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 (1,580 Views)
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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).

well if that picture is from the Japan cat then its not mine, mine actually looks better with no bottom bruise although like i say it does have a port wine style birthmark stain ( looking like a map of england and northern ireland with the rest of the British ilses chopped off lol ! )

well I know mine is the real deal, can't speak for the other two lol !!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It definitely isn't your copy. Yours doesn't have a top (left) corner bump, and that one clearly does -- in the online auction photo.

Thanks to Servi, we can clearly see that the Japanese auction copy from 07 November 2015 is the same as the one that sold on eBay in 2010. I wonder if the "2" was originally another digit, and someone cleaned it up to what they thought it was. It doesn't look like an outright fake, so if it was altered, the alterations were slight. Yours is definitely genuine.

Either there were two number 92's (which could have happened if the stamper did not advance properly) or his was a 93 or something else that got altered slightly. The position of his "2" is high, so maybe it was supposed to click up to 93 and didn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
servi
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
As jimboo noted the last 3 digits look weird (the 0 and 9 look incorrect, the 9 looks a bit like a 5). Because of this and given the fact that Henry's got without a doubt a real 0000092 and thus far no duplicate numbers above 20 have shown up, I think the popsike/Japanese copy is dubious. Possibly someone changed a 0000X52 copy into a 0000092 copy.
"Below 0000100" is one of the "magical barriers" for WA sleeves, so it would make sense for a forgerer to do this. IIRC, the Record Collector price guide gave values for WA sleeves in categories, e.g. 1-10, 11-100, below 1,000, below 10,000 etc (maybe it still does, I don't have the guide anymore).

http://www.popsike.com/BEATLES-WHITE-ALBUM...0690461427.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
evert180_0
Level 2
[ *  * ]
Could the last zero be an altered 6 or 8 ? I can't see the point of altering a 5 into a 9 or altering the last digit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
if it has been altered, they did a bloody good job.

My 2 is also slightly out of line, my money is on two 92's

However from what Frank has said, it is possible that then there may be no 93.....

What is also nice ( for me ) is that my sleeve now appears to the better of the two 92's something i had thought was the opposite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
servi
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Below is my "no. 5" (still a stereo, but can be made into a mono within seconds). Now I just need one of these $15 tools that has the correct 4.5 mm font, but $30 postage is a bit too high just for trying to see how good (or bad) a 0500000 fake would look.
My feeling is that some practising and patience could yield rather good results, plus trying to find a copy that was not stamped too firmly.
The popsike 0000092 sold for almost $5,000 which is amazing given the fact that 3 members on this forum alone suspect that it could have been manipulated....


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I have that number 18 where the whole cover is goofy and inside out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rsinige
Level 3
[ *  *  * ]
namralos,Jan 25 2016
09:21 PM
I have that number 18 where the whole cover is goofy and inside out.

I remember that cover, it was also discussed on here I think!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It's my only low number, but it was SO bizarre that I had to have it. Now I am sure there is none other like THAT one! [Watch another one appear on eBay tomorrow.]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
servi
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
namralos,Jan 25 2016
09:21 PM
I have that number 18 where the whole cover is goofy and inside out.

Yes, that one is ubercool, Frank! Plus 18 is also a "Lennon number" (as you called sleeve 0000009). Although I don't believe in numerology at all, I read the book Dakota Days by John Green, John's (Yoko's) advisor on this kind of stuff. The book doesn't get you any wiser on anything though....

Which WA had dots instead of "No."? Only some low-numbered stereo sleeves, right ? Where these possibly prototypes ? Or was the dot to distinguish them from the mono covers with corresponding numbers ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I think 5 and 7 exist with dots. Stereo copies.

Prior thread: http://z10.invisionfree.com/BeatlesCollect...p?showtopic=367

I haven't personally examined the covers, and I could not tell from the photos alone whether they were constructed in an unusual way. It's possible that they ran off a few like that to test out the numbering device.

It's also possible that the original plan was to use No. for mono and dot for stereo, but that seems less likely. After all..."stereo" is on the back cover, and the dot isn't exactly pretty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
servi
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes, could be like that or the dot versions where stereo versions for people in the inner circle. It is funny to see that Ringo's copy was a mono pressing. Apparantely the Beatles still prefered mono in 1968...
Could it even be possible that ALL sleeves started as mono sleeves, and that after numbering a certain batch got the STEREO stamp ? That would explain the odd one out like Henry found (0082891), it may have been in the "wrong" batch. Preorders for mono were probably still higher than for stereo in 1968.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
namralos
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Number 5 stereo with dot:
http://www.christies.com//lotfinder/memora...9f-638563c3956e

Number 5 mono with No.:
http://www.popsike.com/Beatles-White-Album...0312162347.html

Apparently Christie's has also sold #8, #19, #20, #22, #25, #27, and a few other low-numbered White Albums. I believe all of those were in mono.

And the seller of #8 remembered the first four White Albums being given out oldest Beatle to youngest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
servi
Member Avatar
Level 5
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Then Ringo may have left his no. 1 copy in his flat when he moved out and John moved in ( see comments in the ebay listing for the mono no. 5 copy :) )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
muffmasterh
Level 7
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
servi,Jan 25 2016
09:50 PM
Yes, could be like that or the dot versions where stereo versions for people in the inner circle. It is funny to see that Ringo's copy was a mono pressing. Apparantely the Beatles still prefered mono in 1968...
Could it even be possible that ALL sleeves started as mono sleeves, and that after numbering a certain batch got the STEREO stamp ? That would explain the odd one out like Henry found (0082891), it may have been in the "wrong" batch. Preorders for mono were probably still higher than for stereo in 1968.

i am sure they all started as mono sleeves, the stereo was clearly added above the laminate as were the numbers, somebody obviously was making the decision about when they needed a stereo batch although the generalities are still true most 0-300k are mono, most 300k-600k are stamped stereo and as far as i am aware all of the 600k series were mono.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Albums · Next Topic »
Add Reply