Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Very Low Numbered Stamped Stereo Uk Wa; the lowest i have seen
Topic Started: Jan 23 2016, 06:39 PM (1,579 Views)
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
this is low for a stamped stereo...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-BEATLES-Whit...=item25b53a8cb7
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes it is. Apparently some randomly-labeled or randomly-numbered copies got through.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
namralos,Jan 23 2016
07:01 PM
Yes it is. Apparently some randomly-labeled or randomly-numbered copies got through.

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 !!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
namralos,Jan 23 2016
11:17 PM
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.

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....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jimboo
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jimboo
Level 3
[ *  *  * ]
namralos,Jan 23 2016
11:26 PM
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?

Any chance of a scan of your 92 (you can hit me with a Benny Hill joke on that one)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
jimboo,Jan 24 2016
02:25 AM
namralos,Jan 23 2016
11:26 PM
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?

Any chance of a scan of your 92 (you can hit me with a Benny Hill joke on that one)

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Have you had your copy since 2010?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
namralos,Jan 24 2016
02:51 PM
Have you had your copy since 2010?

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 !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
voxish
Level 3
[ *  *  * ]
muffmasterh,Jan 24 2016
04:58 PM
namralos,Jan 24 2016
02:51 PM
Have you had your copy since 2010?

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 !

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)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
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).



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
voxish,Jan 24 2016
06:02 PM
muffmasterh,Jan 24 2016
04:58 PM
namralos,Jan 24 2016
02:51 PM
Have you had your copy since 2010?

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 !

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)

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 !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
servi
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
namralos,Jan 24 2016
07:42 PM
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).

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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Albums · Next Topic »
Add Reply