Hi All, I bought this as an original quite a few years ago. I got it at a good price which probably should have been an indication. Just wanting authorative viewpoint that I was duped as I had been thinking of moving it on and do not want to list as original if it is the early 70s boot. See photos attached.

Many Thanks in advance Dave

Hi I was very confused with this too having the same label release.

 

Going on this link below it seems that it all hinges on the matrix. The real ones have a more roughly scratched in matrix as can be seen here:

 

 

The boots have a clearer scratched in matrix as seen here:

 

 

That's how i've understood it - i may well be wrong though as there is a ton of confused info on this.

 

Check it out here:

 

https://www.soul-source.co.uk/more/soul-library/sam-and-kitty-ive-got-something-good-four-brothers-r28038

 

Hope that helps.

 

Best,

 

J

Edited November 28, 20168 yr by corbett80
making info clearer

Has your copy got LW and AT scratched in the run out groove. Plus it should have W on it's own around the deadwax as well.

I have the 100% original yellow vinyl issue, of this rarer variation of label design. 

I used to have a bootleg white demo that I bought in error, way back in the 70's.  They are very convincing.

Edited November 15, 20168 yr by Guest

I,m sure my yellow issue had licenced from atco records on it, not that it helps regarding a demo

Steve

According to Manship #5, it may be a boot as the O in BRoS is smaller than the other three capitals. The original and boot demos are virtually identical apart from the matrix markings, the info from solidsoul above being particularly relevant. You could check out Popsike to see the variants and differentiating detail - one sold for about £200 a few months back if I recall and that looked pretty real.

Thanks for all the responses,

I read through past forum post and I am now definite, that I am the proud owner of a boot.

As per solidsoul there is no AT or W in dead wax. The 4 in the run out is also an exact replica of counterfeit as shown by Corbet80.

I didn't pay alot for it but would not have purchased if buyer had stated it was a bootleg. At least now I know

Regards

Dave

Sorry i should of mentioned you need the AT and W also

I have updated my matrix scans for this press.

ORIGINAL

COUNTERFEIT