Beatles White album highest ORIGINAL UK number

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by muffmasterh, Dec 6, 2016.

  1. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    inspired by some other threads concerning the re-issue numbers i have always believed i hold the highest UK numbered original UK White Album of 0624570 but i am curious to know if a higher numbered copy still exists out there.

    Remember this only applies to ORIGINAL UK pressings, no re-issue or non UK sleeves need apply :thumbsdow
     
  2. When does original change over into re-issue? Is top load considered more original? Did the white album ever go out of print from '68 through - whenever? Were mono and stereo numbered separately? Just some things to consider. :)
     
  3. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    actually in the case of UK white albums it is fairly straight forward as it is only the top loaders that need to be considered , but even if that were not the case it is made redundant by the fact that when they went to numbered side openers the numbers revert back to 100,000 so they are not even in the equation.

    UK WA sleeves are dual mono stereo but some have stereo stamped on the back so again there is no need for any consideration issues their either.

    For the record the UK WA system was as follows :-

    Top opening 1968-9

    0-0299999 unstamped so mono ( with several small batches stamped for stereo )

    0300,000 - 0599,999 stamped stereo
    0600,000 - ? unstamped so mono ( it is likely these sleeves were issued to cover the final remaining mono's emi had pressed )

    side open 1970-1 all stereo, mono had finished
    0100,000-0150??? 7 digit

    side open 1971-3
    100000 ( again ) to 300??? 6 digit number only.
     
    Pinknik likes this.
  4. forthlin

    forthlin Forum Resident

    I can confirm that your number is higher than my mono top-loader 0121227

    Your number is also higher than my stereo standard sleeve 287644 (this may be considered a reissue pending the criteria mentioned by @Pinknik

    In any case, congratulations on the large number, and your expertise with the muff. :)
     
  5. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    thank you ! the 600,000 series while scarce are not unheard of, I myself have three WA's in the 600,000 series but I've never seen higher than this anywhere, or even for sale. I did see another in the 620's once but it did not beat this one...

    i also have number 92 but thats another story lol !
     
    forthlin likes this.
  6. forthlin

    forthlin Forum Resident

    Well don't just leave me hanging...what's the deal?:)
     
  7. mavisgold

    mavisgold Forum Resident

    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Vinyl Asylum »


    "White Album number variations;

    no lead characters and no lead zeros
    This variant is found only on very early records. I have seen several numbered 100 and earlier which fit this description. In each case, the records were manufactured in Los Angeles.
    no lead characters but with lead zeros
    This variant begins before number 1000 and is found on covers numbered less than about 210,000 and with records manufactured in Los Angeles.
    lead character of "A" followed by a blank space
    Next, West Coast copies from about 210,000 up to just over 500,000 can be found in this style. The "A" looks like it was added with a different stamper. Apparently, the addition of an "A" made US releases more closely follow most foreign releases of the LP.
    lead character is a large dot
    These can be found on covers numbered from about 500,000 to about 1,390,000 and with records pressed in either Jacksonville or Los Angeles.
    lead character of "A" without any blank space
    The "A" is printed in the same font as the number. Typically found on covers numbered from about 1,390,000 to about 2,250,000 and with records pressed in Scranton. These copies were available for purchase no later than January, 1969.
    number prefixed by No
    Notice that the "o" is elevated (superscripted). This is the same fashion as records from England were numbered. This variation is commonly found on covers numbering from about 2,250,000 to about 2,600,000 and with records pressed in Jacksonville.
    number prefixed by No.
    The characters are also in a thinner font on this variant, which is commonly found on higher numbered covers and with records pressed in Scranton.

    Any copies with a catalogue number that starts with 1C062 is a re-issue from 1969 onwards
    Posted by vinylmeister at 4:25 PM
    1 comments:

    Frank said...

    Albums with 1C062- as a prefix are from GERMANY. The other part of that quote applies to copies of the album from the USA.

    Also, one needs to be available that three (US) Capitol factories were pressing at the same time, so that a copy from Scranton might have been pressed on the same day as a copy from LA, but the copy from LA was assigned a "lower" batch of numbers"
     
    Moonbeam Skies likes this.
  8. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    The highest I've ever seen is 06xxxxx. No idea what the actual number is.

    If memory serves me, however, I have to disagree with your WA system. Years ago I catalogued the UK LPs for sale on eBay and IIRC, my findings weren't as absolute as yours. As is often the case, there are exceptions - but in this case they weren't that exceptional. But maybe my memory is wrong; it does happen.
     
  9. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    This is US info. His question was about UK pressings.
     
    muffmasterh likes this.
  10. Gems-A-Bems

    Gems-A-Bems Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Duke City
    I guess I have one of the weird top-loaders: stereo 0193662
     
  11. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    They're not the norm, but they're not that weird either.
     
    muffmasterh likes this.
  12. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    No you are correct, but if you look at what i listed you will see i made some exceptions to cover this.

    Contained within the first mono batch, 0 - 0299,999 there were several random small batches of stereo stamped sleeves, however the fact remains that if you see a sleeve numbered 0-0299,999 that the chances the discs inside will be mono will be probably 95/100 ( not of course a scientific probability calculation but one made for effect to demonstrate that most of the first 300,000's were mono ).

    There are also a small number of mono's in the stereo stamped main batch of 0300,000 to 0599,999, however this is more contentious and could be explaining by swapping either by the store at point of sale or by later owners, and any sleeves within this main stereo batch that are not stamped stereo could also be explained by the stereo stamp being rubbed off, something that is VERY easy to do as it is stamped over the lamination.

    I have however as yet to see a single stereo stamped sleeve in the 600,000 series
     
    Yosi likes this.
  13. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    it depends on if you sleeve is STAMPED as stereo on the top rear right corner ?

    If it is then that is more interesting as it will indeed be part of one of those small batches in the first 300k that were deliberately inteneded for stereo.

    However if it is not stamped stereo then those stereo discs were either mismatched by the store at point of sale ( it could easily happen ) or by a later owner.
     
  14. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    lol, no deal, I have UK number 0,000,092 !! nice copy too, you rarely see a sleeve under 10k in decent shape, no idea why.

    If i were to list all my white albums it could take some time hehehe...
     
    Mr Bass, warewolf95 and forthlin like this.
  15. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    It depends upon one's definition of "small" batches, I suppose, but I seem to recall there being a fair ratio of low # stereos to monos. Like maybe 1:5 or so.

    However my memory is that the high numbered monos seemed to be much less common than the low numbered stereos.

    I somehow lost my spreadsheet on this years ago unfortunately.

    Interesting about x6xxxxxx being all mono. I don't recall connecting those dots, but I certainly can't say you're incorrect.
     
  16. Gems-A-Bems

    Gems-A-Bems Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Duke City
    It has the mono and stereo designations on the spine and "Stereo" stamped on the rear in the upper right corner.

    My apologies for the off-topic posts, by the way. I commented because I was previously unaware of the UK numbering method. Thanks for the education!
     
  17. warewolf95

    warewolf95 Forum Resident

    I know it's off topic, but while on the subject of White Albums, I have a copy #314,000-something (don't recall off hand). Do you know if that is of any significance?
     
  18. Yes, I was going to correct you, because I did own a 01xxxxx stereo LP. Now I own mono 0123459.

    Now saying that, I would have no idea if a seller wanted to switch out mono for stereo records in a LP cover as there is no mono or stereo printed on the original UK cover anywhere.....
     
  19. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    No significance whatsoever. It's just a number.
     
    warewolf95 likes this.
  20. adm62

    adm62 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Yes it's pi x 100,000
     
    Aftermath, Gems-A-Bems and warewolf95 like this.
  21. warewolf95

    warewolf95 Forum Resident

    Ok. :)
     
  22. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    well all mono in the sense that none of them that i have seen have stereo printed on the rear.

    My theory on the 600k series is that they were issued as a last gasp mono demand. I suspect EMI were caught out by the continued strength of the demand for UK mono's and felt they needed to press a few more but thats pure speculation on my part.
     
  23. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    no apology necessary, and you then have a copy from one of the more smaller stereo batches contained within the first main mono batch which to me makes your copy far more interesting !
     
    Gems-A-Bems likes this.
  24. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    UK ? ( sorry some posters have missed this thread covers UK numbers only.

    If UK is it a top opener ?
     
    warewolf95 likes this.
  25. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    basically stereo's should be in stereo sleeves with stereo stamped on the rear. Mono's should be in mono sleeves which has nothing on the rear. Having said that stores at the time may have mismatched some discs and sleeves ( UK had no shrink wrapping ) and since then 48 years of swapping by collectors has also muddied the waters.
     

Share This Page