Peter Richer

That is correct, and I have been grateful for the facility of telephone bidding on many occasions. I bid on-line whenever possible, as that is my preferred method, but I cannot always get to a suitable computer. Telephone bidding is available at all decent auction houses (such as Sotheby's, Christie's, or local property auctions). As is extending auction times until all bidders have finished (as in: 'going once, going twice, third and final time ...') etc. John's is the only rare soul auction I know of that actually models itself on 'proper' auctions, and he deserves full credit for that. Having said that, last Wednesday was a bit of a muddle (unfortunate, but not unexpected with a new system) and I was lucky to have access even via the telephone to get my bid on. And yes, some other people will potentially have inadvertently ended up with bargains as a result. Peter

OK, well there is a different view. I recently (within the last 12 months) had a conversation with a respected, very knowledgeable and trusted record dealer who says that they are definitely not 1970s re-presses, and that they are originals. He bases this on the facts of where he has found them in the USA, who he bought them from, and that they were all mixed in together with copies of the larger ARCHER stamped disks. Albeit there were fewer of the larger stamped versions. Yes, there must have been different plates in order to press the disks with different matrix marks, but this is also true with other confirmed originals such as Gwen Owens - Just Say You're Wanted. There can be first run originals and second run originals. Also, in Tim Brown's guide, he does not list the smaller stamped disks as bootlegs, and has a selling price of £50. (Tim is not the same dealer as the one referred to above). John Manship is normally very accurate in these matters, and he has made a comprehensive and valuable study of bootlegs for reference, but there are still some items where there is an element of doubt, and this may well be one of them. Peter

Not sure whether this has been mentioned so far, but (and though I'm no legal expert on performing rights matters) I believe it may well be illegal to play bootlegs at a commercial venue. I'm pretty sure it will be against the terms of any public entertainment licence an establishment may have (just as it would be for, say, bootleg DVDs to be screened to a paying audience). If this is correct (and I think it is), and regardless of where you stand in this particular debate, you are not legally allowed to play bootlegs at a northern soul event - and that's even before the soul police arrive! In theory that should be an end to it. The only question of principle which would remain is whether you would wish to play legitimate re-issues, such as the Columbia pressed (small 45) Okehs or UK Grapevines for example. Peter

Just out of interest, I checked on the DVD what it was that Frank Wilson actually said at the Togetherness weekender of 2000. He believed that Billie Jean Brown (Motown head of quality control) used to keep a copy of practically everything, and that he thought she was likely to have a copy, or even more than one. However, he also said that when he got back to the States he was going to ask her if she actually did have it/them. Presumably the answer was in the negative, otherwise I'm sure Frank would have made it known considering all of the publicity at the time. Either that or he forgot to ask. Unlikely I would think. Peter

Hi Rich, Jimmy Armstrong's 'I Believe I'll Love On' is on one of the CDs, can't remember which volume, off the top of my head. Another thing not too many people realize is that Jackie Wilson's released version on Brunswick is also brilliant. It was due to it being given to Jackie that Jimmy's Shrine cut was shelved. Peter PS - If anyone has a copy of Jackie Wilson's 'She's Alright' on Brunswick they would like to sell, please get in touch.

Sorry Pete, but it's definitely 19 releases. The full list of the songs was posted up earlier: numbers 0 to 19 (inclusive) minus the Jimmy Armstrong (unissued) equals 19 released records with proper Shrine labels. This of course still excludes the 'doubled up' records of DJ/issue and alternate take variants. Would still like to know if anyone has a copy of the Les Chansonettes with prominent sax. When I spoke to Lew Stanley about it a couple of weeks ago he said he had never had one. Flynny, do you actually have it? Andy Rix?? Peter

Hi DJ. Unfortunately I don't have spares of any of the ones you are looking for, and I am still trying to complete the set myself. I will PM you with a couple of my wants though, in case you have those as duplicates. Perhaps the cash and/or trades would help you with your quest for the others. Peter

Just for clarification: there are only 19 different releases on the Shrine label itself. That's assuming we don't count demos and issues of the first couple, or the different take of Les Chansonettes (if it exists on vinyl?), and unless someone has recently found a copy of Jimmy Armstrong's 'I Believe I'll Love On' which is generally believed not to have been pressed. So, if you have a total of 19 Shrines, do you have any duplicates you are looking to trade? If you need 8 different ones to complete the set then I guess you must also have 8 spares? Peter

Yes, come on Pottsy, don't keep us all in suspense! What's the matrix info for the white demo? Peter

Right then John, matrix markings. My copy is the quieter one which doesn't jump. The Wanted and Needed side reads: SI-C10003-A SOUND INC. 344 so there's a dash between the 3 and the A, plus the additional number 344 lightly scratched in. The flip, as you say, is also scratched in but with clearly different handwriting, and reads: SI-C10004 B Side 344 A side deadwax is 12mm wide (approx). B side deadwax is 16mm wide (approx). So it looks like two different presses. Can anyone tell us what the demo matrix markings and deadwax widths are please? Peter

Starting up a new thread, as suggested by the moderators, so's not to interfere with Pete Smith's sales item. In answer to John Manship's query and Pottsy's comments, I just wanted (and needed ... ha, ha!!) to say that my copy - as played at Easington on Saturday - doesn't jump at all. However it does seem a little quiet, which may confirm what Pottsy was saying about the two different runs. I don't know how the two different run in/out grooves match up, as unfortunately I don't have a 2nd copy to compare it to. Would be good to know which type the demos are, although I have been told by a very reliable source that the one he had did not jump. Presumably there is only one type of demo, which may suggest that the non-jumping quieter run is the 1st press? Peter

If anybody would like to contact me you're more than welcome to send me an e-mail (pjricher at waitrose dot com). Cheers, Peter

Just one further detail, which I noticed when compiling my playlist from Whitley Bay last night. The two records also have slightly different titles: The one on orange Breakthrough is 'No One ELSE Can Take Your Place' Whereas the Charles Diamond version is 'No One Can Take your Place'. A minor detail I know, but there we are - two different versions with two different titles! Peter

Hi Mark, I tend to agree with the point indicated by 'Fyldecoast'. As I understand it, because the master tapes were lost, Joey Jefferson got the group back into the studio to re-record the track. Plus, as Pete Smith stated, the 1977 version of the song is different. On this basis I think (for us purists!), playing the record out CAN be justified on the basis that this version of the track is actually AN original. Think of it as being a similar situation to Minnie Jones doing a different version of Shadow Of A Memory to that of 21st Century. Except that in this case, of course, the first and second artists are the same people. And .... I fully intend to play it at Whitley Bay on 14th October!! Peter PS - one point of caution though, out of respect I wouldn't play it at a venue where I thought one of the other DJs had an orange Breakthrough copy with them to play. Soooo ... (you've guessed it) - 'Don't Say That I've Been Unfair, ... '!!!

Being a man of impeccable taste (plus obsessive, and in possession of a brand new anorak!!), I felt compelled to complete my set of the Dynells: - Call On Me / Let Me Prove That I Love You - Atco (issue) - Call On Me / Let Me Prove That I Love You - Atco (demo) - Call On Me / Instrumental - Vent - Let Me Prove That I Love You / Instrumental (Summertime Groove) - Blueberry Both sides are simply too good for words. Have to admit I paid too much for the Vent copy .... but I really don't care! Peter

Hi Nev, Glad you enjoyed the record when I played it at Rolling Mills and Piercebridge (there's a few of us around the Whitley Bay/Cramlington area who like it), and I hope you manage to pick one up soon mate. Unfortunately it is quite expensive, and I think Soulman1964 got a good deal from Andy Dyson. I'm hoping to get to the North Brit on Friday, so with any luck I'll be able to find you there and say hello (and don't forget the Berkeley Tavern at Whitley Bay on October 14th, where I'll definitely be spinning our Leroy!!). As for my reply to Mr. Rounce; well, what do people expect when they post up patronizing remarks which: a) are rude and insulting ('daft', 'lad', 'do be brief', etc.), pretend that people have said things which they haven't (the better because it's rarer comment), and c) attack the PERSON for giving an honest opinion, rather than providing their own REASONING for why they may hold a different view. Is it any wonder that some people are put off from contributing to Soul Source's forum when this kind of attitude keeps rearing its ugly head?! Cheers, Peter PS - I've read through this thread again, and (up to now) NOT ONE person has said (or implied) that the LB version is 'better because it's rarer'. However, there are quite a few people who have said they prefer it though!!

Cheers Chalky ... I always thought you must be a man of good taste!!! I think you're right, the track hasn't been played a great deal, but I do always try to give the Leroy Barbour a spin whenever I'm lucky enough to be asked to play a few records up here in the north-east. Peter

TONY ROUNCE Posted Today, 12:03 AM Â QUOTE(Peter Richer @ Sep 21 2006, 12:49 PM) The Leroy Barbour version is a brilliant dance track, and is classier, faster and far more soulful! ...Now you're just being daft, lad. Faster - yes, Classier - no. More soulful. Do be brief! It doesn't even belong in the same room as J. Reed Jr, much less the same box. Just cause it's rarer, don't make it better and in this case it definitely don't. TONE --------------------- Try learning to read matey, before fiddling with your keyboard. I never said it was better because it was rarer. I said it was classier and more soulful, and I'm not the only one on this thread who thinks it is the superior version. Everyone's entitled to their opinion (even you!), but here's a thought ... why don't you try being less obnoxious when expressing yours?! And by the way old man, I'm not your 'lad'. Peter

The Leroy Barbour version is a brilliant dance track, and is classier, faster and far more soulful! Don't know whether Duncan has one, but my copy certainly resides in the north-east. It's been played at Whitley Bay, Piercebridge and Darlington. Anyone who'd like to hear this and many other great records, come along to Whitley Bay's Berkeley Tavern on October 14th ...!!! Peter

In my opinion, SHRINE is one of the greatest labels to collect - all quality, lots of classic upbeat northern, heartwrenching ballads, fascinating history, rarity, and, of course, all tracks were SOULFUL. However, the question remains, why have people brought it up in this thread? Methinks there is so much bitterness and resentment out there that (as usual!) people can't be bothered to read and/or respond to the actual question. Briles said that there should be AT LEAST 20 releases on the label, and he gets to make the rules as it's his thread. AS ANY FOOL KNOWS, ON SHRINE THERE WERE ONLY 19!!!! Attention to detail is everything!! Ha ha ha ... Cheers, 'Pedantic' Pete PS - in the spirit of the thread, my vote goes to Mar-V-Lus .... 21 releases!!! And again, all soulful with lots of great northern.

recordwanted Posted Today, 07:33 AM Â QUOTE(45cellar @ Aug 3 2006, 05:09 PM) Hi Pete Sorry for late reply but I'm on nights Just the Titles & No Number on mine. Everything that I bought at the time from the same dealer, has been the real deal, I have no reason to doubt this copy. For instance, I bought The Tomangoes around the same time - and it has the "Nashvile Matrix", I certainly didn't know at the time that it should have. Back then on the lists they were described as Original - (we didn't have much in the way of guides back then) - and as I say they have proved through time to be Original as described. Everything about the record looks and feels right, the print quality, the vinyl etc I could go on, but you know what I mean. I wonder if 2 runs were made at the plant with the numbers added to the master later? I'm sure mine is 100% orginal and only has "I NEVER KNEW"/"I WILL WAIT" scratched in the deadwax. Bought it from well known San Fransisco area dealer, Barry Wickham. It better be real! -Mike ---------------------------------------- Thanks to you guys for making these posts, and confirming that my copy is an original - with only the titles in the deadwax. I always thought it was, given the source where I acquired it, but it's good to know it is the same as those from Soul Bowl in the 1970s, and other reputable dealers. In answer to Pete's question though, his copy fits with the description in Manship's bootleg guide as being an original, so I would guess 45cellar could well be right about two different runs. I wonder whether you might have any more information on this John, if you're reading this?? Peter

claude rains Posted Today, 12:38 PM Â

Another quick point, and question, on the Masqueraders - How. This sold not just once, but twice, on John's Auctions for more than £1,100. Does anyone know whether any other copies in excellent condition have sold for less than, say, £500 in the last 12 months? I've not seen one for sale apart from the one Sid Jones had up on here for £1,000 a few months ago.

paultp Posted Today, 12:16 PM QUOTE(Peter Richer @ Jul 23 2006, 11:00 PM) paultp Posted Today, 08:13 PM QUOTE(Peter Richer @ Jul 23 2006, 10:50 AM) I'm sorry to pick on this post but I think there are too many posts on this forum in the vein of " it can't be worth that cos I paid sixpence for it in 197X". ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul, you have completely missed the point of my post. -------------------------------------- I don't think I did really, I was just making a different point and used your post to reply to, which is what I said in the first paragraph. -------------------------------------- Except, of course, that I never said (nor implied) anything at all like: " it can't be worth that cos I paid sixpence for it in 197X". which is what you put in your first paragraph!! So who is it who keeps saying 'it can't be worth that cos I paid sixpence for it in 197X'?? ... I think we should be told, and then we can flog them to death with 1970s pop stompers - which of course STILL ARE only worth sixpence (if that)!!! Lol Never mind, let's just forget it. Now, how much is that Frank Wilson or whatever it's called worth again .. ??!?

paultp Posted Today, 08:13 PM Â QUOTE(Peter Richer @ Jul 23 2006, 10:50 AM) Some good points there John. People sometimes 'forget' to consider the broader picture. A couple of records still worth a bomb: Mikki Farrow - Set My Heart At Ease; was regularly on Soul Bowl during the late 1970s for £6. Masqueraders - How; again, was on Soul Bowl for £2.50, and everyone says there are loads of copies. Funny how it never comes up for sale though, and is now a solid £1,000 record. Peter I'm sorry to pick on this post but I think there are too many posts on this forum in the vein of " it can't be worth that cos I paid sixpence for it in 197X". ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul, you have completely missed the point of my post. John asked us to post examples of records where: 'there's loads of them but it is still worth a bomb!' I was NOT saying the Mikki Farrow or the Masqueraders were not worth their current values. Quite the contrary. Their going rates are high, but rightly so because they are fantastic records and nobody wants to part with them (supply and demand and all that ...). I gave examples of their extensiveness on early lists to illustrate that there may be quite a few around. I am NOT suggesting that these (or any other) records should still be sold at their 1970s prices. Following my post you will also see that, in his reply, John thinks I may have underestimated the rarity of the Mikki Farrow, as counterfeits may have been sold as originals. I am sure this is true, but I would not for a moment suggest that any of those came from John Anderson at Soul Bowl. Hope this clears that up. Cheers, Peter