Chalky Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Manship's book wasn't wrong about the deadwax details of either, just more explicit about one. I'm not sure how anyone would know whether the arranger credit or no arranger credit is first unless Mr. Cole specifically says which one was first, especially since the identical matrix gives no clues. Thanks everyone for helping to answer my question! Doesn't Cole say in one of the links above in one of his replies that he added the arranger details to differentiate the two releases. This one I agree same plates, both originals and which came first is like the chicken and egg argument. Edited May 6, 2014 by chalky Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
boba Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Hi Chalky, I just read that thread twice. Cole says that the "non-bootleg" press (meaning the one from the '90s that he was selling to the open market) has engineer credits and everyone else is saying that 1975 originals don't. There's no acknowledgement by collectors of a '70s copy with engineer credits and Cole's (confusing) argument is that the only "non-bootlegs" (which I think he means '90s presses) have engineer credits. So it's not clear where '70s presses with engineer credits fit in. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Chalky Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Hi Chalky, I just read that thread twice. Cole says that the "non-bootleg" press (meaning the one from the '90s that he was selling to the open market) has engineer credits and everyone else is saying that 1975 originals don't. There's no acknowledgement by collectors of a '70s copy with engineer credits and Cole's (confusing) argument is that the only "non-bootlegs" (which I think he means '90s presses) have engineer credits. So it's not clear where '70s presses with engineer credits fit in. So we are saying that the only original press from the 70's is the one without the engineers credit. The one with engineers credit is a 90's press done from same plates which is basically what Cole was saying, you only have to read the posts directed at me. I basically don't disagree with you.. There are collectors, some on this topic who believe the one with the engineers credit is the original 70's press and will no doubt continue to believe that especially if they own one or someone is trying to sell one. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Steve Plumb Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Hi Chalky, I just read that thread twice. Cole says that the "non-bootleg" press (meaning the one from the '90s that he was selling to the open market) has engineer credits and everyone else is saying that 1975 originals don't. There's no acknowledgement by collectors of a '70s copy with engineer credits and Cole's (confusing) argument is that the only "non-bootlegs" (which I think he means '90s presses) have engineer credits. So it's not clear where '70s presses with engineer credits fit in. Hi Bob Yeah, as Chalky said above, it's 'chicken or the egg' now on the two 70's variations? As i said in an earlier post on this thread, i originally kept the 'non arranger' 70's copy cos it was different to the 90's repress. I thought at the time it was the second press (from info in JM #5) but that does not seem to be the case now? Cheers Steve Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Steve Plumb Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) So we are saying that the only original press from the 70's is the one without the engineers credit. The one with engineers credit is a 90's press done from same plates which is basically what Cole was saying, you only have to read the posts directed at me. I basically don't disagree with you.. There are collectors, some on this topic who believe the one with the engineers credit is the original 70's press and will no doubt continue to believe that especially if they own one or someone is trying to sell one. No, there are two 70's issues with identical matrix numbers/same mix, one with 'arranger' and one without! We now don't know which came first? Brett has a 70's with arranger and i (and others) have 70's without arranger. The later 90's reissues (or originals in Elijah's eyes ) have different matrix numbers although they are the same mix? Got to go down as THE most confusing debate ever on SS Edited May 6, 2014 by Steve Plumb 3 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
boba Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 I am *not* saying that there is only one '70s rock-way press. I don't know. All I am saying is that at the time of the thread, collectors in the thread only knew about the non-credited version from the '70s (they also didn't know about the German EMI version at that time or the Cole label press). I don't own any press except a '90s one and just don't know. I think I have seen a beat up version with arranger credits found "in the wild" on ebay, which would lend evidence of a '70s press with arranger credits. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
boba Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Also, one more point -- it's unlikely that Cole kept the same stampers from the '70s and reused them in the '90s. If you've ever come across old stampers, they are metal and usually all bent up. You can make a new stamper from a mother plate but usually all that stuff stays at the pressing plant. I would think he would likely only reuse them within in a short period of time Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Get involved with Soul Source
Add your comments now
Join Soul Source
A free & easy soul music affair!
Join Soul Source now!Log in to Soul Source
Jump right back in!
Log in now!