Theres a Duke Browner boot on eBay with an hour to go at £110 Asked the seller if it was an original. Told me the matrix was scratched in not stamped. Amazing

And I struggle to starting bids at £4.99 for originals on ebay in Ex condition

Maybe I should go round all my old mates and collect all their old boots and sell them instead

Happy days eh?

Cheers

Swifty

Think it's crazy, but I guess people care less and less whether its real or not, that's if they even care

Yup! totally agree mate

Swifty

Some people are so gullible

Wait until they try and sell it - then they will feel that sinking feeling and look a bit daft

Richard

Ended up at £160.00

Fair do's to the seller. If people were prepared to ask he was prepared to tell them. As he did me, However if its a boot I think the seller should say so on the post

To be fair, the first boot (deep purple label around 74) is perhaps rarer than the original Impact release and when its said and done "I thought you were mine" on ABC was not the first issue. Again are we talking rarity or first issue?

However if its a boot I think the seller should say so on the post

This is how it should be and you shouldn't have to ask. The seller was out of order IMO if he knew it was a boot.

But then again it doesn't take much to find the info either, a quick google will take you to the topics on here.

In the words of Elvis (or whoever wrote it) "I GOT STUNG"

Thanks to the guys on here I got sorted with a problem!

Good on you Chalky and Modernsoul

Only advice is to go through trusted source.

To be fair, the first boot (deep purple label around 74) is perhaps rarer than the original Impact release and when its said and done "I thought you were mine" on ABC was not the first issue. Again are we talking rarity or first issue?

Are we talking about Duke Browner or the Natural Four, I'm confused now.

To be fair, the first boot (deep purple label around 74) is perhaps rarer than the original Impact release and when its said and done "I thought you were mine" on ABC was not the first issue. Again are we talking rarity or first issue?

Are we talking about Duke Browner or the Natural Four, I'm confused now.

I think by purple he means the crappy sounding deep red vinyl ones done by Global. Ric Cooper has previously mentioned a limited run and many of them being trashed, hence that boot being rarer than the original.

Not sure how the reference to Natural Four re-doing "I Thought You Were Mine" for ABC after the Boola Boola version was a regional hit relates to any of this though...

I think by purple he means the crappy sounding deep red vinyl ones done by Global. Ric Cooper has previously mentioned a limited run and many of them being trashed, hence that boot being rarer than the original.

Not sure how the reference to Natural Four re-doing "I Thought You Were Mine" for ABC after the Boola Boola version was a regional hit relates to any of this though...

Yes but he says "the boot is rarer than the original", which is madness, it's not even 'scarce' let alone 'rare'.

Yes but he says "the boot is rarer than the original", which is madness, it's not even 'scarce' let alone 'rare'.

I don't know how many originals there are. Ric said 1000 of the boot I think, but I'm not sure if that was before or after a number of faulty copies (or even more faulty in the circumstances!) were scrapped.

Can't believe the level of details we go into about these sort of matters but I guess that's one of the things that always draws me back

Regardless of the "relative ease" of finding information on the boots and original record, the seller should have laid out very clearly that the record he put up for sale was not the original 1960s release.

What price for a mint impact white promo?

i was watching this...put in a bid,early doors, of £10.99.......how stupid do i feel now.

I struggle to get £5er for stuff these days.

Who are these buyers ?

i was watching this...put in a bid,early doors, of £10.99.......how stupid do i feel now.

I struggle to get £5er for stuff these days.

Who are these buyers ?

Probably some of the people who've tuned into this clip

Kinda adds just a little more to it dontcha think ?

Probably some of the people who've tuned into this clip

Kinda adds just a little more to it dontcha think ?

The blonde girl in the white tee shirt clasping her chest is, err fit.

LOL

peter

Regardless of the "relative ease" of finding information on the boots and original record, the seller should have laid out very clearly that the record he put up for sale was not the original 1960s release.

Don't think anyone disagrees Robb but as a buyer and if I didn't know the difference I wouldn't always take an ebay sellers word for it unless I knew them to be trustworthy, I would take the trouble to find out for myself using other resources.

Don't think anyone disagrees Robb but as a buyer and if I didn't know the difference I wouldn't always take an ebay sellers word for it unless I knew them to be trustworthy, I would take the trouble to find out for myself using other resources.

I also think no one would disagree with your point. I've seen some unbelievable frauds on e-Bay in the last several years. People selling artwork looking absolutely nothing like the artwork of the famous artist purported to be the creator of the auction item. The fraudulent purpetrators are getting bolder, and seemingly more ignorant and stupid, to boot. They are laughing in the face of the public. They should be made to pay large monetary fines (and threatened with jail sentences for repeat offences). I don't care if it is the buyer's responsibility to check out what he is buying. It is the seller's responsibility to reveal just what he is selling (especially when the prospective purchaser can't examine it physically). Misrepresentation is fraud, and a misdemeanor (unless the monetary amount is over a given threshold, and then it becomes a felony). I realise that a problem occurs because we are not allowed to sell an "unauthorised" pressing (bootleg) on e-Bay. But that problem is solved by calling it a "re-pressing". If the seller knows that the record he is selling was pressed in the mid-to-late 1970s, rather than 1966, when the original was issued, it is up to him to reveal that to potential bidders. That should be required. I resent that we have to e-mail the seller to ask what is stamped or etched in in the groove trail, when the seller is trying to get 10 to 20 times the value of the boot from an unsuspecting novice collector, who wouldn't buy it if he were to know the truth about the pressing.

In addition, the seller should be required to upload a clear 200 dpi label scan of both sides, and clear-sounding audio MP3 of both sides.

I also think no one would disagree with your point. I've seen some unbelievable frauds on e-Bay in the last several years. People selling artwork looking absolutely nothing like the artwork of the famous artist purported to be the creator of the auction item. The fraudulent purpetrators are getting bolder, and seemingly more ignorant and stupid, to boot. They are laughing in the face of the public. They should be made to pay large monetary fines (and threatened with jail sentences for repeat offences). I don't care if it is the buyer's responsibility to check out what he is buying. It is the seller's responsibility to reveal just what he is selling (especially when the prospective purchaser can't examine it physically). Misrepresentation is fraud, and a misdemeanor (unless the monetary amount is over a given threshold, and then it becomes a felony). I realise that a problem occurs because we are not allowed to sell an "unauthorised" pressing (bootleg) on e-Bay. But that problem is solved by calling it a "re-pressing". If the seller knows that the record he is selling was pressed in the mid-to-late 1970s, rather than 1966, when the original was issued, it is up to him to reveal that to potential bidders. That should be required. I resent that we have to e-mail the seller to ask what is stamped or etched in in the groove trail, when the seller is trying to get 10 to 20 times the value of the boot from an unsuspecting novice collector, who wouldn't buy it if he were to know the truth about the pressing.

I fully agree Rob lock the bastards up! Chained in a dungeon preferably

I also think no one would disagree with your point. I've seen some unbelievable frauds on e-Bay in the last several years. People selling artwork looking absolutely nothing like the artwork of the famous artist purported to be the creator of the auction item. The fraudulent perpetrators are getting bolder, and seemingly more ignorant and stupid, to boot. They are laughing in the face of the public. They should be made to pay large monetary fines (and threatened with jail sentences for repeat offences). I don't care if it is the buyer's responsibility to check out what he is buying. It is the seller's responsibility to reveal just what he is selling (especially when the prospective purchaser can't examine it physically). Misrepresentation is fraud, and a misdemeanor (unless the monetary amount is over a given threshold, and then it becomes a felony). I realise that a problem occurs because we are not allowed to sell an "unauthorised" pressing (bootleg) on e-Bay. But that problem is solved by calling it a "re-pressing". If the seller knows that the record he is selling was pressed in the mid-to-late 1970s, rather than 1966, when the original was issued, it is up to him to reveal that to potential bidders. That should be required. I resent that we have to e-mail the seller to ask what is stamped or etched in in the groove trail, when the seller is trying to get 10 to 20 times the value of the boot from an unsuspecting novice collector, who wouldn't buy it if he were to know the truth about the pressing.

HI ALL TOTALY AGREE, HOWEVER, It gets me how respected dealers go to events with boxes of this bootleg crap,

and that is what is, nothing but worthless crap, that no matter how much we talk about it, lets face it, if dealers at venues are selling it in front of you unchallenged, any thing written is like pissing in the wind, and our dislike has the power of a toothless dog, me thinks!

DAVE K

35 yrs on and i still get done now and again, rip their heads off and s*it down their neck

garry

Fair do's to the seller. If people were prepared to ask he was prepared to tell them. As he did me, However if its a boot I think the seller should say so on the post

I fully agree Rob lock the bastards up! Chained in a dungeon preferably

no shoot the bastards

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261145873919?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 i have put this duke browner on 2nd boot whateva theres one day 7 hours to go and there's 27 watchers on it i was oferd £50 i went to stop it i was locked out there was a bid within half an hour i think ppl are buying boot cos originals are to expensive who knows wtf but i have said it`s second issue vinyl condition is vg lots of paper scratching it dosent seem to put the off

The blonde girl in the white tee shirt clasping her chest is, err fit.

LOL

peter

Perv

https://www.ebay.co.u...984.m1555.l2649 i have put this duke browner on 2nd boot whateva theres one day 7 hours to go and there's 27 watchers on it i was oferd £50 i went to stop it i was locked out there was a bid within half an hour i think ppl are buying boot cos originals are to expensive who knows wtf but i have said it`s second issue vinyl condition is vg lots of paper scratching it dosent seem to put the off

A boot is NOT a second issue IT IS A BOOT, if yours is a boot you should say so, I have read your Ebay ad and to the untrained eye, it is not easy to spot that it is not the original. If you clearly stated your is a bootleg copy fromthe 70ts and they still bid, then it is their fault. Many people don't know what is a real 2nd bona fide issue versus a Bootleg copy.

Apologies if I sound a bit strong on this but I have seen way too many Ebay listings saying boots are "2nd Issues". `there are genuine second releases (issues) of many records out there which is I made this post. Hope you understand

Edited December 30, 201212 yr by jim g