Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by muffmasterh, Dec 6, 2016.
I will have to check mine and get back to you.
Yep. Or there may be no real reason other than the last batch of covers simply drew the mono straw.
I never saw stereo on the back of mine M. where would it have been exactly?
Rear top right, if yours never had it then the stereo discs will likely be a mismatch either from the original store or a later collector.
ps has to be a top opener, the side open numbered copies are all stereo but the stereo stamping was stopped after the top openers.
so a 100xxx side open sleeve will always be stereo ( or 200k or 300k side open for that matter )
No, it's US. I did see the OP but I figured I'd threadcrap any way. Sorry. Figured it might be worth asking just because of the discussion of White Albums, regardless.
I have a mono uk top-loader numbered "No. 0517383". There is no "Stereo" on the back of the cover, and though there's very light wear on the jacket, the location of the "Stereo" is very glossy (as it's outside of the slight ringwear), and the gloss is very consistent with the rest of the jacket outside of the ringwear. No sign of impression from a stamp either (and I do see slight indentation from the stamp on my two stereo top-loaders).
In other words, it really looks unmolested...
So, I may have a real mono jacket with a high, otherwise-stereo, number.....?
US or UK...my answer remains the same. It's just a number.
it is poss Fred, it is going to be hard to prove - or disprove...
I believe proofs are only for mathematics and logic.
oh, and computer programs if one is really masochistic.
My stereo UK top-loader is numbered 0410127
Beautiful shot...but no dust cover for your TT??
Thanks. I remove it for playing
Can we hear the story of "No. 92"?
YOU can hear the story of my 92 although there is not much to tell, i bought it three or four years ago from a guy who said he had a relative who worked at apple. I bought it to move it on as the sleeve condition looked like a typical tired low numbered sleeve and not something i would probably want to keep ( i had a lovely 4000 already ) however when i got it I saw that it was actually a very nice rigid sleeve, not tired or tatty at all but just very dirty with a small " port wine " style stain on the front ( brown rather than red though ).
Upon cleaning it came up fantastically and its only real flaw apart from the small stain is that is a bit yellowed, so i sold my 4000 and now i have a 92 !!
Strangely i believe there is another 92 that was sold a few years back and not this copy either, & both appear 100 percent genuine, centainly mine is, people have been know to manipulate the numbers to create lower numbers, eg 9's & 8's can be made to look like zero's but thats almost impossible to do well. If i wanted to i could make my 92 into a passable number 2 but there is no guarantee that i could do that without making a mess of it, and whats more why would anybody want to try and make a genuine 92 look like a dubious number 2 ( aside from making a shed load of doh lol ).
Separate names with a comma.