I'm guessing it's these to which you're referring. In my opinion these (standard releases with white label) should sell for less, not more, than a standard issue since in effect what they really are at face value is a faulty product - albeit deliberately produced to appear more valuable.

Absolutely NOT. The original is just fine thanks. This is just parts of the song (bass, backing vocals) separated then tacked together. Whats the point of that? I don't know much about "mixing" but even I could produce something similar from the stuff available on youtube. Jameson's bass line is all over youtube. People copying it, teaching it etc. It's a bass line that he worked out specifically for its part within that song, in relation to all other elements of that song. it fits as part of a whole. It was never meant to be a stand alone piece Here's the thing. If Motown had decided back in 1967 to do a ten minute version of Bernadette with a three minute lead bass section do you think that this is what Jameson would have played? He would have come up with something far more interesting (for the general public that is) and less repetitive.

It was the Xmas show but was a recording of their only TOTP appearance earlier in the year. Coincidentally HGDBM/the Tams appearance has a unique distinction with regards to TOPT history (it is quite well known fact within totp trivia) in that its one of the very few (probably the only) time a group was featured when their single was going down the chart. It had been number one but had slipped to number two the week they appeared. As for the singer , Horace Keys, the most common explanation put forward is that he fell off the stage, or maybe was leaving and stumbled. I've seen a couple of Tams performance from the late 60s where he looks out of synch. Like he's struggling. Maybe he suffered from stage fright. It's a real condition that can affect performance and lead to panic attacks. Just a thought.

Brilliant, particularly Pain In My Heart.

Superb records. I was in Sister Ray (Berwick Street) on Saturday and saw these in the racks.

well considering at the time he'd only be around 16 years old and thus started collecting when he was just 14 maybe a little youthful exuberance is understandable?

Wow that's new to me. One of my all time favourites. That's the way to own it then unless I win the lottery. I've always assumed the Grapevine release was also legit but never got round to getting a copy.

Out of interest - I see that previously he's sold a copy of Don Gardner, Cheatin Kind. He claims this is from a limited edition reissue of 400 licensed by Don Gardner himself. Is this true?

just out of interest and for clarification how many of these new batch of pressings have been sold as originals. Explicitly as originals with an accompanying price tag? Is a figure known?

I think that release had it's own unique characteristics and isn't at all the same thing that we're talking about.

Absolutely not. Well not to me anyway. A good beginners 101 would be to go to popsike. The "no results" would be a pretty good starting point for any further investigation. There is so much info available nowadays -detailed discographies such as on soulfulkindamusic, that really any such record should be easily spotted for what it is (in terms. of actual release). And if by some chance this really did happen (a genuine "find" came to light) then the subsequent investigation would easily validate it.

Huh? surely these are the easiest to identify? And also the least contentious?

That's a deal that anyone with any sense would readily accept. You don't need a psychology 'o' level to expect that the 300 coming will probably be better than "average".

And a complete refund would be unmanageable. The same thing would happen but who would cover postage costs? The seller could end up massively out of pocket as some chanced for a better deal..

I said exactly the same thing and was accused on condoning theft. Yes, apparently that is theft.

To be honest I'm getting a little tired of this. A counterfeit in this instance refers to the music. Don't you get it? It's the music that is licensed that is replicated. The medium by which it is done is largely irrelevant. Ok on the northern scene its usually vinyl but it could be tape or cd. or whatever. Reproductions are just one form of counterfeiting. that may have other issues attached to them (possible deception, prices, etc). Counterfeiting refers to the reproduction of the music - that (what you hear) is the copying aspect - not the physical form it takes. Reproductions take this one step further in that there may be an attempt to deceive - but not necessarily.

Really? When I started buying records on the northern scene everyone called them "pressings". I don't remember "boots" being used much at all. And legit reissues aren't original neither are they in any way "boots". See the problems that arise when you don't use the correct terminology? Life could be so much simpler - Really

What a stupid post. You're on the wrong topic anyway. Dazed and confused. Maybe. I don't know enough about how that process works make any real comment.

Indeed.

There most certainly is. It's been proven by the successful release of such material

You're referring to what I call "counterfeits" as bootlegs - then using this (your own definition) to refer to my definition of bootleg (which is different). From my perspective (and within record collecting in general) the two are fundamentally different. You're using only one term (bootleg) and in doing so causing misrepresentation of what i'm actually saying.

- NO because as you already know it's not illegal to own bootlegs.

OK fair point. I'm not sure whether legally it would be true or not. Why then have such acetates been legally released onto the market? (By legally I refer to lack of criminal proceedings ensuing). The example that springs to my mind in the release, a couple of decades ago, of the very early unissued Marc Bolan track "The Road I'm On" c/w Blowing In the wind. The person that released is as a limited release with picture sleeve owned the acetate. The subsequent release was advertised in full half page advert in Record Collector over a considerable time, even before it's release. (Record Collector being the main record collecting magazine in Europe. This was a bootleg in record collecting terms. There was a large demand for it from fans and the price was reasonable. As far as I'm aware no one was ever prosecuted. There are of course numerous other examples. I'm sure this particular example falls into the grey area category. Nevertheless RC mag -which had a policy of not advertising illegal recordings featured it. So essentially it comes down to a grey area involving ethics.

You seem unable to grasp the basic fundamentals of what I'm saying. And to be honest I'm in danger of going round and round in circles. But one last point and example and then that's it from me on this topic unless someone make a point that I can relate to. Just to reaffirm: Bootlegging in record collecting -refers to the release on any medium of previously unissued and unavailable material. The ownership of this material may be known, a grey area or unknown. For example. Imagine I purchased an acetate of an unreleased track. I own the acetate. Do I own the rights to release it on vinyl? Maybe, maybe not. But this has been done successfully numerous times. This is potentially a grey area that could be contested in court if anyone actually gave toss.

As I stated I'm specifically talking about terms used within record collecting - and unless you have a knowledge of the wider record collecting sphere then it's probably going to take a little thinking about. I've already stated what the term "bootleg" refers to. No need to go over that again I'm sure. But I will elaborate on the term "counterfeit" becasue you don't seem to get it. it's the music that is counterfeited. The medium by which this is done is largely irrelevant in term of legality. Years ago some on the northern scene used to make cassette tapes full of rare sounds and distribute them to their friends. These are counterfeits. Taking a track of an LP and producing as a single is counterfeiting, just the same as if you'd put it onto a cd or dvd. Counterfeiting is the illegal production of licensed product. The means why which this reproduction is done is largely irrelevant. Back in the 70s there used to be a debate - when Phillips cassette recorders came onto the market - about whether taping off the radio was illegal. technically it was but no one bothered since it wasn't for profit and was too wide scale anyway. Anyone who ever taped a song off the radio onto a cassette tape was making a counterfeit recording. According to some on here these same people would be deceitful thieves. It's laughable. However, within the sphere of counterfeiting there is indeed the criminal activity of producing potentially financially lucrative replicas. This is it's own topic and should not really be confused with other bootlegging and counterfeiting. Think of it like this. If I made a tape or cd of a rare record and tape and gave it to a friend for free would I be doing anything criminal? Don't forget in legal terms the rarity of a track has no bearing. It's just the same as for example a current song in the charts This is no different to me producing the same track on vinyl and giving them a copy. The medium if irrelevant and nobody cares less. Unless i try to make money out of it, And in reality only then if it's large sums of money. On the northern scene there a tendency to group all bootlegs, counterfeits, and (amazingly) even legal reissues under the term "boots". Now if you're going to argue that the northern scene has it own terminology then fair enough. But that doesn't avoid the fact that its only going to lead to confusion.