[very technical] Beatles UK first press: are we so sure that everything is clear?

No need for debate as there's no doubt that EMI UK was capable of pressing up to 5,000 records from the one stamper, and that information comes straight from their former UK production manager, Roy Matthews...

 

How can you tell a record is pressed at The Vinyl Factory at Hayes?

 

Apart from the credit on the labels or covers, look for the tell-tale EMI pressing ring impression at 33mm from the spindle hole.

 

what a great interview, makes me want to jump in the car and go over there there are so many things i would like to ask and see. One point though, clearly a stamper can last 5000 pressings that is the final word no argument now, but i still suspect that quality control dictated a lesser number, how much less i have no idea, whats more this is pure speculation on my part....maybe they went over 5000 but i suspect it was less...but it wouldn't be less than 3-4000 i am sure...

 

I have no difficulty accepting the fact that my hypothesis posted at the beginning of the thread is incorrect.

However, let me say one thing: do you really think it's totally normal that EMI starting from a single lacquer was able to press 2 and a half million records and all the other labels used many and many lacquers to press a similar number of records?

Theoretically one stamper that pressed 5000 vinyl should be totally ruined; Instead I do not think that the records that came from Hayes had a bad sound, far from it. Why then in all other cases were used several lacquers and each stamper usually pressed far fewer records, if the quality was still excellent allowing a lacquer to produce two and a half million records? is it not an unnecessary waste of lacquers and metal parts?

What's more, Mr. Harry Moss was never wrong cutting lacquers and there was never a need to discard some of them.

I repeat that my initial hypothesis is totally wrong, but at least let me point out the uniqueness of the situation.

The thing that really amazes me is that for all of you this is all perfectly normal.

 

Yeah its cool isnt it

Keep in mind those unique things EMI has as a manufacturer of records- they could and did do everything from start to finish.

And were very big on quality control.

But 1 father can always do that amount of pressings - its the master copy - all other copies, the mothers, must therefore be the same. That's the quality control coming in. So if everything is made by the same company with the only original then the chances of variations in quality are minimised greatly.

The US version is not the same - Columbia in the 50 and early 60's were very similar but even they didn't control every aspect.

Ans lastly EMI were huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge - they pressed millions and millions of records a year - they had to be good or it all would have gone pear shaped very quickly - as their by line says on the 45 sleevs - "The Largest Recording Organisation in the World".

It wasn't an idle boast.

 

But we must also say this: if all the other labels had done like EMI, there would be no need to re-press records: only a few albums in history have reached 2 million and a half of sales, so with only one lacquer would have been possible to continue pressing for many years, without the need for re-mastering....

In this way, all the record collectors would have missed all the fun: almost every copy could be considered a first press!!

 

Exactly - but stupidly they got rid of those metal parts - EMI included - and so remastering did have to be done

 

I should add that remastering was done for a variety of reasons, just one one which was to replace a destroyed lacquer.

 

Going back to the first press thing again I have always said labels are more important than matrix.....and are you again specifically talking about the -1 mono matrix ?? if so remember please that this matrix was in use primarily for ONLY 2 and a half years from June 67 to around Jan 70 and then not again until 1982 and the numbers from 1982 will be negligable. and I am not sure of the numbers of mono copies sold was it really 2 million between 67 and 70 then ?? And as has already been said we cannot compare 60's presssings to pressings after the mid 70's as for some reason EMI changed something - we do not know why - after 1976 and started pressing differently, look at the Wall for example, 1U to about 11U in about a year or so...so as has already been said you cannot compare Pepper to a late 70's press like the Wall as for some reason at EMI Apples did become oranges after 1976...

 

Anyway, I thank all those who have participated in this thread or have simply followed it; I think it was all very interesting, at least for me!

 

This is a pure collector's point of view: according to me, it is more important the number of the lacquer: on the turntable, we put records and not labels; however, I also understand your point of view, definitely.

The UK mono edition of "SGT. Pepper" shows ca 500 stampers in the trail-off: 500x5000=2500000 records starting from the first lacquer.
Even supposing that instead of 5000 records per stamper, the average had been 4000 records per stamper, this fact does mean that were pressed about 2 million records starting from one single lacquer; not bad, whereas labels like Decca in the same period would have probably used about 10 lacquers to press 2 million records...

Yes, it's OK.

 

That is assuming of course that they used all the stampers, I have always suspected many stampers were discarded due to quality control or other issues as the numbers to me have not add up ( for many LP's not just pepper ) I have no evidence to support this of course and is another question i'd like somebody in the know who is still with us to answer....

 

It's very true, this would be a very important thing to check.

It would have been very interesting to interview Mr. Harry Moss too, but unfortunately he is no longer among us for many years.

 

Really many thanks to Mr. Christopher Tubbs for this interview (and to Mr. Matthews, of course) and many thanks to you, Ben Sinise for posting here.

 

Only to satisfy my curiosity: how long ago was this interview recorded? In the past I have looked for videos like this everywhere, but I was never able to find them.

 

That interview was first published in August 2010.

Technical point, but I think you mean to say "a new cut was made for a variety of reasons", without using the term ''remastering''.
Each time a fresh lacquer was required it originated from the same master tape, so it's been recut or mastered again, not remastered.
The Beatles catalogue was remastered in 1987 and 2009 i.e. when the new master sources were created.

 

Woops - yes most certainly - a new cut is what I meant not a remaster.

 

I doubt that even 500,000 mono copies of Sgt Pepper were pressed worldwide from the -1/-1 UK parts. Just do the math.

And regardless of what was said in the interview, color me skeptical that anything near 5,000 Beatle records were pressed from a single stamper. My suspicion is that's like saying a particular model car could go 500,000 miles, but in practice, the vast majority are good for, say, 150,000 miles.

I still suspect it was more like 1,000 per stamper and about 500k per lacquer.

 

The -1 in the XEX637-1 matrix of Sgt pepper does not mean the mother, its the number for the father. There is without any doubt one and one alone made.

The stamper codes in the dead wax represent the mothers and stampers.

There will be a number at the 9 o'clock position representing the mother and a letter or 2 or 3 representing the stamper - the code was G R A M O P H L T D corresponding to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0.

So you look in the dead wax and it says 3 and GG and that means 3rd mother and 11th stamper made from that mother.

And by doing the maths greater experts that you and I have ascertained that its about 5,000 per stamper.

 

Not to mention U.S. Columbia, who would have had at least 6 lacquer cuts for 2000 records

 

Look at the early sales figures, and remember that metal mothers were exported to other countries as well, and then look at when new lacquers were cut, and the internet favourite of 1,000 per stamper figure just doesn't add up.
I'd rather take the figure of up to 5,000 records per stamper from the guy that was actually responsible for designing the EMI automatic pressing machinery and who was on the factory floor in charge of operations at Hayes.
Sometimes you just have to unlearn what you've been reading for years from so called "authoritative" sources.

No, it means that it's the 11th stamper that has been plated in the production process, it's a cumulative number.
For instance, I have an LP with 3 MGM, it doesn't mean that it's the 414th stamper plated exclusively from the 3rd mother.

 

Correct.

 

Really? The -1 in the matrix doe not mean the Mother? And there was only one Father? And the stamper codes in the dead wax represent the mothers and stampers? And there's a number at the 9 o'clock position?

Gee whiz, I had no idea...

Now what any of this information has to do with indicating that 5,000 records (or any number for that matter) were pressed per stamper is truly a mystery to me...

 

This is a fantastic video!

And again, I'd like to point out that the recent book Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records by Spizer & Daniels has the same 5,000 figure. From page 413:

"Although some factories changed stampers after press runs of as little as 300 records, EMI did not change stampers that frequently. Unless the stamper broke down, EMI normally used a stamper for up to 5,000 pressings. Stampers would be replaced when they were no longer capable of producing a quality-sounding disc."


For what it's worth, an author of the book (Frank Daniels) is a member on this Forum.