Pressing identification, how to ID mothers & stampers

I wonder if Steve or anyone else with knowledge about pressing details can enlighten me on how to tell an early Beatles pressing from a later one.I am fully aware of the "GRAMOPHLTD" code and all that , but a record on ebay has confused me .I will try to attach the ebay page where a guy is selling a mono "For Sale" with a -4 matrix ( there was a -3 matrix- presumably an earlier laquer cutting?) ) yet he explains that because it has a "1" mother that it`s still a first pressing. I was under the impression that the YEX/XEX number was the laquer "cut" ID , and that after this the mother and stamper numbers pertain to that laquer number. Am I being a stupid boy . Can someone explain also if the mother and stamper numbers would start a fresh when a new laquer is cut , or would they continue to rise with the new laquer ( for e.g. would XEX 606 -1 , 2 , G turn into XEX 606 -2 ( new laquer ) ,3 , G ?
Any thoughts greatfully received.
Fraser

 

Sorry , I`m being a stupid boy and can`t figure out how attach the page link.The item no. is 2582081826.

 

This is the auction Fraser is talking about:

Beatles For Sale


Anyone have an answer? ... And yes, the seller does use the word "stunning"!

 

How d`you do that ascot ? Could you enlighten me.
Thanks

 

I think that in the case of "Beatles For Sale" MONO, a -4 denotes a 1st pressing, there were no -1,-2, or -3 matrices. Someone on this board can verify this because I'm not 100% sure.

This seller is known for his attention to detail and he also asks top dollar for his items. You can find this LP in EX to NM shape for less money on Ebay.
I picked one up for $80 in NM shape last year, you just have to keep looking. I've seen this particular album a lot on Ebay, good luck!

 

No you are incorrect my friend as I have a copy in mono with -3 , -3 matrices - just looking at it now! and I have seen a few on my travels too.

 

Like I said, I was not 100% sure, I will check mine out when I get home.

 

Fraser - to post a link in your message, click the "http://" button above the text box. A box will come up asking what, if any, text you would like displayed for your link. After you click "OK", the box will ask for the URL you wish to link to. I always copy and paste the URL.

Hope that helps!

 

I just read the description of the LP on e-bay and, wow, the seller does go on and on and on. And on. He says that he's often been asked to write a book on Beatles pressings and, by golly, I think he has just with this description!

But I think he's confusing a "mother" with a "lacquer." The matrix number does end with a number, but that number corresponds to the lacquer used to produce the mother and, from that, the stampers.

If you define "first pressing" by lacquer number as opposed to label variant, I don't know that I'd call this a genuine first pressing. But the seller might be right that it was pressed early on, given the demand for Beatles LPs in '64. I imagine they went through lacquers pretty quickly, especially on the mono LPs.

But his claim that the first "mothers" (meaning lacquers) were marked "-3N" is news to me. A mono thing perhaps? I have a stereo Beatles for Sale with a "-1" lacquer number, so EMI certainly didn't start counting the stereo LPs' lacquers with "-3."

Fraser, are you a collector first or an audiophile first? If it's the best possible sound you're looking for, this probably isn't an item to get too excited about. The mono mix of BFS sounds really compressed even by early Beatles LP compression standards. Steve has suggested that the stereo mix sounds much, much better, and I agree. And those stereo "-1" lacquers were used well into the late '60s. My copy is a "one box" EMI, and I bought it for peanuts (compared to the Parlophone Yellow/Black prices).

Larpy

 

Really!?!? I just click the "http://" which highlights it and then click the "edit button", then "copy". Then just click "edit" then "paste" when I'm here. Seems easier to me.

 

Perhaps I am wrong about this, but in my mind, "pressing" and "cutting" are two different terms. For instance, you can have a 2nd pressing created from a 1st cutting (see PPM or SPLHCB) or a 1st pressing created from a 2nd cutting (ex: BFS or The White Album). Pressing refers to the actual pressing of the albums, labels and covers themselves. Cutting refers to the creation of a lacquer and the parts made from that lacquer. However for some reason, the terms often seem to be used interchangablely.

In this case, the LP is a 1st pressing because (from clues such as the "Recording First Published 1964" and "The Parlophone Co..." rim text on the label) it was almost certainly part of the 1st batch or pressings of this LP. The Parlophone label changed quite a bit, albeit subtly, from early '63 through late '65, so different pressings from this time period aren't that difficult to distinguish. If I recall correctly, the Parlophone label changed slightly in early 1965 shortly after BFS was released, so subsequent pressings would have different labels and (by the '70s) different covers.

In addition, I believe the only UK mono pressings of BFS were the 1st pressings in 1964 and the 1982 re-issues (not including the later digitally sourced LPs). I have never seen or heard of a 1-box mono from 1969, but I could be wrong.

However, this LP is not a 1st cutting per se. The lowest lacquer matrices for this LP are -3/-3. Having said that (and others can chime in here), it is entirely possible that because of pre-release demand for BFS, more than 1 set of lacquers was produced for BFS. Therefore the -4/-4 as part of the 1st "pressing" is entirely possible. In fact, my 1st press mono BFS (whith the exact same labels as the LP in question) is -3/-4 -- indicating that if the -4 lacquers weren't made simultaneously with the -3 lacquers, they must have been created shortly thereafter and before the initial release of the LP.

If the lacquers were produced simultaneously, then I think it becomes a matter of semantics as to whether a -4/-4 is a "1st cutting" or not.

One thing is for sure, the -4/-4 LP in question was pressed from tube cut lacquers in late 1964.

 

My BFS Mono is -4N/-4N.

 

I hadn`t thought of them producing 2 sets of laquers simultaneously. Anyone know how many stampers would be in operation for a Beatles album like this? Could the 1st laquer not supply enough mothers/ stampers in one go ? I think it seems strange. Could not the -4 `s have been pressed anytime up till the intro of the Help album when the "GRAMOPHONE " rim copy was introduced ( AUG 65 I think ), and still look (labelwise ) like a 1st issue ( DEC 64 ), even though they`re actually from the second set of metalwork? I know I sound nit picky here but I love to know these sort of details .
As far as other Beatles albums go , there is no ( AFAIK ) -1 of side 1 of Abbey Road - perhaps it was deemed not good enough or damaged from the start. Same ( AFAIK ) with Let it be , both sides appear to start at -2 , I assume for the same reasons as above. Rubber soul 1st issue stereo has -2,-2 laquers with a different label to the later -3,-3 "1st issue " as its referd to ( larger silver STEREO logo on the label of the -2 ).
I wasn`t looking to get this BFS , but thought the pressing details made an intersting thread ( for anoraks like me anyway!) . I have a -3, -3 mono purely for collecting purposes and agree that the B&Y stereo is a far more interesting and pleasurable experience all round.

 

I not an expert on this, but I think the number of LPs that can be pressed from one lacquer can vary depending upon a number of conditions. Nevertheless I believe that it is generally possible to press something well into the 100s of thousands from one stamper. But even though BFS is one of the least popular LPs in the Beatles catalog now, it was quite a large seller then -- I recall reading that in Britain alone it sold more than a million copies -- so I guess it isn't inconceivable that more than 1 set of lacquers was created to meet pre-release orders.

Also, I think the "Recording First Published 19xx" changed in early '65 well before Help! was released, so anything with this designation was part of the first run.

 

I thought he was asking how to link by clicking on text:

Like This

I copy and paste the URL's like you though.