Rolling Stones "Let t Bleed" Pressing Query

I put this LP up for sale and identified it in Discogs as what appeared to be a first UK STEREO pressing. Someone has asked that it be verified via the Music Forums. I am not an expert on RS LP pressings so any help is appreciated. The album is listed here:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...d-uk-decca-purple-label.725454/#post-17930105

Please let me know if I can provide additional info to help confirm this pressing. Thank you!

 

The boxed Decca logo on the labels is a dead giveaway that it’s not a first UK pressing. First pressing UK Decca labels of Let It Bleed have unboxed Decca logos.

 

I just clicked on the link and see I posted the wrong link in Discogs. Its a mistake and I accept responsibility for it. I found the correct pressing but copied wrong link!

 

It happens.

 

Not sure if it is on Discogs actually, I can't find it...

Anyway, your copy is the one from 1982 circa, check the labels Design No 12 / Version 1, scroll down here: Stones on Decca

 

It has the same stamper matrix as first Stereo UK pressings and I think that got me focused on that. This doesn't look like its from 1982!

 

Definitely a later pressing, no poster advertised, no stereo/ mono hole on the back.....

 

I know many example of later copies (especially from '70) with same "original" first press matrix...maybe Decca restarted the numeration of new matrix for some reasons....anyway, matrix is a mystery sometimes...

 

Well, it means that they used the original stampers to make the reissue I would think. If anyone knows which reissue it is, please let me know. Also, if anyone knows the approximate value too.

 

Not so sure it is so....as said, to me it is a copy from 1982 circa, about its possible value I don't know....

 

I tried to see what version it was too and i couldnt find an exact match on discogs but the label on the record and the lack of the peephole all pointed to a 70s/early80s re-issue.
just because it isnt on discogs doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, just someone hasnt put it on there yet...maybe you could submit it?

it isnt unheard of to use original stampers on re-issues, but thats a big gap to use the stampers i'd think but thats what got me stuck down the rabbit hole searching discogs (which i dont mind i like research)


as to the value thats up to you really, try checking *bay and discogs for similar condition and era re-issues

 

Not true. Let It Bleed could be found with either at the time of release.

As could the slightly earlier release Through The Past Darkly LP.

And not just the stereo labels - the unboxed and boxed red mono labels can be found with both too (which is a good indicator both could be found at release because it is unlikely the mono record was ever repressed for either LP).

 

It’s an early 80s pressing.

Unlike The Beatles and Parlophone which often only cut one (or, maybe sometimes, two) sets of laquers for each side for new releases, the Stones and Decca appear to generally cut more lacquers than that. So, of course, they lasted longer because 1) having more meant they weren’t used as much and 2) the Stones didn’t generally sell as many records as The Beatles. And even at that, a number of Beatles original stereo metal parts were still being used into the 70s and some original mono parts were used for the 1982 mono box.

It’s not at all unusual to see a number of matrix combinations on early Stones pressings and for those early metal parts to be used for much later re-pressings.

Value? Check Popsike for Let It Bleeds with similar labels. If I had to guess, I’d say maybe $25-$50 in NM- condition, but I could be wrong because I haven’t kept an eye on Stones prices in a long time.

 

That’s been argued by some people online and eBay sellers with boxed label versions for sale. It’s possible but I’m not 100% convinced. There’s no ambiguity about the pedigree of the unboxed versions.

 

They def use original stampers for reissues sometimes.

 

Oddly enough, I’ve never seen a -1/-1 matrix for early/first Stereo pressing of Let It Bleed. Not to say they don’t exist, but the ones I’ve seen have various combinations of -2, -3, -4, -5 or -6.

This to me looks like an early 1980’s pressing. The labels on those have a different texture compared to earlier issues, and have what appears like very fine co-centric rings, similar to really really tight album grooves.

 

It’s fair to question it but it’s not ambiguous. They both were in use in the fall of ‘69. It’s only ambiguous if you have a linear, romanticized notion of how the process worked.

Record companies and plants didn’t just stop with label X one day and start with label Y the next day. They were just labels on records. They printed up millions of labels and used those until they ran out. But they didn’t wait until the old batch ran out until they printed a new batch; you’re not going to risk a production stoppage by not having labels.

In this case, the design change just happened to be approved at Decca in Summer ‘69 or whatever and a batch of boxed labels was pressed up and put in inventory while there were still plenty of unboxed labels in inventory. And the folks at the plant just grabbed the closest pallet. They were just manufacturing pop records...

I’ve got several Parlophone/Apple Beatles LPs with hybrid labels - one side with the older label and one side with the newer label for this reason. I wouldn’t be shocked if there were some hybrid Decca’s out there too, but maybe their QC was a little better than EMI’s.

Besides how do you explain mono boxed pressings of Through The Past and Let It Bleed? Do you think these were both re-pressed sometime in 1970 or later as mono record sales went from almost nothing to virtually zero?

 

The dead wax information is probably a better guide for dating a pressing. I might argue that some of those transitional hybrid labels (and I own some as well) are more unique than the more common non-transitional variations. As a rule of thumb, boxed Decca logo labels came after the unboxed Decca labels but it’s not hard to imagine that some boxed logo labels could have gotten mixed in with the unboxed labels when these LP’s were pressed in late 1969.

 

The dead wax info for these records is no help whatsoever. That's what started this chain of discussion.

As a rule of thumb, of course, the boxed came after the un-boxed. No one is arguing against that notion. But both were in circulation in the fall of 1969 and for the album in question - Let It Bleed (as well as Through The Past Darkly) - both unboxed and boxed labels were available upon release. Period.

 

Unless you have invoices and documentation from the printer of the labels indicating exact dates for the production and delivery of the labels, this conversation is largely conjecture. However, it is not up for debate that the unboxed Decca labels were printed and used throughout the 60’s until late 1969.

 

Isn't it this 1978 reissue?

Rolling Stones* - Let It Bleed

 

Again, do you believe Through The Past in mono was repressed? Because by your theory, this is the only explanation for the boxed mono pressing. But why would they re-press in 1970 or later the mono release of ONLY these 2 LPs released in the Fall of '69 and no other LP released prior to that? Why not Beggar's Banquet?

How do you explain that the very limited Rolling Stones Promotional LP - which was distributed in the UK before the release of Let It Bleed and never repressed - came with boxed labels?

Sorry, but the boxed and unboxed label were both used by Decca in the Fall of 1969. Period. The logical and anecdotal contemporaneous evidence are contrary to your original assertion and your now evolved assertion.

 

No. Look at the area around the rim. The OP's is raised. This one isn't.

 

You have a conclusion and you’re pulling only the facts, such as the release date of the promo, that support your conclusion. Primary source material about the production of the labels for Let It Bleed and Through The Past Darkly, such as documentation from the printer with actual dates, would sort out the facts from speculation and guesswork.

By the way, there is actually one known copy of the promo (issued October 30, 1969) with the unboxed Decca labels. So I’m willing to concede, again, that there is some ambiguity about the timeline for the production of the boxed Decca labels in concurrence with the vinyl pressings in late 1969.

Stones on Decca

Furthermore, there could have been repressings (from 1970?) of Let It Bleed and Through TheDarkly with the red boxed Decca labels.

My assertion hasn’t evolved. Let It a Bleed (and Through The Past Darkly as well) with unboxed Decca labels are undoubtedly first pressings. The labels on Decca LP’s in the 1960’s till the end of the decade had unboxed Decca logos adhered to them. There are no second pressings of either of those titles with unboxed Decca labels. This is not an arguable fact and it’s a valid rule of thumb.

 

“I have a conclusion and I’m pulling only facts”...how silly of me to use actual facts.

And what part of going from this...

To this...

...is not an evolving assertion?

No one is contesting that unboxed labels are 1st pressings - even though you keep sagely repeating it as though it’s some great revelation. And no one is contesting the irrelevent fact that - shocker - there are no repressings of either LP on the unboxed label.

Your original statement - that a boxed Decca label means it’s not a first pressing - is flatly incorrect. I’ve explained why and how the evidence supports why. There are also multiple contemporaneous stories of folks buying the LP on day of release with boxed labels. However it appears nothing short of a time machine will convince you of this.