Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Dean

Willie Hutch LRO Dunhill Boot Ebay

Recommended Posts

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Northern-Soul-Willie-Hutch-Love-Runs-Out-/161921009334?hash=item25b33e86b6:g:WmMAAOSw~otWcqQ6

Listed as a 70s Reissue, I'm used to reissue being shorthand for Bootleg but was this booted in the 70s? I recall the abc Willie Hutch / Bobby Hutton 70s release but don't recall a Dunhill Boot at the time? Just curious alongside my usual disgruntled grumpyness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate of mine was preparing for a session behind the decks, lifted his original Gwen Owens as the opener and the DJ playing at the time pulled a Gwen Owen bootleg out of his box and played it.... A brief candid exchange ensued and my mate pointed out to the other DJ that he was playing boots that he had never seen before... Perhaps this is the source of these obscure bootlegs.

 Bootlegs are here to stay, that's the reality (no matter how much I wish it wasn't); but I do wish they wouldn't describe a bootleg as a reissue, the latter pays the copyright holder and artist (tax paid) the former is an unauthorised copy. If bootlegs were described as an unofficial release then it might not attract as much criticism.  

Perhaps this should be a Xmas SS challenge - guess the total for the eight records or each individual record

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I instinctively detest this practice, but what also concerns me is why pay £36+ (3 days to go) when there are several abc reissue copies for £5-£8 available on buy it now, unless the intent is duplicitous, to fool someone into thinking you have a collection when you don't. You can't convince yourself it's the real thing, no matter how poor the lighting near your home deck is. If you want to own the tune on record and can't justify the price tag of the original (I don't have one by the way and probably outside of my justification) why pay more for something you know is just as fakey, if not more so, than the abc copy. The more you try to build a reputation on these boots the further there is to fall when found out, and if you are of the opinion that originals are not important then why not the abc copy?

I hope it breaks in the post.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest johnny hart

Agreed its the awful creepy crawly, slimy attempts at delusion; Reissue ,re;press,test press, 2nd issue,etc etc .Discogs try hard to eradicate this practice eg They have 5 "Love Runs Out " on Stephanye ,stp-340, from £5 each. Notes read; Unofficial release, this is a " Cover up " using a false artist name and credits. Over to you ebay.   LOL Happy Holliday ,to all Soul Source Staff and members! Johnny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Love Runs Out" was booted in the seventies and credited to James Conwell Jr. on Patches (Soussan boot from about '76). The previous Stephanye boot a couple of years earlier was only "The Duck" both sides credited to Richard Temple (Let's Do The Duck). This was sped up, whereas the Patches had both "Love Runs Out" and "The Duck" at the right speed. The Patches boots seem to be quite scarce, even by the end of that decade there wern't many who even remembered them.

The ebay listing is clearly not is one of these as it has Bobby Hutton on the flip. As it has a large middle, it's probably the recent boot of the 70's ABC legal reissue, as he can buy these for peanuts.

Cheers
Mick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest johnny hart

 Correct mick , the boot cited in Discogs is the Stephanye Double sided " lets Do the Duck"= Richard temple from A Fiver a piece ,but it does appear onthe Willie Hutch "Love" posting /page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mick Holdsworth said:

"Love Runs Out" was booted in the seventies and credited to James Conwell Jr. on Patches (Soussan boot from about '76).

I presume that copy was somewhere on the same list that the Salvadors, George Blackwells etc  Simon did? I must confess I was unaware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at his sold listings...it is criminal. Thousands of ££££ for what is likely modern boots with photo copied labels  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SoulBoyRecords said:

 

              money for old rope or in this case old boots!! total disgrace makes you wonder why we bother buying original 45s......

                 oh yeh to make money off our labels.....

 

 

 

Look at his sold listings...it is criminal. Thousands of ££££ for what is likely modern boots with photo copied labels  

 

 

Edited by russoul1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steve L said:

We'll never know - no one ever admits to it on these threads

How much is it folks pretending they have the real deal vs deceit on the part of sellers ?

Edited by SoulBoyRecords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow; having seen all those bootlegs sold with copied labels and the prices paid. JM and TB may get the best prices for originals but this seller gets the top prices for bootlegs.    

This seller looks like he will be having a very Merry Christmas.... ho ho ho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Sign up/in to remove

20 hours ago, Rich B said:

I presume that copy was somewhere on the same list that the Salvadors, George Blackwells etc  Simon did? I must confess I was unaware of it.

Just found a scan, plus a list from SS advertising it ...

This is a scan, fould it on popsike
567953d635b22_jamesconwellloverunsout.jp

and this is a list from July 76 (posted it a while back, just copied it over to this thread)List.thumb.jpg.f7d2e3702f190287ef0581d2c

Although I never marked it on the list at the time, I ordered a few, but not James Conwell. However I did get sent one anyway, probably in place of the Rubies which never existed.

I have no idea what happened to that first copy back in the 70's, but I remember getting one a few years back, and sold it immediately. Never seen another since. As I said before, probably quite rare.

Cheers
Mick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never knew Eddie Billups ever got booted ?, could imagine someone getting easily duped in a year a or two going thru a box at a niter and seeing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mach said:

Never knew Eddie Billups ever got booted ?, could imagine someone getting easily duped in a year a or two going thru a box at a niter and seeing that.

Do you mean Eddie Daniels?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mick Holdsworth said:

Just found a scan, plus a list from SS advertising it ...

This is a scan, fould it on popsike
567953d635b22_jamesconwellloverunsout.jp

and this is a list from July 76 (posted it a while back, just copied it over to this thread)List.thumb.jpg.f7d2e3702f190287ef0581d2c

Although I never marked it on the list at the time, I ordered a few, but not James Conwell. However I did get sent one anyway, probably in place of the Rubies which never existed.

I have no idea what happened to that first copy back in the 70's, but I remember getting one a few years back, and sold it immediately. Never seen another since. As I said before, probably quite rare.

Cheers
Mick

Mick - Were ALL of the records on the list Bootlegs/Reissues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bo diddley said:

Mick - Were ALL of the records on the list Bootlegs/Reissues?

Yes, I think so Bod, Certainly thing like the Jades on Fee and GTO's / Skullsnaps, and loads of others you see the boots around today.

You could say the new vocals to the classic instrumentals (Del Satins / Shirley Matthews / Charades etc.) were just new releases, although the B sides were all boots of the instrumentals.

I've never seen an Eddie Daniels boot - did they actiually exist, or was it made up, like the Rubies (I have another list from about the same time listing the new Cigarette Ashes vocal by "Judy Church" - Again, never happened). Just noticed "These Heartaches" was going to be done as Sharon Scott, but was done as Dena Barnes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mick Holdsworth said:

Yes, I think so Bod, Certainly thing like the Jades on Fee and GTO's / Skullsnaps, and loads of others you see the boots around today.

You could say the new vocals to the classic instrumentals (Del Satins / Shirley Matthews / Charades etc.) were just new releases, although the B sides were all boots of the instrumentals.

I've never seen an Eddie Daniels boot - did they actiually exist, or was it made up, like the Rubies (I have another list from about the same time listing the new Cigarette Ashes vocal by "Judy Church" - Again, never happened). Just noticed "These Heartaches" was going to be done as Sharon Scott, but was done as Dena Barnes.

Mick, I've seen some speculation previously, but do you think the Kenny Smith/Goldspot was an SS Special. It sounds a little less polished than the GAR release which is why I assumed it was a legit "local" release prior to GAR.

A local friend and DJ bought a copy of Eddie Daniels for a significant amount from a DJ/Promoter/Dealer in the last 2 years. I wouldn't know if there were reissues of this or how to tell the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bo diddley said:

Do you mean Eddie Daniels?

No mate. That Eddie Billups on Peachtree..it must be a photo copied label mash-up

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chorleybloke

Makes my blood boil this.  Does anybody know if eBay has ever attempted to do anything about it or do they just turn a blind eye?  Got a bit of time on my hands so I might see if I can rattle somebody's cage in the eBay management hierarchy.

Also, is this practice unique to NS or are they at it on the Rockabilly/R&R/Elvis/etc scenes too?

Cheers..........Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that list from 1976 I had just started work that year and I was planning how to spend my wages .£16 per week .had to give my mum £8 so not much left over .found out from guys at Wigan it was all boots anyway .it was big news in the record bar .

re the boots on eBay it is fraud and deception and the perpetrators need outing .They are trading on some peoples naivety.Sick of other eBay listings not even mentioning that record is a re issue and have been coming across the same issues on discogs especially from Belgian sellers . Buyers beware 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an weird experience while checking eBay last night.

I saw this listing....

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/161933107992?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Why was it weird? Well I have the ORIGINAL that the copy label is taken from!!

It made me check my copy and it does have the "bell sound" stamp. I bought mine some time last year from a member on here who lives in Scotland. The seller of the eBay copy and similar records seems to live in Yorkshire. 

Mine was bought by a private sale and as far as I'm aware, no scan was posted. I've no problem with the seller who was an honest and nice guy to deal with and seems to have a great collection, some of which he has been selling.

The only problem may be that if I were to try and sell mine, someone might check popsike and see the eBay item and assume they are the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bo diddley said:

I had an weird experience while checking eBay last night.

I saw this listing....

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/161933107992?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Why was it weird? Well I have the ORIGINAL that the copy label is taken from!!

It made me check my copy and it does have the "bell sound" stamp. I bought mine some time last year from a member on here who lives in Scotland. The seller of the eBay copy and similar records seems to live in Yorkshire. 

Mine was bought by a private sale and as far as I'm aware, no scan was posted. I've no problem with the seller who was an honest and nice guy to deal with and seems to have a great collection, some of which he has been selling.

The only problem may be that if I were to try and sell mine, someone might check popsike and see the eBay item and assume they are the same.

 

That's beyond annoying. If the faker is prepared to do this once then you may well see repeat copies where the label markings become shorthand for bootleg. I also saw this on the net from a couple of years ago with the same label markings;

http://www.rootsvinylguide.com/ebay_items/jay-traynor-up-and-over--2

Looking at the other boots on offer I see the Larry Clinton has a Chips sticker on http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Northern-Soul-Larry-Clinton-Shes-Wanted-/161933079600?hash=item25b3f6b430:g:Rc0AAOSwSdZWg~Cs . I wonder if this is a sticker or a photo of the sticker on the orig label?

I know people on her mock the notion of 'Soul Police' (not that they exist) but I'd be happy for the Soul Police to have power of arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dean said:

That's beyond annoying. If the faker is prepared to do this once then you may well see repeat copies where the label markings become shorthand for bootleg. I also saw this on the net from a couple of years ago with the same label markings;

http://www.rootsvinylguide.com/ebay_items/jay-traynor-up-and-over--2

Looking at the other boots on offer I see the Larry Clinton has a Chips sticker on http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Northern-Soul-Larry-Clinton-Shes-Wanted-/161933079600?hash=item25b3f6b430:g:Rc0AAOSwSdZWg~Cs . I wonder if this is a sticker or a photo of the sticker on the orig label?

I know people on her mock the notion of 'Soul Police' (not that they exist) but I'd be happy for the Soul Police to have power of arrest.

The plot thickens!!!

So either multiple copies (likely) or the buyer in the first link is re-selling the one bought in 2014 (less likely as the seller seems to have loads of 'em)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2015 at 19:45, Steve L said:

We'll never know - no one ever admits to it on these threads

I'm sure that CHIPS sticker is just part of the copying process in this bootleg operation. If you check the seller's past sales he's doing around £1500 per month. That's quite a bit of wonga for boots with photo copied labels. I'm assuming that is what these are ? New boots, new labels. If so criminal morally and legally   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on folks, these aren't proper bootlegs, they are previous reissues with photocopy labels stuck on them, if people can't see through this, even though the bloke tells you what they are, then more fool them.

The James Conwell Jr boot is one of the rarest of the lot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pete S said:

Come on folks, these aren't proper bootlegs, they are previous reissues with photocopy labels stuck on them, if people can't see through this, even though the bloke tells you what they are, then more fool them.

The James Conwell Jr boot is one of the rarest of the lot...

Yeah. What he seems to be doing is letting the 45 get to a price before posting in the description that it's a 70's RE. All a bit naughty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pete S said:

Come on folks, these aren't proper bootlegs, they are previous reissues with photocopy labels stuck on them, if people can't see through this, even though the bloke tells you what they are, then more fool them.

The James Conwell Jr boot is one of the rarest of the lot...

 

Yes, exactly. The guy isn't a bootlegger (as far as we can tell), he is 'customizing' previously bootlegged records which already exist.

He could - and probably would - argue that any premium he receives for these records is a reward for the customizing effort he has put into the re-labelling. They are still listed as non-originals.

I would guess that some of the buyers who are paying fairly hefty prices for them may be the ones that might try to pass them off fraudulently in the future, for a sizeable profit. And that is where the problem will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Juniorsoul said:

Yeah. What he seems to be doing is letting the 45 get to a price before posting in the description that it's a 70's RE. All a bit naughty. 

Really?  That's deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Peter Richer said:

 

 

I would guess that some of the buyers who are paying fairly hefty prices for them may be the ones that might try to pass them off fraudulently in the future, for a sizeable profit. And that is where the problem will be.

I agree, thats what you can see happening and the main problem with all this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steve L said:

I agree, thats what you can see happening and the main problem with all this 

Lots of folks have said they may talk to EBAY -  is anyone actually doing that ? Is it illegal to take a 2nd issue or even a bootleg that someone else made and to photo copy a label and stick it on if that is what you tell buyers you are doing ?

Edited by SoulBoyRecords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Pete S said:

Really?  That's deception.

Yeah, I think it was the Larry Clinton promo, I saw it and there was nothing in the description, looked a few hours later and he'd filled in that spiel about a 1970's RE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SoulBoyRecords said:

Lots of folks have said they may talk to EBAY -  is anyone actually doing that ? Is it illegal to take a 2nd issue or even a bootleg that someone else made and to photo copy a label and stick it on if that is what you tell buyers you are doing ?

 

1) What would they say? 'Somebody is selling something which may or may not be a bootleg, as do lots of other people with impunity, but I personally don't like this one because they've re-worked it - although they've still said it isn't the genuine article.'

Or perhaps (and this would actually be a justifiable thing to do): 'Please stop people selling any and all unlicensed items, including soul records; regardless of whether they call them re-issues, second issues, reproductions or any other similar term, and regardless as to whether they are second hand or not.'

But then you get into the issue of how to monitor it, and who should do it; and who should arbitrate if it is disputed. Probably just leave it to the legal owners of a copyrighted item to challenge if they wish; after all, it is those people who were 'wronged' in the first place.

2) Of course not - there is no deception, so nothing illegal.

Might be worth keeping an eye on the people who bought them though.

Edited by Peter Richer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comment now!

Comments are members only

Sign Up

Join Soul Source - Free & easy!

Sign up now!

Sign in

Sign in here.

Sign in now!

Adverts



×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.