I've worked in the music business for decades, as a sound tech, a record store owner, and worked for record companies over the years in the USA.

Many small labels only would press 500 - 600 records for some releases.
Fairly darn rare, on a planet with a world population of 7.4 billion folks.

7.4 billion people divided by 500 or so, doesn't go very far.

I noticed some people don't consider that "rare".

I find them to be mistaken and have no clue about what rarity truly is.
This seems to occur with "collectors" more than I would expect.

Edited December 8, 20168 yr by VinylvilleLA

On 8.12.2016 at 20:11, VinylvilleLA said:

7.4 billion people divided by 500 or so, doesn't go very far.

Are there 7.4 billion soul collectors?

And did all 500 survive through the decades?

On 12/8/2016 at 19:11, VinylvilleLA said:

I've worked in the music business for decades, as a sound tech, a record store owner, and worked for record companies over the years in the USA.

Many small labels only would press 500 - 600 records for some releases.
Fairly darn rare, on a planet with a world population of 7.4 billion folks.

7.4 billion people divided by 500 or so, doesn't go very far.

I noticed some people don't consider that "rare".

I find them to be mistaken and have no clue about what rarity truly is.
This seems to occur with "collectors" more than I would expect.

 

 im guessing a lot of bands up until the present day could chip in and afford to press 600 records but if its a poor tune its means nothing. whats  made you say this?

In my opinion the value of a record is determined by four distinct elements: quality of music, demand, rarity and condition. Plenty of records are rare, but nobody wants them (I'm forever stumbling across private press Scottish country dancing albums - rare, yes. In demand, no. Hence value: minimal). There's plenty of very expensive singles which aren't rare at all, but hundreds of collectors want them, obviously in the best condition possible.

 

I agree, though. A fragile artefact manufactured in a run of 500 over 50 years ago is, by definition, rare. At least half will be in landfill. But if the quality isn't there, there's little demand...

13 minutes ago, JNixon said:

 

 im guessing a lot of bands up until the present day could chip in and afford to press 600 records but if its a poor tune its means nothing. whats  made you say this?

I agree, rarity doesn't mean quality.....kind regards....Rob

On 11/12/2016 at 20:30, cover-up said:

In my opinion the value of a record is determined by four distinct elements: quality of music, demand, rarity and condition. Plenty of records are rare, but nobody wants them (I'm forever stumbling across private press Scottish country dancing albums - rare, yes. In demand, no. Hence value: minimal). There's plenty of very expensive singles which aren't rare at all, but hundreds of collectors want them, obviously in the best condition possible.

 

I agree, though. A fragile artefact manufactured in a run of 500 over 50 years ago is, by definition, rare. At least half will be in landfill. But if the quality isn't there, there's little demand...

Very true but I would add a fifth factor, availability. Even rare records become impossible to acquire if they are locked up in collections. Some rare records continue to come to market as owners 'sell-on' to fund bigger wants. A small press-run with labels off-centre or reversed could have been pulped leaving only tiny numbers in circulation. A check on Popsike confirms that some records exist in single digits only, others in dozens and a few in the hundreds such as Jack Mongomery, Ruby Andrews, Dee Clarke etc. There's different degrees of rarity but past demand can hugely limit curent market availability.