Why is this Velvet Underground & Nico tagged as "Unofficial" in discogs?

Hi,
I combed through the many threads on the Velvet Underground and Nico vinyl release threads here from over the years and couldn't find exactly the answer I was looking for, so I started a thread.

Yesterday at Half Price Books in Cedar Rapids, I was looking at the three versions of Velvet Underground & Nico that they had in stock and ended up purchasing the "Finally the Original MONO VERSION" stickered version (for $22.99). They also had the 180g with Digital Download version with the "Peel and See" banana on it ($29.95) and they had multiple copies of a standard weight one ($19.99).

The version I have is identified by this website as being the 2004 version of it:
http://olivier.landemaine.free.fr/vu/discog/lps/usa/lpsusa.html

So, off to the trusty discogs, and locate this edition:
http://www.discogs.com/Velvet-Underground-Nico-The-Velvet-Underground-Nico/release/1880843

And, indeed, mine is exactly the same down to the matrix information. It even has the original "Emerson" back cover. I didn't look to see if the other editions had the "Emerson" back cover. It has the Blue/Silver Verve/MGM "T" labels.

I noticed that this one is tagged as "Unofficial" by discogs. I'm assuming this means that Verve/Universal/Sundazed, etc. didn't put it out? It seems very well-done.

This wouldn't be the first purchase I've made of new vinyl at HPB that had questionable lineage-- I've purchased my share of the 180g German "Jazz Tracks"/"52nd Street"/etc. jazz releases that they typically carry. However, those don't have any of the original label information on them, whereas this does.

Thanks!

Mike

 

Ask this guy, he says it's a bootleg. http://www.discogs.com/user/bspeis

 

The 2004 mono release is a clever bootleg.

 

I wondered the same thing, seems like this mono reissue was added to discogs over 3 years ago, and was tagged as "unoffical" only 25 days ago.
That by itself makes it seem unlikely to me. Anybody that has an account on discogs.com can add information on discogs.

If you want to read the history of the item on dicogs yourself:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1880843#latest , the click on "edit" after "new submission",
it will bring you to http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1880843#latest, scroll to the top.

Anyway: I prefer the mono version from the 5LP box that came out las year: "THE VERVE/MGM ALBUMS"
If the 180g with download is from 2012: it's great!

 

Are you joking or are you serious?

 

I doubt the meticulous Olivier Landmaine site would list this in the VU & N history if it was a bootleg, especially since he's got an extensive discograhy of bootlegs here:

http://olivier.landemaine.free.fr/vu/bootlegs/lps/blps.html

The Discogs listing's “unofficial” designation is probably a mistake. But I'm just guessing.

 

Agreed!

 

Interesting. I bought a copy of this release from a local record store a month or two back. Here is what discogs user Bspeis said when he marked this release as unofficial:

When questioned, he added this comment a week ago:

I'll be interested to hear what other people think about this.

 

I'm serious. Definitely an unauthorized, unlicensed release.

 

Can you give us some detail on why this is the case?

 

There has been a flood of bootleg/counterfeit vinyl on the market the last few years. I have a boot of Floyd's "Saucerful of Secrets" mono mix that looks very convincing, but is a counterfeit. Recent Japanese pressings of Eno & Slowdive albums? Counterfeit. Lots & lots of these in the stores now.

 

Thanks for the reply, but I'm also interested in the details, just like member crafty35a.

 

If it was a boot, it was a pretty convincing one, right down to the "best thing you can do for your ears" sticker. It was also very widely distributed and priced cheaply ($12 - $15).

 

I notice that there will be a release of Velvet Underground & Nico for Record Store Day, and the note next to it says "Non-Bootleg Acetate Version on Green Vinyl"

http://new-vinyl.blogspot.com/2013/01/record-store-day-2013rsd-6april-20-2013.html

 

A few days ago, I saw what appeared to be a copy of this at a Newbury Comics, with the "Finally the Original Mono Version" sticker on the front. Then I flipped it over and noticed it was actually the stereo version. What the hell is going on here? On a related note, if this mono release really is a bootleg, how exactly to things like this make their way into reputable record stores?

 

I just picked this up recently and was very impressed by the silent vinyl and great sound quality, not to mention the artwork. I didn't know it was a counterfeit until I read this thread.

 

very curious about this myself

 

Because the major distributors stock them.