Something I've noticed

[DeltaSouth]

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, 2016 by VinylvilleLA

[Larsc]

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?

[Jnixon]

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?

[Cover-up]

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...

[Lionelonthevinyl]

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

[Frankie Crocker]

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.