Beatles White album highest ORIGINAL UK number

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

  1. Edgard Varese

    Edgard Varese Royale with Cheese

    I will have to check mine and get back to you. :D
     
  2. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    Yep. Or there may be no real reason other than the last batch of covers simply drew the mono straw.
     
  3. Bingo Bongo

    Bingo Bongo No music, no Life

    I never saw stereo on the back of mine M. where would it have been exactly?
     
  4. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    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.
     
    Bingo Bongo likes this.
  5. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    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 )
     
    Bingo Bongo likes this.
  6. warewolf95

    warewolf95 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    No, it's US. I did see the OP but I figured I'd threadcrap any way. Sorry. :p Figured it might be worth asking just because of the discussion of White Albums, regardless.
     
  7. fldveloce

    fldveloce the moon was a drip on a dark hood

    Location:
    Boston MA
    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.....?

    Fred
     
  8. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    US or UK...my answer remains the same. It's just a number.
     
    warewolf95 likes this.
  9. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    it is poss Fred, it is going to be hard to prove - or disprove...
     
    fldveloce likes this.
  10. fldveloce

    fldveloce the moon was a drip on a dark hood

    Location:
    Boston MA
    I believe proofs are only for mathematics and logic.

    oh, and computer programs if one is really masochistic.
     
  11. christopher

    christopher Forum Neurotic

    My stereo UK top-loader is numbered 0410127

    [​IMG]
     
    Aftermath and DK Pete like this.
  12. DK Pete

    DK Pete Forum Resident

    Location:
    Levittown. NY
    Beautiful shot...but no dust cover for your TT??
     
  13. christopher

    christopher Forum Neurotic

    Thanks. I remove it for playing
     
  14. G E

    G E Forum Resident

    Can we hear the story of "No. 92"?
     
  15. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    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 ).
     
    RandelPink likes this.
  16. Big Pasi

    Big Pasi Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vaasa, Finland
    This was in the latest Record Collector:

    "Some later mono covers were stamped with numbers over 600,000. The 630,000 range appears to be the upper limit.
    As for Apple in the US the highest number that I could find was 3,111,706. US pressings stopped numbering them in the late '69, early '70. Somewhere above three million seems to be where they stopped".
     
  17. darling

    darling Forum Resident

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Your best bet might be to go here:
    Welcome to the Beatles White Album Registry
    Although maybe there's not a search function, which would be pretty useful...

    This guy might have a good database too:
    We Buy White Albums
     
  18. john lennonist

    john lennonist There ONCE was a NOTE, PURE and EASY...

    FWIW my original UK Mono Top Loader is

    n° 0067143

    Due to a label variation, I'm pretty sure my copy was pressed within the first five days of the album's release. :righton:


    I also have a Holland Stereo Top Loader (-1/-1/-1/-1) that's

    n° 0024841


    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
    Giorgio likes this.
  19. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Among other things, most early copies would have been pressed before release, not shortly thereafter.

    What confirmed info (and not interweb urban legend) do you have that would indicate your copy was pressed within the first days of the albums release?
     
    Giorgio likes this.
  20. Giorgio

    Giorgio Forum Resident

    Location:
    Varese Italy
    Wow, so, more or less, 13429 copies per day....
    Mine mono has # 0071577... means few hours later yours? Ahaha :laugh:
     
    john lennonist likes this.
  21. john lennonist

    john lennonist There ONCE was a NOTE, PURE and EASY...

    Double post... cleaned up in the post directly below
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  22. john lennonist

    john lennonist There ONCE was a NOTE, PURE and EASY...



    Here's the poop (from an internet seller, so it could be wrong, but my copy comports):

    1. First pressing, November 22, 1968.

    Dark green label with an image of an apple on side 1 and sliced apple on side 2. First label variation have “33 1/3″ text at the top line of the left side and “Sold In U.K. subject to resale price conditions, see price lists” text.

    Publishing year printed with small copyright symbol (p).

    The labels are quite dark although the actual shade of green varies greatly among copies. With or without KT tax code.

    Matrix numbers: Side 1: XEX 709-1; Side 2: XEX 710-1; Side 3: XEX 711-1; Side 4: XEX 712-1.


    2. Second pressing, November, 1968.

    Dark green label with added “An E.M.I. Recording” text to the left of the labels, above the “33 1/3″ text and “Sold in U.K. subject to resale price conditions, see price lists” text.

    Publishing year printed with small copyright symbol (p). With or without KT tax code. Some later copies had KTJ tax code.

    Matrix numbers: Side 1: XEX 709-1; Side 2: XEX 710-1; Side 3: XEX 711-1; Side 4: XEX 712-1.

    .
     
  23. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    since the label error ( no emi recording ) was corrected very likely pre-release and probably before many were affixed to labels to differentiate these to first & second pressings is very misleading imho .

    To back this up almost every 1G stamped copy, the earliest possible mother stamper i have seen has the corrected an emi recording text labels. Furthermore i have a -2 matrix copy without the emi recording text labels so like i say its not so straight forward.
     
    Giorgio and marcb like this.
  24. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    If you believe this info as an absolute, I’ve got some Arizona oceanfront property to sell you...

    This is just the interweb trying to create some sort of logical order out of a less than orderly manufacuring process. Record manufacturing didn’t work like this. They were just making records to sell to kids. It wasn’t necessarily FIFO. They didn’t press the first record with the first label from the first batch of labels printed and then stick that LP in the first inner sleeve from the first batch of black sleeves and then stuff the whole thing in jacket #0000001 along with first poster and pics from the first batch of those.

    They pressed hundreds of thousands of them before release and almost certainly both of the label variations occurred before initial release - maybe it was “corrected” or maybe it was just a batch mistake and there was nothing to “correct”. But it sure wasn’t significant enough to throw the “incorrect” labels away. So basically some records got pressed on that press with labels from that stack and were then stuffed into some of those sleeves and then put into that stack of numbered jackets with one of those posters and one each of those and those and those and those pictures.

    [​IMG]


    The good news is I’d say your record almost certainly was pressed sometime between 19 Oct 1968 when Harry Moss cut the mono lacquers and 22 Nov 1968 when the album was released in the UK, not within the first 5 days of release.
     
    Giorgio, muffmasterh and RandelPink like this.
  25. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    East London U.K
    Exactly, even the term " press " is very misleading for records in general for items like Beatles albums where they were largely in continual press and just kept evolving, i always prefer the term label rather than press, the no emi's are almost certainly the first label batch printed, their predominance on low numbered sleeves would indicate this, however the " correction " or revision shows that this was likely made late in the mono print run but much earlier in the stereo print run since in Mono the ratio is around 50:50 but in stereo emi recording labels seem to outnumber no emi labels around 80:20 or even as much as 90:10. It is also much more common to find a stereo copy which has one disc with no emi recording labels and the other with the an emi recording labels than for a mono, in fact stereo's seem to be more common like this than to find both discs omitting the eni recording text.

    As a general - but not hard and fast - rule any sleeve number under 200k you would expect to see labels without the EMI recording text. after that it is more fluid and certainly by the time you get to 600k series they should all be an emi recording labels.

    However we should not underestimate the effect of UK store policy of keeping discs separate to sleeves and also nearly 50 years of swapping skewing any logic to the process. however its a numbers game and if you handle enough of them as i have you can still grasp an overall pattern.
     
    marcb and Giorgio like this.

Share This Page