| Welcome to Beatles Collecting. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Very Low Numbered Stamped Stereo Uk Wa; the lowest i have seen | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2016, 06:39 PM (1,577 Views) | |
| muffmasterh | Jan 23 2016, 06:39 PM Post #1 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
this is low for a stamped stereo... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-BEATLES-Whit...=item25b53a8cb7 |
![]() |
|
| namralos | Jan 23 2016, 07:01 PM Post #2 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes it is. Apparently some randomly-labeled or randomly-numbered copies got through. |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Jan 23 2016, 07:09 PM Post #3 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
we started seeing some random - presumably batches - of stamped stereo sleeves in the 100k & 200k series, now we have one under 100k had the condition been a little better i would have bought it. as an unrelated aside I have just found my first stereo emi no emi crossover disc ( disc 2 ) and a side two labelled with side four...the amount of WA's i am having to keep is now getting very silly !!! |
![]() |
|
| namralos | Jan 23 2016, 11:17 PM Post #4 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I understand...indeed. A while ago I started keeping track of the numbering scheme for US White Albums, to see if I could determine where the different numbering types start/end. There's a weird spot just over 2,000,000 where (as far as I can tell) two printers' allocations overlap for a short period. I haven't ever seen two of the SAME number, mind you, but in theory it is possible. |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Jan 23 2016, 11:20 PM Post #5 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
well Frank I am now convinced that there are two 92's , my own and another on popsike, assuming that the other is genuine - it looks it - then there are implications for the UK numbers. We always suspected there were two or more number 5's.... |
![]() |
|
| namralos | Jan 23 2016, 11:26 PM Post #6 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The first hundred may exist as mono, stereo, or both -- for all we know. Wasn't one of the 5's a mono and the other a stereo? Then there's that weird UK numbering that used a DOT instead of "No." We still don't know what that was about. The US may have picked up on that; one printer used a dot. The general rules are known, but how and why the exceptions arose is still a mystery. And I take it that the 0000092 on popsike (sold in 2010) is definitely not yours? |
![]() |
|
| jimboo | Jan 24 2016, 02:06 AM Post #7 |
|
Level 3
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Something not right, cannot figure it out, the 1st 4 zeroes look genuine, but the 9 is not right on the popsike 92, and the 0 before the 9 has a straight edge, funny two as well Posted Image |
![]() |
|
| jimboo | Jan 24 2016, 02:25 AM Post #8 |
|
Level 3
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Any chance of a scan of your 92 (you can hit me with a Benny Hill joke on that one) |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Jan 24 2016, 04:30 AM Post #9 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
here are one of the pics i did Posted Image mine has a distinctive stain near the front edge the other 92 did not have, also the vinyls that came with it were different to mine ( i've since swapped the discs for much nicer ones - sorry purists lol ) and it seemed a better copy although i was very pleasesd how the sleeve polished up Also mine was very grubby, 40+ years of grubby not 5, however i noticed mine had the exact same funny 2 I do think both are genuine, well i am 99.99 percent certain mine is, and fairly happy that the other one is. |
![]() |
|
| namralos | Jan 24 2016, 02:51 PM Post #10 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Have you had your copy since 2010? |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Jan 24 2016, 04:58 PM Post #11 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
nah Frank it was the one I bought just before xmas but i do not believe it could have changed so much in five years, also i did not buy it from somebody who looked like they would have ever paid GBP 3k for a record ! |
![]() |
|
| voxish | Jan 24 2016, 06:02 PM Post #12 |
|
Level 3
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The random junk in the description photos was a bit of a giveaway. I zoomed in on one of them and there was a flyer for a house clearance company! (actually I suspect the seller was in that business himself - sad to think that somebody's treasured collection may have ended up like that) |
![]() |
|
| namralos | Jan 24 2016, 07:42 PM Post #13 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There was a UK mono 92 that went unsold in a Japanese auction in November. Is that the one you bought? https://www.sbiartauction.co.jp/images/pdf/...en_20151107.pdf The one that sold on eBay in 11/2010 went for $4,956.29 (3107 GBP). |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Jan 24 2016, 07:46 PM Post #14 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
he said that his father ( or uncle ) worked for apple which may or may no be bs, certainly the place was in a state - they were apparently moving but he could also easiy be in house clearance as the place resembled a more modern version of oil drum lane if u remember your steptoe lol ! |
![]() |
|
| servi | Jan 24 2016, 08:10 PM Post #15 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good find, Frank ! Here is a picture from the auction catalogue. It looks that this is the same copy that was sold in 2010 on ebay (picture posted by jimboo above). I doubt there are 2 copies of no. 0000092 (as jimboo said this copy looks somewhat weird) Posted Image |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Albums · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




6:56 PM Jul 11