Is this a counterfiet ?

Hadn't really paid much attention to it as it was a cheapie, but when i loaded it on to Ebay a warning came up that i might be loading a 'counterfiet item'

It has a stamped number & matrix, though notice now that there is a little red R by the logo, does this signify a re-issue ?

Also, as the Motown empire regularly re-issued is there a sure fire way to tell 1st issues ?

Edited June 30, 200717 yr by Bogue

Is this a counterfiet ?

Hadn't really paid much attention to it as it was a cheapie, but when i loaded it on to Ebay a warning came up that i might be loading a 'counterfiet item'

It has a stamped number & matrix, though notice now that there is a little red R by the logo, does this signify a re-issue ?

Also, as the Motown empire regularly re-issued is there a sure fire way to tell 1st issues ?

think the R means registered trade mark and not reissued

think the R means registered trade mark and not reissued

Thought the same too It's just i can't recall seeing that many with it on now i come to think of it.

Hi Bogue,

As far as I've always been aware The R is the date that the song was registered with Ascap/BMI. Can't remember any bootlegs/reissued of the main core of the Tamla/Motown etc labelled stuff. The Pinks were "reissued" in the 80s and there are 45s repros of some rarer items like Patrice Holloway (VIP) etc, but I think the availalblity of tracks like IGIALY on original vinyl would preclude tye bootleggers being interested.

Best,

Dave

www.theresthatbeat.com

www.hitsvillesoulclub.com

Hi Bogue,

As far as I've always been aware The R is the date that the song was registered with Ascap/BMI. Can't remember any bootlegs/reissued of the main core of the Tamla/Motown etc labelled stuff. The Pinks were "reissued" in the 80s and there are 45s repros of some rarer items like Patrice Holloway (VIP) etc, but I think the availalblity of tracks like IGIALY on original vinyl would preclude tye bootleggers being interested.

Best,

Dave

www.theresthatbeat.com

www.hitsvillesoulclub.com

Thanks for that Dave

Remember the 'Pinks' coming out in some box sets if i remember correctly, though seems some people split them 'cause i've got a couple here somewhere.

Back to the one i put up, I had already listed it & then tried to edit when the warning came up so it could just be someone trying to mess up the couple of sales i put up, as you can report items to Ebay. Sad if that's the case !

Looking forward to getting the Aniversary issue of the mag, god it's never 12 months is it ? !!

Hope it's proving a financial success for you guys, it deserves to for the quality of it !

Hi Bogue,

As far as I've always been aware The R is the date that the song was registered with Ascap/BMI. Can't remember any bootlegs/reissued of the main core of the Tamla/Motown etc labelled stuff. The Pinks were "reissued" in the 80s and there are 45s repros of some rarer items like Patrice Holloway (VIP) etc, but I think the availalblity of tracks like IGIALY on original vinyl would preclude tye bootleggers being interested.

Best,

Dave

www.theresthatbeat.com

www.hitsvillesoulclub.com

...the thing is, though, Dave, there's a bit of difference between bootlegging a rarity 'after the event' and counterfeiting a hit record to cream off some potential chart action. More records than we might care to know about were allegedly counterfeited in the 60s. IGIALY might well have been one that was counterfeited at the time of its release, by someone who thought it was going to turn into a bigger hit than it actualy was, in the expectation that he would get a piece of the overall sales. I've never seen a copy that's aroused my suspicion before, although this one does look a bit rum I must admit.

Motown were no strangers to this practice - Raynoma Liles Gordy Singleton admitted, in her biography, that she and Eddie Singleton counterfeited 'My Guy', when it was going up the charts, to spite her ex-husband Berry. Other known examples of Motown records that were counterfeited include "Ask The Lonely" and "Where Did Our Love Go?", albeit probably not by the Singletons.

That weird looking Ric Tic pressing of "Stop Her On Sight" that seems to get discussed on here every few months or so, is also a counterfeit. Technically it's also a bootleg, of course, as are all the aforementioned items. But as a rule of thumb, I'd say that records are always counterfeited if they're pressed illegally while still a new release, and bootlegged if they're manufactured to meet collector demand.

Incidentally, many years ago I was shown a list of sales figures for the first 100 TMGs and, although i was not allowed to copy it, I can still remember some of the total sales of individual records. It might surprise a lot of people to know that IGIALY was one of the poorest selling 45s of those released between TMG 550 and 599 (It actually sold less copies than "Take Some Time Out For Love"). Another comparatively poor seller was the Temptations' "Get Ready" which didn't even sell 1000 copies on TMG 557. Surprising that records that are now considered to be genre classics did so badly, isn't it?

Is this a counterfiet ? when i loaded it on to Ebay a warning came up that i might be loading a 'counterfiet item'

Are you saying that eBay automatically responded to your upload with a warning ?? - must say i've never known this to happen before, it's usually afterwards if someone complains that a problem may arise - was there something in your description that flagged up a problem ??

Cheers

Mick

https://northern-soul-records.com

...the thing is, though, Dave, there's a bit of difference between bootlegging a rarity 'after the event' and counterfeiting a hit record to cream off some potential chart action. More records than we might care to know about were allegedly counterfeited in the 60s. IGIALY might well have been one that was counterfeited at the time of its release, by someone who thought it was going to turn into a bigger hit than it actualy was, in the expectation that he would get a piece of the overall sales. I've never seen a copy that's aroused my suspicion before, although this one does look a bit rum I must admit.

Motown were no strangers to this practice - Raynoma Liles Gordy Singleton admitted, in her biography, that she and Eddie Singleton counterfeited 'My Guy', when it was going up the charts, to spite her ex-husband Berry. Other known examples of Motown records that were counterfeited include "Ask The Lonely" and "Where Did Our Love Go?", albeit probably not by the Singletons.

That weird looking Ric Tic pressing of "Stop Her On Sight" that seems to get discussed on here every few months or so, is also a counterfeit. Technically it's also a bootleg, of course, as are all the aforementioned items. But as a rule of thumb, I'd say that records are always counterfeited if they're pressed illegally while still a new release, and bootlegged if they're manufactured to meet collector demand.

Incidentally, many years ago I was shown a list of sales figures for the first 100 TMGs and, although i was not allowed to copy it, I can still remember some of the total sales of individual records. It might surprise a lot of people to know that IGIALY was one of the poorest selling 45s of those released between TMG 550 and 599 (It actually sold less copies than "Take Some Time Out For Love"). Another comparatively poor seller was the Temptations' "Get Ready" which didn't even sell 1000 copies on TMG 557. Surprising that records that are now considered to be genre classics did so badly, isn't it?

Thanks for that info Tony Think i will take it off just in case.

The more I look at it the more it looks dodgy, & it looks a bit new, which is a bit worrying re thinking it to be old counterfeit rather than new, though could have been stored away i suppose.

Run out info is ; stamped number is TK4M -- 0413-1-B, there is a very small neatly scratched HII -198311 A (the A is horizontal though) & a stamped matrix that looks like three fancy signature type letters, not nashville or bellsound anyway.

Have you seen the red R by the globes before ? I don't handle enough records to be able to cast a concrete observation, but it's the first one i have seen.

Cheers,

Bogue

P.s.

Just put a better scan up

Edited July 1, 200717 yr by Bogue

Are you saying that eBay automatically responded to your upload with a warning ?? - must say i've never known this to happen before, it's usually afterwards if someone complains that a problem may arise - was there something in your description that flagged up a problem ??

Cheers

Mick

https://northern-soul-records.com

No Mick, it had been up for about 24 hrs & i tried to edit it, knock price down & load a counter, it was then that the warning came up that i may be trying to load a counterfeit item up & that it might be cancelled & my account suspended. There wasen't anything different in the description to all the others i put up & this was the only one that it happened with.

Knowing Ebay's reputation of just acting without finding out the facts, as they do with other things, it's a bit worrying, anyone could mess up someones sales just for the hell of it.

All seems crazy to me when the record in question was up for only 6 quid !

looks kosher to me - never seen a counterfeit with the stamped in TK4M numbers...

There are at least two then dave

looks kosher to me - never seen a counterfeit with the stamped in TK4M numbers...

I thought that was a pretty safe way of telling Pikey, but i suppose what Tony says casts a bit of doubt.

This Isley Brothers 45 looks completely legitimate to me.

Tony is correct in mentioning the number of Motown 45s which were counterfeited at the time of their release: the Miss Ray case is notorious, and several other Motown hits fell victim to more organised bootlegging. It must be remembered that Motown were an independent who were able to shift relatively huge numbers of records: a situation which aroused the interest of many shady figures in and around the record business (they thought that Mr Gordy probably didn't have the muscle to fight off such attacks, and that Motown's chart supremacy would not have the longevity it subsequently enjoyed).

looks kosher to me - never seen a counterfeit with the stamped in TK4M numbers...

Here are a few more, Including another T-54135.

The T-54138 DEMO doesn't have the ® but is Stamped TK4M

I have noticed it is the later numbers just before design change. The Later design had the ® Just below the TAMLA.

I have no doubt that counterfeits as Tony describes, are out there, but as to which ones ??????

Here are a few more, Including another T-54135.

The T-54138 DEMO doesn't have the ® but is Stamped TK4M

I have noticed it is the later numbers just before design change. The Later design had the ® Just below the TAMLA.

I have no doubt that counterfeits as Tony describes, are out there, but as to which ones ??????

It is a nightmare with the Motown 45's, here's a slightly different Brenda Holloway STHAOA, a hybrid of your two

As I said, i can't remember seeing the R on the Globe ones, but by the looks of it it's not uncommon, perhaps i just never noticed, have to go & have a good look through collection.

Seeing the ones you have with the brown lettering I vaguely remember someone saying that they were later issues, any truth in that ?

...More records than we might care to know about were allegedly counterfeited in the 60s. Motown were no strangers to this practice - Raynoma Liles Gordy Singleton admitted, in her biography, that she and Eddie Singleton counterfeited 'My Guy', when it was going up the charts, to spite her ex-husband Berry. Other known examples of Motown records that were counterfeited include "Ask The Lonely" and "Where Did Our Love Go?", albeit probably not by the Singletons.

The FBI investigated the Singletons in May 1964. The charges involved 5000 bootlegged singles mostly of Mary Wells' 'My Guy' Gordy didn't pursue the charges and they were subsequently dropped.

It is a nightmare with the Motown 45's, here's a slightly different Brenda Holloway STHAOA, a hybrid of your two

As I said, i can't remember seeing the R on the Globe ones, but by the looks of it it's not uncommon, perhaps i just never noticed, have to go & have a good look through collection.

Seeing the ones you have with the brown lettering I vaguely remember someone saying that they were later issues, any truth in that ?

Sort of, as the East Coast Press tend to be Brown Lettering on the Later Design.

Your Copy looks to be a West Coast Monarch Delta Stamped, Styrene copy which in my experience kept the Black Lettering.

<-- East Coast

<-- West Coast

Edited July 1, 200717 yr by 45cellar

Different pressing plants. Monarch in California would have overprinted titles on their Tamla blanks with black type (silver on Soul, Gordy and Motown), while the other vinyl copy of the Brenda Holloway 45 is from somewhere else, possibly in the midwest.

I don't know if anyone has done an exhaustive study of the number of pressing facilities used by Motown in different parts of the US, but there are probably several regional variations of each of the popular (and not so popular) titles.

It might be useful if someone could post a scan of a Motown 45 which is defintely a counterfeit. I don't think I've ever actually seen one.

Different pressing plants. Monarch in California would have overprinted titles on their Tamla blanks with black type (silver on Soul, Gordy and Motown), while the other vinyl copy of the Brenda Holloway 45 is from somewhere else, possibly in the midwest.

I don't know if anyone has done an exhaustive study of the number of pressing facilities used by Motown in different parts of the US, but there are probably several regional variations of each of the popular (and not so popular) titles.

It might be useful if someone could post a scan of a Motown 45 which is defintely a counterfeit. I don't think I've ever actually seen one.

Here's the best that I can do:

As you can (just about!) see, the colours are out, and there's no address or 'a trademark of...' around the lower rim of the label.

This one is actually pressed from pukka RCA stampers, but the quality of the plastic is so cheap that a collector would know in a minute that it's dodgy. But to an 18 year old kid who's heard the record on AM radio and just wants to own a copy to play on his or her portable record player, it would be no different to a legit pressing I guess...

There are different designs for this one but this shows the Same Design with slight differences to the credits,

I guess issued by two different pressing plants.

& Another

Edited July 1, 200717 yr by 45cellar

Here's the best that I can do:

As you can (just about!) see, the colours are out, and there's no address or 'a trademark of...' around the lower rim of the label.

This one is actually pressed from pukka RCA stampers, but the quality of the plastic is so cheap that a collector would know in a minute that it's dodgy. But to an 18 year old kid who's heard the record on AM radio and just wants to own a copy to play on his or her portable record player, it would be no different to a legit pressing I guess...

Pretty good at first glance too, especially with the grubby label as it disguises the lack of address & trademark.

Do you know which others were counterfeited ? Was it just a few titles or many ? (actualy, think you may have answered that one, to an extent, earlier

Edited July 1, 200717 yr by Bogue

...the thing is, though, Dave, there's a bit of difference between bootlegging a rarity 'after the event' and counterfeiting a hit record to cream off some potential chart action. More records than we might care to know about were allegedly counterfeited in the 60s. IGIALY might well have been one that was counterfeited at the time of its release, by someone who thought it was going to turn into a bigger hit than it actualy was, in the expectation that he would get a piece of the overall sales. I've never seen a copy that's aroused my suspicion before, although this one does look a bit rum I must admit.

Hi Tony,

Yep, That's a great point actually. I don't see how we can ever be sure unless someone does an exhaustive investigation of the labels. It's such a massive undertaking. Different plants, different distributors, old stock of labels, "small legal" differences in some 45s of the same song. Subsequent further pressing runs to meet demand of a hit. I suppose that's one of the attractions of collecting it all eh?

Tell you what Mate...my missus recons it simply CAN'Tt be good for us!

Regards,

Dave

www.theresthatbeat.com

www.hitsvillesoulclub.com

What about this on EBay at the mo. Ive not seen this font for Motown before, but then I know nowt

What about this on EBay at the mo. Ive not seen this font for Motown before, but then I know nowt

Another that certainly looks kosher to me.

Miff, you asking about the song or the label? The label design is definitely Kosher. Same as mine as far as I can remember. Unless of course mines dodgy too!

God, Tony's got me all paroid now!! I'm off to dig my Motown boxes out and check 'em all!

Regards,

Dave

www.theresthatbeat.

www.hitsvillesoulclub.com

What about this on EBay at the mo. Ive not seen this font for Motown before, but then I know nowt

Hi Miff

Yes, that one is OK.

When I can find it, I think that I have the Counterfeit of "Where Did Our Love Go"

Hi Miff

Yes, that one is OK.

When I can find it, I think that I have the Counterfeit of "Where Did Our Love Go"

So are the counterfits more rare then, and if so more collectable

Good Question, as "Soul Sounds" Boots have become quite collectable

I must find that copy of "Where Did Our Love Go", it's not with my other Motown Stuff.

I bought it from a Market Stall in the 70's, always thought that the Vinyl was extremely rough,

not scratched just rough (Poor Quality) as is the Label.

The FBI investigated the Singletons in May 1964. The charges involved 5000 bootlegged singles mostly of Mary Wells' 'My Guy' Gordy didn't pursue the charges and they were subsequently dropped.

but didnt berry make her sign her motown rights away for a small sum

...surprising that records that are now considered to be genre classics did so badly, isn't it?

I'd be extremely interested to hear how many other well known Soul classics sold a relatively small number of copies on initial release. Remember Dave Godin mentioning that Bessie Banks only sold about 80 copies(!) on UK Red Bird due to the "sale or return" policy then operating?

How many copies did various non-charting 70's Soul items sell in the UK? Anyone know?

I also read somewhere than quite popular UK Soul albums sold staggeringly small quantities, even by the mid-seventies!

Is this a counterfiet ?

Hadn't really paid much attention to it as it was a cheapie, but when i loaded it on to Ebay a warning came up that i might be loading a 'counterfiet item'

It has a stamped number & matrix, though notice now that there is a little red R by the logo, does this signify a re-issue ?

Also, as the Motown empire regularly re-issued is there a sure fire way to tell 1st issues ?

not sure about the disk, but regarding ebay

ebay is (finally) starting to police counterfeits on their site. this is mainly in response to huge amounts of fake clothing being sold on their site. labels like Burberry, Armani, Stone Island, Evisu and the like. huge amounts of fakes are available on ebay, even now with the enforcements they are attempting now. its a dilemma for ebay, as they actually make a lot of money from it, but its illegal.

i would speculate that their software checks for auctions mentioning trademark named items. "tamla" for example may be flagged by their system. you would then be contacted by them advising its illegal to sell fakes. this gets them out of their liability (to some extent).

they have no database of whats fake and whats not. (may be good if they did tho. be able to check all our disks.lol) its just that there are legal implications for them to allow counterfeit sales. they just want you to accept liability for it rather than them. i believe that for them to pursue it in any way it would take the trademark owner, or their agent, to contact ebay to complain in the first place.

i sell some designer clothing on ebay, and get the same kind of messages every time now. its never followed up in any way.

bottom line is, dont worry about it, its not you they're after. they are after the sellers making (good) money from moody burberry scarves and the like.

hope this helps (although the discussion on labels is far more interesting)

Interesting ebay will now be able to take 100's if not 1000's of records off their site. As I have previously stated the yanks have been bootlegging 45's since at least the late 1950's. I think at the end of the day unless it's a boot of a new release they will just have to let it go as it's almost impossible to tell the difference unless you are a real expert on a particular item/label.

Edited July 2, 200717 yr by Netspeaky

There are different designs for this one but this shows the Same Design with slight differences to the credits,

I guess issued by two different pressing plants.

& Another

The one's on the right look Canadian to me ? Any thoughts ?,Best ,Eddie

The one's on the right look Canadian to me ? Any thoughts ?,Best ,Eddie

Was thinking the same myself...

Pressed up in Canada because U.S. plants were too busy?

The records above are pressed at two different RCA plants in the U.S.

Edited July 2, 200717 yr by garethx

Here's the best that I can do:

As you can (just about!) see, the colours are out, and there's no address or 'a trademark of...' around the lower rim of the label.

This one is actually pressed from pukka RCA stampers, but the quality of the plastic is so cheap that a collector would know in a minute that it's dodgy. But to an 18 year old kid who's heard the record on AM radio and just wants to own a copy to play on his or her portable record player, it would be no different to a legit pressing I guess...

Not too sure if you are right about this on Tony, Motown were in a hurry to get a Four Tops in the charts so they worked all night to get this record cut from tapes, they took an acetate to the pant and the record was released from that, the master tapes were lost so they recorded another version for the LP.

Not too sure if you are right about this on Tony, Motown were in a hurry to get a Four Tops in the charts so they worked all night to get this record cut from tapes, they took an acetate to the pant and the record was released from that, the master tapes were lost so they recorded another version for the LP.

I'm not talking about the audio to this record, which is the regular audio that you hear on genuine copies of the 45, and I have already said that it's pressed from genuine RCA stampers. This is a counterfiet pressing, manufactured on inferior vinyl that patently isn't of the regular Motown standard. The label colours are obviously not right, there's no 'P 1964 Motown Record Corporation' on the label and you would only have to hold the thing in your hands for a second to realise that it's not a 'real' one.

As has been said before, there are many known examples of counterfeited hit records and considerably more that we probably don't know about it. What counterfieting has to do with mastering a track from an acetate and re-recording it for an LP I really don't know. Or understand, sorry. And I don't believe that Motown ever lost a mastertape of a hit record, either. Even if they did, they would have had a multi-track tape back at Hitsville to mix another mastertape from...

I'd be extremely interested to hear how many other well known Soul classics sold a relatively small number of copies on initial release. Remember Dave Godin mentioning that Bessie Banks only sold about 80 copies(!) on UK Red Bird due to the "sale or return" policy then operating?

How many copies did various non-charting 70's Soul items sell in the UK? Anyone know?

I also read somewhere than quite popular UK Soul albums sold staggeringly small quantities, even by the mid-seventies!

I'd query that figure as there are a lot of Go Now's on Red Bird around, unless they became available after the record was deleted

As far as I've always been aware The R is the date that the song was registered with Ascap/BMI.

Dave,

I'm virtually certain that the ® refers to the registration of the trademark/logo. Sometimes the © symbol was used, and often with the date of registration. Mar-V-Lus (1963) and Jewel (1965) are two examples that spring to mind.

I'd query that figure as there are a lot of Go Now's on Red Bird around, unless they became available after the record was deleted

I'd query it, too. Most 1960s UK soul records that I've ever seen sales figures for sold 2-300 copies at the very worst. Why should "Go Now" have sold less than 100? I personally know at least 10 people who would have bought it when it came out, and that's just among people I'm still in contact with. Does that mean I know more than 10% of the total number of people who bought it 'new'? Probably not.

I'd query it, too. Most 1960s UK soul records that I've ever seen sales figures for sold 2-300 copies at the very worst. Why should "Go Now" have sold less than 100? I personally know at least 10 people who would have bought it when it came out, and that's just among people I'm still in contact with. Does that mean I know more than 10% of the total number of people who bought it 'new'? Probably not.

That's interesting logic that you're using here, Tony.

I take it you are implying, as general proposition, that there must have been a considerably greater number of soul / girl group collectors than your immediate circle of friends and associates.

However , a few weeks back you were apparently insistent that were but a handful of serious ska/reggae collectors around the whole of the UK in the late 60's / early 70's ?

That's interesting logic that you're using here, Tony.

I take it you are implying, as general proposition, that there must have been a considerably greater number of soul / girl group collectors than your immediate circle of friends and associates.

However , a few weeks back you were apparently insistent that were but a handful of serious ska/reggae collectors around the whole of the UK in the late 60's / early 70's ?

If Soul records could sell a minimum 2-300 copies here - and this figure is not an assertion, it's based on info relayed to me by people who actually worked for UK labels back then and who were responsible for the release of some of our most treasured gems - there undoubtedly were more than 80 people up and down the UK who collected Soul in the mid 60s. It was already a highish profile music, artists were coming in all the time to appear on RSG etc. and to play shows. Major record companies were releasing the records, too. They were being written about and advertised in the likes of Record Mirror, giving the music a chance to expand its fan base on a weekly basis.

Little to none of this was the case with reggae. Only a few artists came to the UK between, say, 1964 and 1974, which was when Bob Marley really started to break. Reggae was almost never played on the radio or seen on the TV, the odd isolated example notwithstanding. Mainstream labels were not supporting reggae, at that time, and thus there was no scope for breaking it nationally apart from the odd hit here and there, almost always on Trojan.

There was very little interest in it from anything other than a collector's point of view and I will reiterate that most of the serious reggae collectors in the UK either knew each other personally, or knew of each other, so few of us were there. It was not then a music that was taking on new fans and collectors every week in the way that soul had been for some years previously, and it did not become as mainstream as soul already was in 1965, until the mid 70s.

I also belong to the Pama Forum, and I ran this question of how many seriously hard core UK-based reggae collectors there might have been in '72 past its membership. The general consensus bore out my feeling that there weren't many here, and even fewer beyond our shores. Apparently there were a couple in Holland that I didn't know about, but none of my PF fellow members believed that there were significant numbers anywhere else in the world - "less than one in America", apparently. The biggest estimate I got, including sound system operators who actually might have collected rather than merely hoarded, was 75. OK, I might have been a bit conservative in my estimate of 10-20, but even so it appears that I was not far wide of what might be seen as 'the mark'.

I would not have made such an assertion if I had not actually 'been there' to give you the benefit of a bit of first hand experience...

Edited July 10, 200717 yr by TONY ROUNCE

Collectors and people who bought records are two different animals, I know loads of people who have nice COLLECTABLE records in their pocession, it has nothing to do with collecting it was bought and played because they like it at the time, they have written on the label stuck stickers on them you name they've done it, collectors don't do they kind of thing, we like to keep them nice and clean. Also collectors chase records so we tend to know each other, the average record buyer doesn't give a toss who else has a copy of such and such record so you've no real way of knowing who has what really.

Collectors and people who bought records are two different animals, I know loads of people who have nice COLLECTABLE records in their pocession, it has nothing to do with collecting it was bought and played because they like it at the time

...and this is exactly the point I was making, and that Sunnysoul tried to take me to task over. Of course there were lots of people buying lots of reggae records back in 1972 - but whether they channelled their interest into an obsession is moot. Actual bonafide collectors, who would spend their bus fare home rather than lose the chance to buy the latest Alton Ellis or U-Roy release were not around in abundance...

...and this is exactly the point I was making, and that Sunnysoul tried to take me to task over. Of course there were lots of people buying lots of reggae records back in 1972 - but whether they channelled their interest into an obsession is moot. Actual bonafide collectors, who would spend their bus fare home rather than lose the chance to buy the latest Alton Ellis or U-Roy release were not around in abundance...

Tony, I would never dream of taking you to task , just prompting a bit of healthy discussion and debate.

I must say though that one of the things that has always amused me about "our (soul) scene" is the narrow frame of reference that has always been adopted by those actively participating within the scene.

Not accusing you of course but this narrow perspective of the world by soulies so often inevitably leads to the creation of a multitude of myths and legends !

For example, the time honoured phrase "only known copy' ! The "only known copy", that is, in the minds of a few thousand or so soulies existing in several small pockets around the UK at any one time !!!

Which inevitably leads us back to the Frank Wilson record !!!! On the balance of probabilities, it is not unreasonable to assert that there just HAVE to be more than two Frank Wilson's in existence, and if they are, they may well be in the hands of persons who neither know of nor care about the northern soul scene and have no interest whatsoever in trumpeting to the world at large that they own a Frank Wilson !!!

Same comments apply about the numbers or size of sub-cultures such as the northern/rare soul scene. Those on here who constantly express amazement and throw doubt on Mr Manship's auction prices simply do not take into account that the collecting of soul records has for some time now been a world wide phenomenon, as Mr Manship himself has often said.

So, those "silly prices'' that we see being paid at auction are more than likely being paid by people who have plenty of disposable income and for whom paying even a 1000 pounds above what we here would regard as book or market value is really of no concern to them. Good luck to them too, they are enjoying the fruits of their own labours no doubt !

There are also no doubt a great number of soul collectors around the world who have neither the inclination nor the time to waste on a computer looking at websites like Soul Source - or even ebay for that matter with all its various pitfalls - to find a record that they are after. They go straight to the world's best known and reputable soul dealer Mr Manship. Easy. If you've got the money, then why not spend 3,000 on a Manship auction record which we here may think is only worth 750 ?

Incidentally , if those in the UK thought that the only "soul'' scene and soul culture in the world in the 60's existed only in the United Kingdom , then think again. Just recently I have established that there was in fact an active and official Tamla Motown Appreciation Society based and operating in Melbourne, Australia throughout the 60's , and run not by UK expats but by Aussies !!!!!!!!! More on this in a future thread !!!! And I have also been lucky enough to get to know some very serious Australian ska and reggae collectors from the late 60's , so I think you had company on the other side of the world at that time Tony !!!!

Anyway I've gone way off topic, I'll get my coat and my hat ....

Edited July 11, 200717 yr by sunnysoul

And I have also been lucky enough to get to know some very serious Australian ska and reggae collectors from the late 60's , so I think you had company on the other side of the world at that time Tony !!!!

I just spent 45 minutes offering a reasoned rebuttal of this, but the page crashed as I was adding the reply and all of the text vanished. I can't be bothered to do it all over again, so here's a short version that I hope will not seem to much like it's being written by Angry Of Tolworth!

To be a 'serious' collector of reggae back in the day, you had to have access to places where you could buy the music. Jamaican pre-releases - and a great deal of the 'released' music - were mainly available to the Caribbean communities in the UK (and, of course, parts of North America where there was a high population of Jamaican migrants). They would usually sell out as quickly as the shops that sold them received their stocks.

There were no worldwide mail order outlets to buy new Trojan and Pama releases, and most of the shops that did sell reggae, primarily or exclusively, were located in areas with a big 'urban' population. Buying from these shops was not always as simple as walikng in and saying 'can I have the new U-Roy record, please' - you often had to run a gamut of what can only be termed 'extreme prejudice', and at times it could feel like you were going into a war zone rather than a 'record shack'.

You couldn't hear most of the music on the radio, as there were no reggae shows back then on UK radio and, I assume, not on Australian radio either.

To the best of my knowledge, Australia had no huge 'urban' population in the late '60s, unless you're including aborigines in that category. That there was no natural market for reggae is borne out by the records that I know to have been released there - basically, many of the same records that charted in the UK and USA, "Double Barrell", "Israelites", "Young, Gifted And Black" etc. I''ve never yet found an Australian pressing of anything much more obscure than these, and I'm sure that if such things existed, they would have pitched up in the global marketplace by now.

Given that it must have been almost impossible to buy obscure Jamaican 45s in Australia in the late 60s, if there had been 'serious' Australian ska and reggae collectors back then, surely at least one of them would have attempted to make contact with the handful of us who were similarly 'serious' on our side of the world, if only to get us to get a few records for them?

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the concept of the 'quiet collector', the man or woman who has gone about his business for many years without feeling the need to join a forum or advertise the fact that he or she might indeed have one of the 998 undocumented copies of Frank Wilson on Soul. And I am not in the least bit surprised to find out that there was an Antipodean version of the TMAS, given how many Motown singles came out there. Indeed, how much soul was appreciated 'down under' is patently obvious from the depth and breadth of the AUS and NZ-pressed 45s that I have in my own collection, not to meantion all the others than I know about and don't have. These records would not have been released if there had not been just 80 people who potentially wanted to buy them (which brings Bessie Banks and UK soul fans/collectors back into the topic) and the soul scene in your neck of the woods is something that really ought to be written about in great depth...

However, try as I might I have never been able to find any physical evidence, in the form of records (released locally or imported) that supports your tale of 'serious ska and reggae collectors' from the late 60s.

We're obviously going to agree to disagree about this for a long time to come. Shall we just move on instead?

I just spent 45 minutes offering a reasoned rebuttal of this, but the page crashed as I was adding the reply and all of the text vanished. I can't be bothered to do it all over again, so here's a short version that I hope will not seem to much like it's being written by Angry Of Tolworth!

To be a 'serious' collector of reggae back in the day, you had to have access to places where you could buy the music. Jamaican pre-releases - and a great deal of the 'released' music - were mainly available to the Caribbean communities in the UK (and, of course, parts of North America where there was a high population of Jamaican migrants). They would usually sell out as quickly as the shops that sold them received their stocks.

There were no worldwide mail order outlets to buy new Trojan and Pama releases, and most of the shops that did sell reggae, primarily or exclusively, were located in areas with a big 'urban' population. Buying from these shops was not always as simple as walikng in and saying 'can I have the new U-Roy record, please' - you often had to run a gamut of what can only be termed 'extreme prejudice', and at times it could feel like you were going into a war zone rather than a 'record shack'.

You couldn't hear most of the music on the radio, as there were no reggae shows back then on UK radio and, I assume, not on Australian radio either.

To the best of my knowledge, Australia had no huge 'urban' population in the late '60s, unless you're including aborigines in that category. That there was no natural market for reggae is borne out by the records that I know to have been released there - basically, many of the same records that charted in the UK and USA, "Double Barrell", "Israelites", "Young, Gifted And Black" etc. I''ve never yet found an Australian pressing of anything much more obscure than these, and I'm sure that if such things existed, they would have pitched up in the global marketplace by now.

Given that it must have been almost impossible to buy obscure Jamaican 45s in Australia in the late 60s, if there had been 'serious' Australian ska and reggae collectors back then, surely at least one of them would have attempted to make contact with the handful of us who were similarly 'serious' on our side of the world, if only to get us to get a few records for them?

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the concept of the 'quiet collector', the man or woman who has gone about his business for many years without feeling the need to join a forum or advertise the fact that he or she might indeed have one of the 998 undocumented copies of Frank Wilson on Soul. And I am not in the least bit surprised to find out that there was an Antipodean version of the TMAS, given how many Motown singles came out there. Indeed, how much soul was appreciated 'down under' is patently obvious from the depth and breadth of the AUS and NZ-pressed 45s that I have in my own collection, not to meantion all the others than I know about and don't have. These records would not have been released if there had not been just 80 people who potentially wanted to buy them (which brings Bessie Banks and UK soul fans/collectors back into the topic) and the soul scene in your neck of the woods is something that really ought to be written about in great depth...

However, try as I might I have never been able to find any physical evidence, in the form of records (released locally or imported) that supports your tale of 'serious ska and reggae collectors' from the late 60s.

We're obviously going to agree to disagree about this for a long time to come. Shall we just move on instead?

Absolutely Tony !

In fact , I am more than happy to defer to you on this subject !!!

And when I get my book finished on the complete guide to Australian released soul / rnb/ funk / disco releases 1955 - 1985 , it will astound many as to what was actually released Down Under !!!

Christ, it's annoying when your computer wipes out something you've been spending an age on !!!

Not sure if I have eve seen a Monarch Motown press, seen a Howard Guyton styrene issue

Edited July 12, 200717 yr by Prophonics 2026

I'm not talking about the audio to this record, which is the regular audio that you hear on genuine copies of the 45, and I have already said that it's pressed from genuine RCA stampers. This is a counterfiet pressing, manufactured on inferior vinyl that patently isn't of the regular Motown standard. The label colours are obviously not right, there's no 'P 1964 Motown Record Corporation' on the label and you would only have to hold the thing in your hands for a second to realise that it's not a 'real' one.

As has been said before, there are many known examples of counterfeited hit records and considerably more that we probably don't know about it. What counterfieting has to do with mastering a track from an acetate and re-recording it for an LP I really don't know. Or understand, sorry. And I don't believe that Motown ever lost a mastertape of a hit record, either. Even if they did, they would have had a multi-track tape back at Hitsville to mix another mastertape from...

It just to say that the records was not of fantastic quality from day one and to have a counterfeit pressing, manufactured on inferior vinyl that apparently isn't of the regular Motown standard you would expect to be of poor sound quality as well, but I see what you mean about the print being strange and not very clear.

I have been checking my Motown singles, I must admit its not a record label that I collect doubles of and have come a cross some interesting differences like my Eddie Holland with a Nashville and an ARP stamped in the dead wax but no logo at the bottom of the label, quiet a selection.

I always thought C was for copy rite and p was for a re print or second issue?

About the recording and loss of tapes I read it in a Mowtown book that also went on about some guy who had invented a 3 track recorder and amps that had a habit of bursting into flames from heat from bad cables.

It just to say that the records was not of fantastic quality from day one and to have a counterfeit pressing, manufactured on inferior vinyl that apparently isn't of the regular Motown standard you would expect to be of poor sound quality as well, but I see what you mean about the print being strange and not very clear.

I have been checking my Motown singles, I must admit its not a record label that I collect doubles of and have come a cross some interesting differences like my Eddie Holland with a Nashville and an ARP stamped in the dead wax but no logo at the bottom of the label, quiet a selection.

I always thought C was for copy rite and p was for a re print or second issue?

About the recording and loss of tapes I read it in a Mowtown book that also went on about some guy who had invented a 3 track recorder and amps that had a habit of bursting into flames from heat from bad cables.

Hi

There were many different pressing plants, the two pictured,

one is a Styrene Monarch, the other a Vinyl "Nashville Matrix"

Obviously, some have "ARP", Some "ZTSC" etc

Edited July 12, 200717 yr by 45cellar