| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Beatles Revolver Uk Variant Label | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 7 2016, 09:09 PM (978 Views) | |
| timboss81 | Aug 7 2016, 09:09 PM Post #1 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi, so i have this up on the bay, am i right to think this is a rare label variant, i have found one similar for sale on discogs https://www.discogs.com/release/5794260-Revolver/images But mine is still omitting that full stop on side two http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201640700522?ssP...984.m1555.l2649 The side 1 labels are identical, but they have a normal label as the side 2 whereas mine is different any thoughts, thanks |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 7 2016, 10:19 PM Post #2 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
maybe Frank can shed some light on this, the label layout is a scarcer mono one dating from 68/9 but i've no idea if the missing dot after track 6 side two is in anyway significant |
![]() |
|
| timboss81 | Aug 7 2016, 10:49 PM Post #3 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for the reply, ive just trawled through a lot of old ebay auctions, discogs listings and other places and cant find any that have the dot omitted like my copy, seems a bit odd that's all would be interesting to hear his thoughts, thanks |
![]() |
|
| namralos | Aug 8 2016, 01:13 AM Post #4 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's missing the period, alright. Based on the alignment of that row, I'd say it was never there to be typeset. Not sure the missing dot is particularly interesting, but it IS a genuine label variation. |
![]() |
|
| Jae | Aug 8 2016, 03:16 AM Post #5 |
|
Level 3
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also notice the decreased gap in front of the "6." on the copy sans period. There's numerous other minute spacing differences too. |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 8 2016, 01:48 PM Post #6 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
is it a new one then Frank ? |
![]() |
|
| timboss81 | Aug 9 2016, 01:08 PM Post #7 |
|
Level 2
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As always thanks for the replies, it seems like out of the 4 copies I have of revolver 2 of them (inc this copy have the same missing . ) Would it be possibly to gather how many would have been in each label run, or is that a near impossible task? Thanks |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 9 2016, 03:00 PM Post #8 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
yes i am not sure this info still exists, indeed it may never had existed unless the printers made a note of it but we are unlikely to ever know. So you have four of this same particular label layout or does the missing dot also occur on the earlier label layout From memory there is 1) standard layout with DR Robert 2) TNR font with Dr. Robert 3) Standard layout with Doctor Robert 4) TNR with Doctor Robert 5) 68 new layout 6) Aug 69 same layout with SIUK text removed i will happily be corrected of my memory is faulty. ( there may be another TNR font layout can't recall without looking ) |
![]() |
|
| Jae | Aug 10 2016, 08:57 AM Post #9 |
|
Level 3
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm going to be a pedant here - as I've highlighted before it's TR not TNR. Different font. Like calling Helvetica, Arial... |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 10 2016, 12:04 PM Post #10 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i can also be as pedantic as the rest of 'em Jae but the trouble is if i were to say TR many would wonder what i was on about or what the hell TR stood for, but they all know what i mean by TNR even if its technically wrong. its like CBS pressings when they are emi or Decca's when they are Jamaica, as much as i hate those terms ref contract pressings you have to use/make ref to them because thats what people will then recognise and understand. Sad but unavoidable, the TNR ship has sailed Jae but i share you pain in the need to be a Canute trying to stop the TNR tide wash over the TR beach. Can i get a mixed metaphors prize for all that lol ? |
![]() |
|
| Jae | Aug 11 2016, 08:48 AM Post #11 |
|
Level 3
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Frankly it demonstrates a lack of understanding and command of the subject matter. Sorry to sound harsh, but accuracy is a fundamental cornerstone of authority. I mean, isn't that everyone's main gripe with that geesdee bloke or whatever his name is on eBay? The irony of course here being that for a group that prides itself on its slide ruler for identifying minute label differences (which I think is great!), it misses the blatant differences between whole font sets! But that's OK, I'll let it go now. :) |
![]() |
|
| namralos | Aug 11 2016, 12:25 PM Post #12 |
|
Level 5
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Jae is right in that it is a "Roman" font, but certainly not "Times New Roman" -- even thought it was around. The Times (of London) created the "New Roman" font in 1931. They did sell the font, but the font used on some Parlophone labels is not the Times New Roman font. Maybe it should be called the Parlophone Beatles font. The Funky DR. font? The 1965-66 EMI font? The Fizzy Lifting Drinks font? |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 11 2016, 03:17 PM Post #13 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
yes let it go Jae or you will known as the " font " of all knowledge lol I'm less keen on the slide ruler stuff myself, but as for Geesdee i think his mistakes are on a whole different level to just TNR vs TR font especially as everybody knows label style is referred to when the term TNR is used. However i do understand how such technical inaccuracies can irritate and so in future this forum i will try to use TR instead of TNR in future. However Jae if anybody then asks me what a TR font is I am going to refer them direct to you. BTW did not also somebody say that the Sans Serif font term used was also incorrect and that it should be Serif, can't recall but i'm sure somebody said that way back. |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 11 2016, 03:22 PM Post #14 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
lol question when changing fonts in text is the " Times New Roman " font correct or should that be Roman font ( and is there even an option for both TNR and Roman font ? ) oh and is it Roman font or TR font, R or TR Frank is Roman font actually known as TR font which if meaning Times Roman otherwise surely TR is as incorrect as TNR ?? |
![]() |
|
| muffmasterh | Aug 11 2016, 03:25 PM Post #15 |
|
Level 7
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ps would everybody be happy if we called it just Roman font ? That to me works better than TR cos people will at least recognise what is meant by Roman vs TR |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Albums · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





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



2:26 PM Jul 11