Rolling Stones UK vinyl pressing question

agreed, that was my first thought but you saved me having to check my copy to be certain, however i am not sure if the green tint was a short lived aberration of the early (? ) 70's or a more permanent alteration.

Generally Decca sleeves of this period did not change dramatically during the 70's so a lot of swapping was done which can lead to confusion, the main changes - and the real way to tell if your sleeve is not a swap - were the larger white top banner that 70's copies have ( 60's copies have a small banner and are generally smaller in height too ) and that before 67 the unlaminate rears were rougher to the touch, from 67 they are smoother, almost glossy.

Of course before 65 sleeves had top & bottom flipbacks ( in fact some albums released as late as early 67 had flipbacks but these were not the norm - Mama's & Papa's first and one or two Animals/related albums from 66 immediately spring to mind but no Stones after 1 & 2. )

 

You know your stuff! I've always thought the green tint was a printing error that didn't get corrected. It just doesn't look right! I've never seen a post early 70s UK Decca issue with a black and white sleeve.

Marianne Faithful - Come My Way is another stunning black and white mid 60s Decca sleeve. The photography was excellent on those album covers.

You're right about some sleeves being a bit smaller, but I find it varies. I collect a lot of soul records and some of the records from the mid 70s on London (manufactured by Decca) have small sleeves, the same size as 60s albums. You're also right with the white border being wider. But this can also vary. My Angry Young Them has a wider border, but Them Again doesn't. Different printing factories perhaps? The printing on the early 70s pressings can be very slightly lighter than the originals.

My Lulu - Something To Shout About LP from late 1965 has flipbacks, as does the Mamas & Papas one you mention as well as The Animals - Animalisms.

I love original 60s records!

 

First pressings in mono and stereo. The cover is green tinted.
The Rolling Stones - Out Of Our Heads
The Rolling Stones - Out Of Our Heads

 

It isn't on the mono. The stereo looks more greyish. The green on the 70s is very noticeable and obviously green. Not on Incredible Hulk levels, but still noticeably green at a slight glance. I've never seen an unboxed logo original stereo copy myself, only in pictures so I can't say on that one.

My own original mono Out of Our Heads is not even slightly green.

 

Unfortunately, there are still a number of fake stereo tracks on the "true stereo" Big Hits and they sound pretty bad.

 

Little Red Rooster is one I recall being particularly bad!

 

lol me too, yes these things do vary and it is possible the green tint was never changed - i'm just not confident enough on that to be 100 per cent.

 

agreed this only affects the stereo its the date of the change that is not clear to me. I suspect early 70's but could be wrong.

 

Just before Decca got taken over by Polygram they had a big reissue program of The Stones, Small Faces, The Zombies etc. All those pressings sound great and you can pick them up for a couple of bucks.

 

Another vote for the early 70's boxed Deccas which sound quite nice. IIRC, the UK didn't press mono Aftermath, Between the Buttons or Satanic in the 70's so you'll need pricier 60's copies, if you want monos for these titles.

 

Having bought Out of Our Heads mono the week it came out and just looking at it now it is pure black and white.

 

nor did they press OOOH or Beggars either in mono in the 70's ( well to be exact the last year mono would be available for all the mentioned titles that had a dual mono/stereo issue would be 1970 ), however before Satanic all the mono's as i have said can be found easily and cheaply, only really top mono copies ( aside from some specific rarities ) before Satanic, should fetch big bucks as they are so common.

 

At least here in the states, I find a mono Buttons in decent shape to run $75+. Aftermath can be found for less, but not much less. Just one person's perspective though

 

yes i totally get that - over here they will be a lot cheaper as they are just so common in mono.

 

The paper stock used by Decca for their album covers in the 60's is a shame.

 

I will say that boxed Decca's are indeed a great value, but the original tube cuts of the early records are quite different in terms of sound. If you can swing it both are great to have as the 70s Solid state copies have more detail.

 

yes it was a soft type of card until 1967, so it makes it hard to find nice ones. I always though the sleeve fonts looked cheap too, like a standard typewriter type set.

 

Thanks for all this great info, guys! I'll def put the boxed Decca pressings in the running.

 

I've bought many used albums and have been disappointed most of the time, especially when I paid more than 10 or 15 for the album. Even LPs that look good can sound awful with tons of noise.

Buy new or buy CDs.

YMMV

 

there is a lot of truth to this, however the early 70's copies do tend to survive in much better order and can be had at much less of a risk expensewise.

Otherwise i am with you, if buying an expensive original pressing you should really be paying for the artifact and good play quality should be regarded as a lucky bonus, thats my opinion anyway.

 

lol I've been buying used LPs for 30 years. Thanks for the advice, though!

 

I wouldn't bother with a UK Decca mono Aftermath. I have 5 or 6 copies and they range from bad to worse (side 1 is always a little better than side 2). The new mono pressing is better but still far from great. It's just a lousy sounding mix.

 

Are all of the songs on stereo Aftermath true stereo mixes?

 

It's a matter of taste, really, but for me, the UK mono Aftermath is WAY better than the stereo.
I agree that the original mono are not good, but the newest pressing (in mono) are really great.
But again, for some people, the way Aftermath should be heard, is in W-I-D-E stereo.
Not me, though. I find the stereo sounding 'wimpy' compared to the more agressive mono mix.
And yes, all tracks on the UK stereo is in TRUE stereo. Beware to buy a sixties, seventies or early eighties pressing.
The 2003 stereo edition has a narrowed soundstage.

 

You may like the mono mix (to each his own - it's like the Beatles For Sale mono mix IMO; it just kinda sits there while the stereo mix is alive) but it is not a good sounding record - even the new one.