Help! Is this a rare Bob Dylan Record??

Thanks again Pete

Sorry but I think I'm being a little slow again.......

So that wouldn't explain the differences to the back of the sleeve?

Cheers

John

 

Ignore this post, for some reason I cannot reply quoting the member that I want. I was replying to

So that wouldn't explain the differences to the rear sleeve that i have mentioned?

 

The UK Dylan vinyl I've heard did not sound that good. If I had it I would be selling it.

 

The record itself is just a common second press. It and the sleeve are mismatched and you're right, its the sleeve which is interesting

The tri flip sleeves were gone by the early 70's and were manufactured in the way yours is. So far so good

The weird part is the lamination which wasn't commonly applied to the sleeves that were made in the new way (which incidentally were still the same just that flip/flaps were glued inside instead of outside).

It could be a sleeve for UK export copies that has ended up with you record.

Ive asked a UK member to chime in and Im sure that the muffmaster will be able to tell the whole story

 

Is there any music on it ?

 

You're not helping keeping the thread on track

 

Hate to rain on the parade but its not very collectable, at least in the UK. Firstly the A2 B2 matrix could be the first for this LP as many UK LP's bypass matrices, however as the interest in this LP is fairly limited there is no way i can confirm this. The labels look like a first issue as the only show 33 not 33 1/3 a change made during 1967, you are quite right that first press UK sleeves did have flipback sleeves but this also changed during 1967. From the pictures i would say the lamination does not cover the spine text yes ? The fold on the rear is tucked under the front at the spine and this was a strange sleeve construction used on many UK CBS & polydor releases during 1967-8. It is therefore possible that your copy has an earlier disc in a slightly later sleeve, since the disc is 1967 and the sleeve probably too is it could just be correct. Sadly as far as value is concerned were i to list it i may not even get any bids for it....sorry

 

On track? Heh. I see what you did there.

 

Glad muffmaster chimed in as I was totally wrong

 

Thanks for your reply, very useful

The copy that I have does indeed tuck under the front.

If it were however a later sleeve would it not match the 3rd release in regard to the other details, or, if it's an earlier sleeve constructed in the new way would it not match either the first or second release? Even taking into account the way the folds are tucked in the release that I have has distinct differences from the other releases. For example, the 3rd release has a text box at the bottom, the 1st and 2nd release should have "MONO" below the CBS logo. Also, my copy doesn't have the printer name (as with 1st and 2nd) "Garrod & Lofthouse Ltd." instead I have "Ernest J.Day and Co".

Would these differences be consistent with what you are talking about?

<edit> A light bulb moment!!

Could the differences that I have explained be due to CBS using a different printer?</edit>

 

Really appreciate your help

 

I have no problem with your LP being correct because of the close timeline. The sleeve change is during 1967 and I know of copies of younger than yesterday that have the exact same sleeve/label combination as yours but younger never had the earlier flipback sleeve version.

Yes for sure there is a printer change but i am as certain as i can be that these sleeves did not run alongside each other, there are also many EJ Day flipbacks known to exist for other UK CBS LP's, it was a case of whoever got the order for which LP... but i suspect it was the changeover to hybrid stereo mono sleeves that sparked the main 67 change, before than UK CBS often used printed stereo sleeves, after mid 67 they only ever used the same sleeves for stereo and mono and just stickered for stereo

So to summarise, imho your LP is a slightly later press, but very likely later by a few months only, maybe even weeks, not a lot in it...

 

Packaging is a completely different issue...

 

Hi Pete, good to touch base with a UK cutting engineer from the 60's, you're knowledge could be invaluable to many of us. I've always noticed that for CBS matrix changes could be different for pressings that to me looked like first pressings, especially from the late sixties onwards. My main interests I admit are EMI pressings but nonetheless your CBS expertise could be very helpful indeed. For example many first pressings start at A2, would this mean A1 had been produced but discarded for a flaw or a remix pre-pressing ??

 

As I mentioned, the A1 lacquers weren't always used. The CBS factory at Aylesbury tended to use the A2 cuts first. The audio was identical. We cut two sets of lacquers for all CBS and WEA releases pressed by them.

What EMI did, I don't know, their matrix numbers always ended in a U.

 

yes I'm sure the principle was the same regardless, as for the U well thats another story, U appears in 1969 and nobody knows why, it has been said U stands for Uxbridge facility but it is understood Uxbridge wasn't operational until 72 so the U remains a mystery let alone those that have a G lol !! Pete EMI and Decca has systems for numbering each stamper, 1G 1B etc etc, CBS and the others do not seem to have had such a system unless there is one you could enlighten us on ??

 

Well, EMI's factory at Hayes (only a few miles from Uxbridge) has been there for ages (now known as the Vinyl Factory) I don't know what EMI did in Uxbridge anyway.

CBS UK only stamped lacquers with the cat. and dash numbers.

RCA Records UK factory in Washington County Durham (operational during the 70's) would hand scribe lacquers with the cat, number followed by an E, which indicated that they were cut at RCA's mastering facility at Exmoor Street West London....

 

Isn't it more likely (since you didn't purchase this new) that the record was put in the wrong sleeve?
Or is the sleeve unique to all pressings?

 

Exactly what I am saying. The sleeve appears to match none of the three UK releases. It's similar to the first two because of the laminated front. It differs from the third because the text is very different.

 

As I understand it, the U suffix found on EMI matrix numbers was used to denote masterings made outside of Abbey Road.

 

I could be but since the timeline is so close I think your record is probably correct. You may also have to come to terms with the site you are quoting is WRONG, he misses out your sleeve totally, a big big error, if he does that then the rest of his info, whilst mostly correct still has to be taken with a pinch of Salt. CBS sleeves after they lost their flipbacks did indeed omit the " stereo " warning box at the bottom ( these warnings appeared on , this box does not appear until around early 1968 ( late 67 at best ) .... you should email with a picture of your sleeve and disc, he may then wish to make a correction...your sleeve is definitely 1967 but he jumps from the two flipback sleeves straight to the 68 sleeve...PS if it helps he also has the wrong advertising inner pictured, the correct inner for this LP in 1967 was similar but SQUARE cut, the angled cuts arrive approx late 67 early 68 so like i say you are quoting a website that has several errors.

 

sorry i made a typo in the above post i meant to say the stereo warning box was applied to all sleeves from 1968-9 stereo or mono the sleeves were hybrid/interchangeable, stereo's would then be stickered with either a gold or white sticker, or sometimes early ones had a red stereo stamp.

 

The mono version of this record would be worth likely more than the Stereo. The orange label Stereo is likely a $22-$25 item in Near Mint in US valuations.

 

You have been a big help mate, thanks very much for taking the time.

I have contacted the site and the chap is going to add my version so at the very least we have helped to make that resource more accurate. And I personally have learned a lot about the various releases and how they differ and have enjoyed doing so!!

Thanks again everyone!