The Magnetics Ra-sel Boot

[Steve G]

1 hour ago, Marc Forrest said:

As far as the Magnetics is concerned the boot is easy to tell once you' ve seen an original. Text print is blurred on every line, label appears to be darker than the original, thing just looks cheap and badly photo copied. Still I am sure one or two poor newcomers with money to burn will get burned soon if and when one comes on the market. I know its been said its kinda "vanity project" but sure records do change hands sooner or later..

It is easier to see when you see them lined up together like that. When I originally saw the boot I didn't have the benefit of the original to compare it with, but you could still tell it was a boot even without the original (Post 2 above). The faded writing gives it away and the vinyl is shiny new. As for changing hands, yes I agree they do end up changing hands, someone who got one of the Greater Experience boots posted it up on FB the other day saying "what is it worth?" If he got it for free or not very much he'd know full well it was not legit. I wonder how many records are subject to this "vanity project"?   

PS: I used to have that kitchen surface as well. Replaced about 8 years ago but still in the utility room ha ha!

Edited January 1, 2016 by Steve G

[Woodbutcher]

Tweaked the Boot pic to bring it a bit closer to the Real one ... 

[Pete S]

58 minutes ago, Steve G said:

someone who got one of the Greater Experience boots posted it up on FB the other day saying "what is it worth?" If he got it for free or not very much he'd know full well it was not legit.

He would have indeed Steve - 100%.  The only reason for posting is to 'show it off'.

[Pete S]

1 hour ago, Steve G said:

It is easier to see when you see them lined up together like that. When I originally saw the boot I didn't have the benefit of the original to compare it with, but you could still tell it was a boot even without the original (Post 2 above). The faded writing gives it away and the vinyl is shiny new. As for changing hands, yes I agree they do end up changing hands, someone who got one of the Greater Experience boots posted it up on FB the other day saying "what is it worth?" If he got it for free or not very much he'd know full well it was not legit. I wonder how many records are subject to this "vanity project"?   

PS: I used to have that kitchen surface as well. Replaced about 8 years ago but still in the utility room ha ha!

Also on the same subject - the person posting it on FB - when I got the Magnetics, did anyone see me (or anyone else) posting it up and saying wow guys, do you think this is an original?  Answer - no - wasn't interested in showing it off, getting opinions, anything, just put it away and forgot about it.  As opposed to posting it on FB the second I got it.

[Dave Pinch]

5 hours ago, Marc Forrest said:

As far as the Magnetics is concerned the boot is easy to tell once you' ve seen an original. Text print is blurred on every line, label appears to be darker than the original, thing just looks cheap and badly photo copied. Still I am sure one or two poor newcomers with money to burn will get burned soon if and when one comes on the market. I know its been said its kinda "vanity project" but sure records do change hands sooner or later..

agree mark it looks blurred and you can see the `brush marks` if you know what i mean

 

[Guest briktf]

Both these boots look pretty convincing, was there only a handful done for a few people or mass produced? Does anyone know? 

[Triode]

On 1 January 2016 at 14:32, Ted Massey said:

A real one bought of Tim Ashibendi (colouredman on here) in 1987/8

Ted, can you confirm letters under the label? In the area of the c & t in the word production of your scan?

just to prove I'm not imagining this.............. Weird how things like this stick in the brain.

regards

[Garrison]

On 12/29/2015 at 16:34, Triode said:

Doesn't the original have "raised" letters underneath the label ? similar to  the epitome of sound,

could be a quick way of spotting the boot.

 

 Thanks for that.   I've never noticed that stamp before

 

My copy has 3 letters I think   my eyes are not so good these days

 The stamp is on love and devotion side.     This is want I think I can see

 I  ?  O         .    Be nice if somebody else could confirm this

[Ady Potts]

Triode, you didn't imagine it mate, here you go.....

Edited January 2, 2016 by pottsy

[Chalky]

Looks like what could be 481 or 181 then what could be a C and maybe a faint something else unless it is the label

[Ady Potts]

Chalky, I just had a look a look under an eye glass & it looks like it could be 121 followed by a marking I can't make out. I just compared it to the Epitome Of Sound & it looks like it could be the exact same markings ?

[Chalky]

1 minute ago, pottsy said:

Chalky, I just had a look a look under an eye glass & it looks like it could be 121 followed by a marking I can't make out. I just compared it to the Epitome Of Sound & it looks like it could be the exact same markings ?

Could be mate, I thought a 2 at first but it does look too curved for me, like an S but would imagine it being a number.  Pretty sure it is the beginning of a C after the three numbers.

[Markw]

On ‎01‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 14:36, Pete S said:

Ted going by the centre you appear to have the same kitchen worktop as I do, how about that!

No he doesn't. Ted's kitchen worktop is counterfeit. You can tell because the marbling is more blurry etc etc etc...........................

[Marc Forrest]

On 2. Januar 2016 at 19:39, pottsy said:

Chalky, I just had a look a look under an eye glass & it looks like it could be 121 followed by a marking I can't make out. I just compared it to the Epitome Of Sound & it looks like it could be the exact same markings ?

can confirm that, same marking on my copy

[Pete S]

my info was incorrect hence me deleting it

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Pete S
incorrect info

[Dave Abbott]

On 1/2/2016 at 18:42, chalky said:

Could be mate, I thought a 2 at first but it does look too curved for me, like an S but would imagine it being a number.  Pretty sure it is the beginning of a C after the three numbers.

probably pressed at MSI. CO pressing plant in Philly (which may read MSI CO backwards)

[Woodbutcher]

27 minutes ago, Dave Abbott said:

probably pressed at MSI. CO pressing plant in Philly (which may read MSI CO backwards)

Good call sir ... 

Have zoomed in on it , flipped it and that looks pretty much what I see , have "filled in" some gaps to get this ... 

[Woodbutcher]

As seen on 45 and the info from Anoraks Corner.

[Shinehead]

Been reading this topic with interest , but could somebody tell me what is a '' vanity project '' as described in a few earlier posts ? is not a bootleg just that ?

[Pete S]

2 minutes ago, shinehead said:

Been reading this topic with interest , but could somebody tell me what is a '' vanity project '' as described in a few earlier posts ? is not a bootleg just that ?

If I paid someone to make me a lookalike record I'd call that a vanity project.  It is also a bootleg, obviously.  

[Shinehead]

28 minutes ago, Pete S said:

If I paid someone to make me a lookalike record I'd call that a vanity project.  It is also a bootleg, obviously.  

Thanks for that , could also be called a '' what's the point project '' also I suppose if there is no deceit involved for the buyer of the initial records.

[Steve G]

1 hour ago, shinehead said:

Been reading this topic with interest , but could somebody tell me what is a '' vanity project '' as described in a few earlier posts ? is not a bootleg just that ?

In this case it means pressing up a small number of records, for "personal use" - obviously it is not one copy of the record, there are a number. So small scale bootlegging to you or me.  

[Woodbutcher]

15 minutes ago, Steve G said:

In this case it means pressing up a small number of records, for "personal use" - obviously it is not one copy of the record, there are a number. So small scale bootlegging to you or me.  

Depending on how many the bootlegger's got tucked under the stairs that is ... 

[Pete S]

8 minutes ago, WoodButcher said:

Depending on how many the bootlegger's got tucked under the stairs that is ... 

This is the danger.  I would sell my copy of The Magnetics as a very limited lookalike, but what happens if six months down the line, a shitload turn up.

[Peter99]

Sounds like someone has been ripped off good and proper - all for the sake of an individual(s) "vanity project". 

 

[purist]

I don't like the use of the phrase " vanity project" to refer to bootlegs. originally Vanity Pressings were when the artist or someone associated with them, paid for a quantity to be pressed without the artist being signed to a proper label. Dora Hall is sometimes quoted as an example, supposedly her husband was a well off man who financed her recordings and the pressing of the actual records (although she did record for some actual labels as well) Often the garage band Northern 45's which appear to be rare items are examples of this self made, self pressed "vanity" projects. It had multiple benefits, it gave them something to sell at gigs, it gave them an aura of significance with radio stations and could also be used to attract official labels. (didn't the pressing of the Lost Soul's Secret of Mine get paid for by some band members parents? one of many examples we've heard of down the years)
If it is the case that an artist upon discovering that his 60's 45 is fetching massive sums then represses it as a look-a-like it would be down to the wording of the contract of ownership of the recording whether it was a bootleg or legit second pressing, albeit 50 years after the first pressing., but vanity??? 
Look-a-like, a tribute to the beauty of the original, or an attempt to deceive?

[Woodbutcher]

Well hopefully this thread and the one on the FB page will have provided enough info so that no-one else gets caught out by the wrong'uns , at least there's a fairly definitive guide to it now.

 

[Woodbutcher]

And I'm presuming that someone out there knows where/who they came from , why not just name and shame them so that the unwary can avoid them in future ... ?

[Pete S]

2 hours ago, purist said:

I don't like the use of the phrase " vanity project" to refer to bootlegs. originally Vanity Pressings were when the artist or someone associated with them, paid for a quantity to be pressed without the artist being signed to a proper label. Dora Hall is sometimes quoted as an example, supposedly her husband was a well off man who financed her recordings and the pressing of the actual records (although she did record for some actual labels as well) Often the garage band Northern 45's which appear to be rare items are examples of this self made, self pressed "vanity" projects. It had multiple benefits, it gave them something to sell at gigs, it gave them an aura of significance with radio stations and could also be used to attract official labels. (didn't the pressing of the Lost Soul's Secret of Mine get paid for by some band members parents? one of many examples we've heard of down the years)
If it is the case that an artist upon discovering that his 60's 45 is fetching massive sums then represses it as a look-a-like it would be down to the wording of the contract of ownership of the recording whether it was a bootleg or legit second pressing, albeit 50 years after the first pressing., but vanity??? 
Look-a-like, a tribute to the beauty of the original, or an attempt to deceive?

Well it was me who used the phrase vanity project so I apologise for that, obviously the wrong term.  When these types of record are made, I have no qualms about them, I don't get involved in the rights and wrongs of copyright, what I do object to is when someone purposely sells one as an original to deceive somebody.

2 hours ago, WoodButcher said:

And I'm presuming that someone out there knows where/who they came from , why not just name and shame them so that the unwary can avoid them in future ... ?

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Pete S

[Woodbutcher]

3 minutes ago, Pete S said:

 What's to be ashamed of?  (apart from the person who sold the copy as an original)

That's what I meant Pete , if someone knows who did the selling then they ought to let folk know , if they got away with one copy who's to say they're not sitting on others to dribble out , can't believe that there has been just a few copies pressed ... surely the expense of doing a small number wouldn't warrant the work involved ... ?

[Chalky]

4 hours ago, WoodButcher said:

Good call sir ... 

Have zoomed in on it , flipped it and that looks pretty much what I see , have "filled in" some gaps to get this ... 

You can actually see all the MSI CO markings now its blown up

I doubt its a vanity project. Whoever has done these playing a clever game IMO.  Beaides it's gone past vanity as someone has paid good money for one just recently by the sounds of things.

[Chalky]

2 hours ago, WoodButcher said:

That's what I meant Pete , if someone knows who did the selling then they ought to let folk know , if they got away with one copy who's to say they're not sitting on others to dribble out , can't believe that there has been just a few copies pressed ... surely the expense of doing a small number wouldn't warrant the work involved ... ?

I agree whoever is selling them as originals should be named but not until the buyer has sought recompense. For all we know the seller could well be acting in good faith.  Someone is on the case, see what comes out of it first.

if the seller knew it was a bootleg then he is in some bother, morally and legally.

Edited January 4, 2016 by chalky

[Pete S]

13 minutes ago, chalky said:

I agree whoever is selling them as originals should be named but not until the buyer has sought recompense. For all we know the seller could well be acting in good faith.  Someone is on the case, see what comes out of it first.

if the seller knew it was a bootleg then he is in some bother, morally and legally.

I deleted my previous comments because it does seem that the copy in question actually was an original and not a lookalike, and I don't want to cast aspersions if I've got it wrong

[Chalky]

38 minutes ago, Pete S said:

I deleted my previous comments because it does seem that the copy in question actually was an original and not a lookalike, and I don't want to cast aspersions if I've got it wrong

Providing we are talking about the same copy.  But even so I've no wish to name any names till its proven one way or t'other