Should I avoid CDs without Mastering and Mould SID Codes?

In more than one occasion the same release of the same year, the version without the codes is way cheaper than those with them. Is there a reason for this I should be aware of? Or is this a collector's thing and us mere music lovers shouldn't care?

Thanks

 

Probably made by Russian or Chinese pirates.

 

Regardless of year? I gather the earlir CDs didn't have Mold SID Code, but I may be wrong

 

Mould and SID codes AKA IFPI codes are different for different countries and didn't start until 1994. Prior to that the only physical change was in the matrix with lines resembling a bar code in early 1988.

I have no idea why someone would be willing to pay more for a possibly sonic compromised later release with SID codes over an earlier 1980's release.

 

I may have misunderstood you. If there is nothing in the inner band where matrix info would be, then the disc is likely counterfeit. As long as there is some information in the inner band, I think @Dave has provided an answer.

 

There are a handful of rare exceptions where the release is legit with no matrix, but generally yes I agree with you.

 

thanks @Dave , @curbach thanks a lot.

I'll tell what sparked this doubt in me: Depeche Mode - Violator

Which says in Notes:

"Variations of this UK CD
1) First Nimbus release without SID Codes (This one)
2) Mastered By Nimbus with Mould SID Code
3) Mastered By Nimbus with Mastering and Mould SID Codes
4) Nimbus [logo] with Mastering and Mould SID Codes"

Even if it the CD looks like this:



What of make of this?

 

So you are saying this particular variant sells for less than the others? And you’ve noticed a similar pattern with other cds? I don’t know why that would be the case. If anything, I would expect this version to sell for more because it’s likely the first issue. In fact I just checked Discogs and all the UK Violator cd versions seem to be selling in the $5-7 dollar range as expected for a common cd.

Short answer: I would buy this cd with no concerns (other than the fact that those early Nimbus cds can be prone to bronzing).

 

Like the PDO discs? Interesting, I know the label side had issues when people cleaned with fluids but have never seen a Nimbus turn copper.

 

My point was simply showing an example where there's no SID codes in sight, which would have led us to suspect whether that is a counterfeit.

 

Am I confusing Nimbus with PDO? I have seen Nimbus discs “fail”. Maybe they weren’t bronzed though.

 

Early Nimbus CDs (pre-1988-89) are 'sticky' because wrong chemical formula for lacquer layer was used. It did not dry properly. I.e. CDs collect every possible dust, fingerprints, junk and parts of booklet on the label. If you try to clean them the label separates from the disc together with lacquer.

PDO UK bronzing is different story also related to a combination of chemicals/lacquer. In the case of PDO the label usually remain normal but the reflective layer is oxidized producing brown-bronze color.

Surely, Nimbus CDs could be effected by bronzing too if the lacquer was damaged.

If somebody is selling Nimbus or PDO UK CD cheap I always ask for close up images of the disc to be sure it is OK.

IFPI were implemented in 1994. Thus, for CDs pressed before 1994 there is nothing criminal if IFPI is not there. The scan of the matrix you show above is perfectly OK. It is relatively early Nimbus CD, there should not be IFPI codes, they were not mandatory at the time the CD was pressed.

The question if this CD is playable and with undamaged label is open, though. Maybe this is the reason the CD is cheap.