Peter Richer

The lack of specifics would have been rather worrying to me. Not sure whether demo or issue. Which Little Jimmy Scott is it (two different b-sides)? Perhaps more importantly, is that really a first issue Len Jewell?! Seems unlikely (and pretty cheap) for it to be the ultra rare pink Teri-De 004. However, for a recent re-release on blue Teri-De 011 (which Manship's Bootleg Guide dates at early 1974, so roughly the right time), it looks awfully expensive. Did anyone get a bargain pink Len Jewell off this list? Or, did anybody here get fleeced for a blue one?

1) What would they say? 'Somebody is selling something which may or may not be a bootleg, as do lots of other people with impunity, but I personally don't like this one because they've re-worked it - although they've still said it isn't the genuine article.' Or perhaps (and this would actually be a justifiable thing to do): 'Please stop people selling any and all unlicensed items, including soul records; regardless of whether they call them re-issues, second issues, reproductions or any other similar term, and regardless as to whether they are second hand or not.' But then you get into the issue of how to monitor it, and who should do it; and who should arbitrate if it is disputed. Probably just leave it to the legal owners of a copyrighted item to challenge if they wish; after all, it is those people who were 'wronged' in the first place. 2) Of course not - there is no deception, so nothing illegal. Might be worth keeping an eye on the people who bought them though.

Yes, exactly. The guy isn't a bootlegger (as far as we can tell), he is 'customizing' previously bootlegged records which already exist. He could - and probably would - argue that any premium he receives for these records is a reward for the customizing effort he has put into the re-labelling. They are still listed as non-originals. I would guess that some of the buyers who are paying fairly hefty prices for them may be the ones that might try to pass them off fraudulently in the future, for a sizeable profit. And that is where the problem will be.

There's one on Manship's site at the moment, with a little bit of info, £15. Think it might have been there a while as there is no photo. I actually first heard it on one of JM's tapes from his list around 1980. Not great, but not the worst either.

Nice pics (as usual) Roger. 'Special Rush Reservice' is interesting. David - I believe it was an Ian Levine Mecca outing, but if I'm wrong others will confirm.

Any details Steve? What is it about the record which confirms it as a bootleg? Also, where would one have bought a 'new' one of these bootlegs from? Does anybody have one in mint condition?

Not Christine Cooper, it was Janie Grant I think. But, having said that, I agree with your point. Probably because he had nearly 30 records up for auction today (twice as many as usual), and also because his page for 'this week' also included many others which are finishing this Sunday. Maybe an illustration of the 'less is more' philosophy, in reverse of course. Cheers, Peter

Thanks Chalky - I hadn't looked at the other thread. It certainly looks pretty good. Are the matrix markings similar to the previous release by the Raeletts on number 1031, does anybody know?

Hi. Do you know what the Tangerine record number is on the label? I'm assuming it can't be 757 as they go from the 900s to the 1000s. On the Soulful Kinda Music label listing I can't see any missing numbers; and if this track is from 1969 it ought to be numbered around the 990s. Could it be some later release on a reactivated label?

Actually I don't really like the record that much, so won't be paying even £30 for one (but don't object that you just have). Just a request for information/clarification as this isn't a JM set-sale, it's an auction. It will be up to the bidders, not JM, what the final price will be.

I doubt it, unless the banks start taking expensive vinyl as collateral for loans. But you never know - they might.

Sorry, I don't quite understand ... what '0's might JM have a problem with? Has he stated a price he might expect, or has set as a reserve?

Surely £50 tops. That's what it was on Soul Bowl's list in 1978. Oh, and while I'm at it, where's my Ivory's for £2.50?

I am highly sceptical (to say the least). Please provide a link to the vg+ one sold as an original for £50. It is almost certainly mis-described if listed as an original. If it is genuine someone got an almighty bargain ... and the seller will be pig sick if they ever read a topic such as this and find out what they've let go. Honestly Dean, the going rate for a decent copy will be about £5k. Cheers, Peter

Yes, sort of. Except when I sold up the 'big ticket' end of my collection (a couple of years ago) I had a number of those items for set sale. And, they were all here, and all genuinely for sale. Having said that, it definitely is a minefield, and it is ripe for for the unscrupulous to try to exploit. Leaves the collectors (with serious money to spend) in a bit of a dilemma.

Yeah, misunderstanding of the price of a real one I think. Cheers Dave

Really?!? A Gwen Owens boot at more than £5k ...?! Come off it. Or is some misguided fool selling an original for less than £100? If so, let me know who they are ... I'll have as many as they've got.

OK I know it's not in pristine condition, but given the description I'm actually quite surprised the J. D. Bryant hasn't sold yet at £4,700.

Presumably this one which sold for $272 (£170) is not an original (unless there were two label runs) as the name Resurrection is spelt without the '$' sign in front of the 's'. So is this a (very expensive) bootleg, rather than a bargain?

Thanks Robb, great stuff. These kinds of stories from collectors who were there at the time our favourite records were actually released are terrific. Your first hand experience, and dealings with other people in the record business, has also helped put a few 'myths' in perspective on other topics too. Please keep on enlightening us!

Err ... Trips is Soundville, surely? I believe you're normally spot on with clarifications Ian, but this doesn't help to quash the Ray Agee Soultown bootleg conjecture. That said, I am in the 'I'm Losing Again on Soultown is genuine' camp.

Oh, and for the original poster (after nearly 10 years as a member, and around 1,300 posts) to suddenly decide to start this argument up again with a pretence of naivety ... come off it. Thinly veiled plug for an upcoming 'free' weekender - and hoped for justification thereof - methinks. Doesn't wash.

Beautifully put. With sarcasm and irony in equal measure. Nice. An argument I have been making myself for some time now. Sadly, it will all go over the heads of the 'OVO doesn't matter' brigade. But hey, it's still fun to ridicule them.

Yep, your guess was closest ... you've been robbed of first place!

And, it is still less than seven years!