if you mean the vinyl itself then the identifiers are the names "Bobil" and "Rasputin" in the deadwax, -3T matrix numbers, and no MainMan credits on the gloss labels. however, if the sleeve is also important then a genuine first can be identified by not only a laminated front, but by the absence of both MainMan and Gem logos on the reverse. a second sleeve with a Gem logo in the top right corner of the back can be found with both laminated and unlaminated fronts. the same record should be found in all three variations. there are later variations using the same stampers but with MainMan credits on the labels and a MainMan logo bottom right of the back cover. if the pressing itself is all-important then a -3T Bobil/Rasputin in a later jacket should save you a sizeable amount of cash (genuine first issue covers are now fetching £2K).
omg, I wish first issue logo-less Ziggys were worth that much. I have one in storage and could use 2K!
Front Laminated sleeve and if you want to be picky with no Gem credit too but any front laminated sleeve is almost impossible to find Gem or no Gem However the vinyl doesn't change into the early unlaminated sleeves, bobil & rasputin in the run out grooves. So you can get a first pressed vinyl in second issue sleeves.
yes this is all correct, however i should add that the Mainman sleeves only come in around 1975 so they are much later - you cannot get a lamainted mainman for example -, and i just got a minter no Gem front laminated sleeve for under 600 pounds so you can still get them for well under 1000 pounds.
seems my memory let me down here, i was sure there were a couple of successive 2K sales on eBay, but popsike suggests otherwise.
i would not be surprised if a couple had gone for silly money so your memory could be correct, however they would be out of sync with general pricing but that can happen if there is a bidding war...
Just got mine UK early copy today. Early greenish unlaminated sleeve (Bowie himself mentioned that unlaminated ones were released when the album just came out, he had some copies when the album was just released and there were no laminated among them), no Mainman on the back. Titanic Music on glossy orange labels, but... NO Rasputin! Hand-made matrix numbers APRS 5947 - 4E (Side 1) & APRS 5948 - 3E (Side 2). I know that even earliest MainMan reissues had Bobil Rasputin in the deadwax, but here is the really early copy without it. So what is this pressing?
Probably 1972-3, laminated are very early and the earliest of them have no GEM on the rear top right either. The perceived wisdom is that the first issues did not make much impact and were probably going to be deleted but when Ziggy exploded a few months later Hunky started to take off and a new batch of sleeves were ordered but this time they were unlaminated, the discs however would remain unchanged from the originals for a while so you can get first pressed vinyl in second issue sleeves. You have second issue sleeve and disc, but they would change also too with the labels being changed to mainman and later still the sleeve.. later still the labels would become more matt, some would lose the stereo on the labels too.
Yes, this one! So weird that after this pressing Bobil/Rasputin was still used. So I really have no clue why this was made.
About laminated NO GEM - most likely they are the earliest. But interesting that Bowie himself remembers how he got earliest copies of "Hunky Dory" and they were all unlaminated: "I could do with the money... To the amusement of normal people everywhere, a first pressing of the RCA UK Hunky Dory vinyl LP sold on eBay yesterday for almost one thousand US dollars. Five hundred and five British pounds to be precise. You can read just why this particular copy is deemed so valuable by clicking on the image above and reading the original eBay description, but basically it's because the sleeve is laminated instead of the far more common matt finish. "What, an extra five hundred quid just because it's shiny?" as my wife enquired with incredulous disbelief. Indeed yes... This is not the first copy to surface in recent months, but the price is steadily rising, and though I have about twenty five vinyl copies from around the globe, including a couple of UK first pressings, I have to admit with some sadness that I don't have a laminated sleeve. Now, I'm sure I had a couple more Hunky Dorys kicking around in the loft...perhaps I just didn't notice the shiny sleeve...see you later. "
the -E suffix suggests it was cut somewhere other than Trident (-T suffix). perhaps a bump in demand required some extra copies be pressed?
After the first laminated issues, the progression of UK pressings are hard to follow for this title. My copy has an unlamented cover, glossy labels, a stamped 2E side one and a handwritten 3E side 2.
I agree although the earliest non laminated had the same cuts and labels as the laminateds, and those discs are not hard to find either so there are quite a few of them, but after that i agree it gets a bit messier...
i am not aware of the Bowie quote but it could be easily explained, these things are important to collectors now but to others back then they weren't , Bowie could be mistaken, or he could be thinking about the " re-issue " copies made on the back of Ziggy, or maybe he simply had a US issue, who knows. I am even surprised that Bowie even expressed a realisation that some copies were laminated as they were little known until fairly recently, before that ( around 2010 ) you could get them for thirty pounds or so, it was fun to try and spot them when the seller did not realise that it was laminated ( or appreciate the significance ) but the cat is well out of the bag now...
ps 1000 bucks has not been 500 pounds for about 20 years, its more like 800+ pounds now ( although it was 660 before brexit )
I have what I am almost certain is a UK first pressing of Hunky Dory. I bought it on Saturday 12th February 1972 at Musicland in Kingston. It cost £2.15. I saw Bowie two days before at the Toby Jug in Tolworth (see my avatar as provenance). I seriously doubt that a second pressing of a poorly selling title released in December 1971 had taken place by then, about 6-7 weeks later with Christmas in between. Here are some notes on my copy: Laminated front cover No "Mainman" credit anywhere on label or sleeve Gem logo and "A GEM PRODUCTION" are indeed there beneath logo at top right corner of rear sleeve Beige background lyric sheet insert has Gem logo and "A Gem production" on reverse at bottom right corner "Printed in England by Robert Stace" in small print on rear sleeve at bottom centre Side 1 matrix - Popil (very,very faint) APRS 5947 3T Side 2 matrix - Rasputin (very faint) APRS 5948 3 I (last character faint - could be a T) The APRS numbers are also printed on the respective labels I have never seen the Rasputin or Pobil (could be Bobil - very, very, very hard to see) before tonight. Not easy to see they even exist. It is in front of me now. Perfect condition, both sleeve and record. Sounds amazing! Not for sale. Hope that helps.
it's a first pressing record but a second sleeve - the first has no GEM logo. the album was released in Dec '71 so it's easy to see how a revised sleeve was printed before you bought yours. "Popil" is indeed BOBIL (pen name of engineer Bob Hill), and the suffix is "T" on both sides, indicating it was cut at Trident studios.
that sounds about right to me, there is an even rarer laminated sleeved copy without the GEM credit on the rear but whether that denotes an even earlier sleeve or just a batch of sleeves that it was left off of in error is unclear. However like the label error dress covers for mwstw since any copy is highly collectable i doubt that has a great effect on value
Hunky Dory's artwork is interesting and the appearance ( or disappearance and reappearance) of the GEM logo is not as straight forward as it might appear (pun intended) A number of factors: * all editions of the UK RCA Hunky Dory (except the lyric sheet***) are a copy of the US original artwork - US credits are discernible on the lower rear back cover. Later UK RCA editions are copies of copies of copies. * the UK editions with the rear GEM logo have had the logo repositioned and the UK catalogue number inserted above. (The original US logo and wording are discernible) * no copy of US Hunky Dory has surfaced without the GEM logo. * the UK edition without the GEM logo has either had the logo removed very well or there exists a US copy without it also, as the non-GEM UK edition still has the US credits discernible on the lower part of this artwork - it is derived from the US artwork. *** the 'cut out' shapes of the lyric inner/sheet differ between the US and UK - the UK sheet has been reset / redone. If anyone wishes to post a hi res image of the top RH quarter of the UK edition without the GEM logo, with image editing software a proper examination can be made of what is underneath the 'shading' and mottling effect. Why would the GEM logo be removed in the UK? If that was indeed the case, possibly because initially it was thought to be a US -centric logo and therefore didn't belong on the UK edition. Quickly corrected.
Thanks, - I had a look at that one - but it's not sufficiently HI Res to be definitive. There's some interesting things happening under the mottle.
Just recently I received a Rockaway New York cut version of the 1971 US Hunky Dory - this has a scratched matrix rather than the stamped matrices of Indianapolis and Hollywood - to determine if the Rockaway cut was better than the other two. It was much thinner than my Hollywood pressing. And noisier. The Hollywood pressing is dead quiet. This is what I found: The New York cut is very slightly different to the other two, but I don't think it's very significant at all. The New York cover is closer to the UK cover in the degree of rear cover 'mottling' and spotting, the 1971 Hollywood cover has more spotting and mottling on the rear, and hence the NY cover is perhaps the best representation of the actual artwork. ( Remember the UK cover is a copy of the US cover). Sound wise the UK 3T Bobil/Rasputin cut is head and shoulders above anything other edition I've heard. You don't have to be an audiophile to notice the difference. The piano sound real and the hammer attack is noticeable - all other editions I've heard the piano is relatively muted. The much praised 100th anniversary EMI edition I haven't played for ages, but I don't recall it being like this - I'll recheck in Jan, unless someone else has a direct comparison between the two versions and posts it. To get the best Hunky Dory on vinyl, this is what I'd recommend. Both first pressings/lacquer cuts RCA. Sound quality - UK 3t Bobil/Rasputin, (any UK) cover is a compromise. Cover - US Rockaway, the SQ is a compromise. (Cover - sepia rear, and ideally with the shrink wrap sticker - it's clear with white writing) That said the US SQ is similar to all the other 11 RCA editions I've heard ( though I haven't heard German or French), and I prefer that to the Parlophone edition - better dynamics. Later UK editions (prior to RCA International) on RCA (with scratched matrices) are comparatively flat and lifeless. The RCA International version is "smoother", but I think less accurate to the master tape - all the ' International Bowie's have a common sound to them - which doesn't seem likely as many studios, engineers and approaches were used during this ten year period. After first playing the 3T UK cut - I realised I'd never heard Hunky Dory before .
