Numbered Beatles White Album - a real puzzler

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by kipper15, Jul 27, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I recently acquired a rather nice stereo UK pressing of The Beatles' White Album in near-perfect condition. All inserts are present and correct and the records are mint - like they've never been played!

    The interesting thing is the front sleeve has the embossed 'The Beatles' title and has No. 289615 printed on the lower right hand sider BUT the sleeves are side-opening, unlike the original 1968 pressing where the sleeves are top-opening.

    I always understood that the original, first pressings of the White Album were the only the ones that were ever numbered. The copy I've just bought obviously proves that wasn't the case. The label does not have the "Sold in the UK..." statement so it must date from mid-1969 at the earliest.

    The guy I bought it from thinks it dates from the early 70s (ie after the original edition had sold out) which was only available for a short time but he couldn't be 100% sure either! Does anyone know when - either exactly or at least approximately - stocks of the first edition of the White Album became depleted? My guess would be about 1972/73, when the album was reissued in un-numbered form but I can't be certain.

    I'd like to be able to put an accurate release year against this pressing that I've recently bought. I can normally identify Beatles UK releases but I'm totally baffled by this one! Is anyone able to shed more light on this???
     
  2. Mark H

    Mark H Senior Member

    Location:
    upstate N.Y.
    I received The White Album as a Christmas present in 1968, the year it came out. It was a side opener. I think the top openers were strictly on non- US versions. Check your label and see if there is a tiny Capitol logo somewhere on there.
     
  3. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom

    My copy is definitely a UK pressing.
     
  4. Mark H

    Mark H Senior Member

    Location:
    upstate N.Y.
    Sorry to break up the posts but if it is definitely a UK issue then it is probably a second pressing from 1969.
     
  5. xios

    xios Senior Member

    Location:
    Florida
    What inner sleves does it have? Apple issued black inner sleeves until early 1970, then just used stock EMI white sleeves, either with or without a little EMI records blurb at the bottom. My numbered and side opening UK White Album seems to date from the mid '70's, judging by the light Apple labels and the relatively flimsy cover construction (like the white vinyl press circa '78). I had a 1973 copy pressed in France but with a UK cover which was not numbered, so I suspect they started numbering again after that. I've never seen a side opener with black sleeves and discs with "sold in the UK"...
     
  6. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Xios

    Thanks for the post. Sounds like my no'd White Album is from the same stock as your copy. Incidentally what number is yours? Mine is 289615.

    My copy is on a light green Apple label like yours and has stock EMI white sleeves, again like yours does. You're right about there being no side-openers with black sleeves, these only came with the top-loading originals.

    The "Sold in UK..." text was removed from Apple labels mid-1969. Mine doesn't have the "Sold in UK..." text, I presume yours doesn't have it either. The cover on yours also sounds like how I'd describe mine - the centre of the spine has a crease down the middle of it, which kind of makes you think the whole cover is going to collapse in your hand when you open the gatefold! (this was later replaced with a more 'solid' spine).

    I do also have the 1973 'French-pressed' UK version, which has a UK sleeve but isn't numbered and if I recall correctly the 'French' copy doesn't have the "glossy" sleeve that my numbered version does (I will need to double check though!).

    As for the vinyl itself my UK numbered side-opener is not particularly heavy, which makes me think it cannot date from the late 60s. Also, on the labels the song titles are not even numbered - just the song titles in capital letters with the publishing credits at the bottom of the label. Is it the same on your copy? My guess is that the versions we own date from around 1973 or 1974. Any more info you can supply about your copy is greatly appreciated :)
     
  7. xios

    xios Senior Member

    Location:
    Florida
    Kipper15

    Your description of the cover fits mine perfectly. My number is 278148. The master numbers on all four sides are "-1" which is confusing as I have two first pressings, and one of them has a "-2" for side four. As for dating it, the French pressings were circa 1973 so I would have to say it's after that. I have asked all the dealers I know, and the only definitive statement I got was that the side opening numbered ones came from the late '70's stereo box, but that doesn't seem right, I see this item offered by itself often enough.
     
  8. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom

    That's useful info Xios. The numbered White Album conundrum continues with abandon :D

    I agree that it doesn't seem right what you've been told by dealers, that the side-opening numbered pressings were included in the 1978 BC13 LP box set, but then again it IS a possibility. I have two BC13 box sets but they are not late 70s editions, they date from about 1985/86, and so don't have numbered White Albums in them. It may have been something that EMI included in the initial sets.

    IF these side-opening White Albums were included in the original BC13 sets I guess it would explain why the numbering system is different on these reissues (the original UK pressings are numbered 7 digits instead of 6). Also, it would explain why the vinyl is of a lighweight nature - all Beatles pressings I own pre-1976 have more substantial weight and thickness to the vinyl, almost near the 180g stuff.

    Bear in mind that a lot of dealers used to take the LP's out of the BC13 set and sell them as separate LP's. Maybe EMI included these as part of the initial run of BC13 sets in 1978/79 before replacing them with an unnumbered issue - much like they did in 1987 when the first run of White Album CD's were numbered, then susbsequent issues were not.

    Interesting too that you have a copy whose number isn't that far off mine!
     
  9. detayls

    detayls Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Anselmo, CA
    Out of interest I just took a peek at my own copy of the White Album, bought in Cheshire in 1968.

    It is numbered 0064008 and is the top-opening, black sleeve version with the original four Beatles photos and the fold out words insert.

    The pressing is a UK mono version numbered PMX 7067 and it appears to be in fairly decent shape.

    These days, I play my 30th Anniversary CD copy more often though. It is also a UK pressing, has a number 0037373, opens at the top and has black sleeves and the same reduced size inserts. This time I suspect that the number is false and that all of these copies had the same number.

    David
     
  10. NGeorge

    NGeorge Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York City
    Hmm, mine is No. 0001450.

    I still think EMI-UK needs to upgrade its hardware however.

    And Capitol, too!

    George
     
  11. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    No, all the White Album 30th anniversary edition CD's issued in 1998 were sequentially numbered to mimic the original album. I believe the 30th anniversary edition was a worldwide release - all versions you will find are 'UK' pressings.

    I have a 30th CD no. 0172831, my girlfriend has one also - no. 0272506. I wonder who got 0000001? :D

    But I'm still more curious to establish the year my numbered side-opening UK vinyl was pressed - I'm beginning to think the explanation offered by various dealers to Xios is the most likely one.
     
  12. John Buchanan

    John Buchanan I'm just a headphone kind of fellow. Stax Sigma

     
  13. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom

    Xios, when you get a spare couple of minutes take a closer look at the white inner sleeves in your side-opening no'd White Album. I've just been looking at mine. At the botton I can see the number 0981. This looks like a date reference to me. I am wondering if this means September 1981????

    This would imply that the album I have (and the one you have too!) is one which has been separated from an early edition BC13 blue box set. I've checked the inner sleeves of some other Parlophone and Apple Beatles releases and they all seem to have a date on them - something I had not noticed before! What do you think?
     
  14. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    I have a side-opener U.K. stereo copy with a numbered cover of the "White Album" that I would guess dates from about 1969. It has the black inner-sleeves, and also the side 2 label does not have quote marks at the beginning and end of "An EMI Recording", although sides 1, 3, & 4 do have the quote marks - seems they had some quote marks labels left over when this copy was made. I have to try to remember to check the labels to see if any of them have or don't have the "Sold in in the UK" text. Interestingly (to me at least), my copy was a "BBC Gramaphone Library" copy, with a stamp saying so on each 12"x12" square of the poster when unfolded (I think only on one side - the side with the text). NM records, pictures, and poster. EX+ cover.
     
  15. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom

    Out of interest Martin, what no. is your copy? Do the labels have a dark or a light green Apple? And how would you describe the vinyl - heavy or light?
     
  16. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    I have to check the # when I check for the "Sold in the U.K." info when I get home. I guess I would consider the Apple labels as being light green on the "skin" sides, but it's hard for me to say. The vinyl is relatively heavy.
     
  17. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    OK Kipper. My copy is #0132641. It does not have any "Sold in the U.K." text on any of the labels, including side 2 with out the quote marks on "An EMI Recording". Also, the stamped "BBC Gramaphone Library" is also stamped on all the 12"x12" sections of the photo collage, in addition to the side with the lyrics on the poster.
     
  18. NGeorge

    NGeorge Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York City
     
  19. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    I understand there were plans to remaster the "White Album" for the 30th anniversary CD, but it didn't happen. The 30th anniversary version has the same mastering as the 1987 version. Considering the rubbish quality mastering they've been feeding us on recent remastered Beatles titles, like "Beatles 1", I wouldn't be surprised if we would have gotten worse sound if they actually did do a new mastering for the 30th anniversary edition of the "White Album".

    Interestingly, the disc labels on the anniversary version mimic U.K. Apple LP labels, and also other little notations seems to mimic the U.K. version of the "White Album", but the printing on the spine of the mini-LP style cover looks like they were trying to mimic the U.S. version of the "White Album" in style of print and color (somewhat washed out medium gray). Also in this regard there's the word "Stereo" printed like a U.S. "White Album" LP, which does not look the same on a U.K. pressing.
     
  20. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom

    Now I'm really confused!!! Your copy is numbered with seven digits, mine with six digits (#289615). Yours is side-opening like mine - but as far as I was aware all original pressings of the White Album (including those from mid-1969 onwards without "Sold in The UK..." text) were top-opening. The no. of your copy does suggests it's from the early pressings, especially as the vinyl of your copy is of the heavy variety. If your copy does date from 1969/70 this is really baffling - all reference material I have suggests that all numbered pressings from that time were top-opening.

    And so the White Album conundrum continues... :confused:
     
  21. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    My copy is definetly not on the thinner vinyl - the vinyl weight seems similar to me to a 60's black/yellow label Parlophone LP (though I haven't atempted to weight them). I would still guess my copy is from sometime in 1969 or maybe a slight possibility of 1970 because of the side 2 label not having the quote marks on "An EMI Recording". I say 1969 or maybe a slight chance of 1970 since I understand that there aren't any known copies of "Abbey Road" (released 1969) with "An EMI Recording" on the labels without quote marks.
     
  22. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    You're absolutely right - the 1998 30th anniversary White Album CD is mastered from the same source as the original 1987 release. No improvement at all to my ears either.

    I too have noticed Red Trumpet promoting the Japanese Toshiba-EMI Beatles CD's as being "superior to the domestic [US] releases". This is a myth because they are mastered from the same source as the UK and US releases. I have Japanese and British CD's of 1 and the Red/Blue albums and they sound identical. Can't tell any difference at all.

    As for the Beatles catalogue sounding great again, they need SH to do the remastering job properly (though not remixing, I don't think that would be right). Can you imagine what Steve would do with those tapes? :goodie:

    For now, I'll stick to my UK and MoFi vinyl - I can no longer bring myself to listen to those crappy 80s CD's
     
  23. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    EMI missed a BIG opportunity to remaster the White Album for that release. They should have done it and - what would have really made it special - used the MONO mix. Now that would have been far more worthwhile than simply repackaging the crappy '87 CD.

    In 1997 EMI released Pink Floyd's debut album Piper At The Gates Of Dawn) as a 30th anniversary ltd edition - in mono. Apparently they were planning a Sgt Pepper 30th anniversary package with a remastered CD in mono but the project didn't go ahead for some unknown reasons. Another wasted opportunity, sadly. The mono mix of Pepper is meant to be killer. I've never heard it myself but I know many - including George Martin himself - who swear the mono mix of Pepper is the definitive version.
     
    ODShowtime likes this.
  24. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Thanks for the info Martin. I'm still perplexed though :D Your copy is obviously a second pressing from 1969 or 1970 , judging by the number, the labels and the thickness of the vinyl. Perhaps the second pressings were side-openers after all. Still, I can't put a date on my copy - maybe the clue is the 0981 on the inners???? Mine has to be mid-70s at the earliest as the vinyl is well not exactly flimsy but it's a LOT thinner than Parlophone or Apple LP's from the late 60s/early 70s. Also, I'm at a loss as to the no. on my copy being one digit shorter than yours - mine MUST be a later reissue...but from WHEN?????????

    Maybe Xios will be able to provide some more clues as it seems his side-opening copy is identical to mine, except for the number of course.
     
  25. NGeorge

    NGeorge Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York City
    Talking about missed opportunities:

    Two years ago when I went to the Village here in NoHo (north of Houston), I dropped by a small CD shop where I saw and heard wonderfully sounding Beatles music. The unmistakable sound, coming from a pair of mid-fi JBLs, was quite vinyl-like that it left me wide-eyed and ambivalent.

    There was no glare and it sounded just like music I used to hear all before the advent of digital.

    I then looked around and there he was, the shopkeeper, playing home-made CDs transferred directly from the domestic albums and digitalized, I assumed, from not-too-shabby analog sources.

    They were 2-fers, meaning two albums on one CD. And the covers were replicas of all Capitol releases.

    Perplexed but being such a purist then, I didn't buy them for I only wanted "officially-issue" Beatles music. (While not really realizing yet how lousy the digital hardware is at EMI.)

    Was that a lost opportunity?

    George
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine