Jump to content

Frederick Hymes

Mike Shawe

By Mike Shawe
in Look At Your Box

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Views 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

Most active in this topic

Posted Images

Guest Russ Smith

Guest Russ Smith

Posted
Posted

FREDERICK HYMES III-TIME AIN'T GONNA DO ME NO FAVOURS(FAB VEGAS)

How can I tell the difference between an original and 2nd press, and what are there respective prices?

thanks

Tricky one Mike..... Think there's been a thread before but many differing opinions on this...

Link to comment
Social source share
Guest Ste Brazil

Guest Ste Brazil

Posted
Posted

FREDERICK HYMES III-TIME AIN'T GONNA DO ME NO FAVOURS(FAB VEGAS)

How can I tell the difference between an original and 2nd press, and what are there respective prices?

thanks

Aren't the 2nd issues (boots?) almost see through?

Ste.

Link to comment
Social source share
Godzilla Veteran

Godzilla

Posted
Posted

Wow, can't believe it's March already...

Is this not debated on a monthly basis? The upshot is: If you HAVE one, it's original. If you don't LIKE it, it's a bootleg... :thumbsup:

I thought it was - if you bought it for next to nothing it's real. If you paid top dollar it's a boot. Or was that the other way round...?

Link to comment
Social source share
NEV Veteran

NEV

Posted
Posted

I thought it was - if you bought it for next to nothing it's real. If you paid top dollar it's a boot. Or was that the other way round...?

Please no....not the Frederick hymes iii thread again :thumbsup:

Just sold mine on ebay last week to Italy .

Link to comment
Social source share
Mike Shawe Veteran

Mike Shawe

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I thought it was - if you bought it for next to nothing it's real. If you paid top dollar it's a boot. Or was that the other way round...?

Top dollar meaning ..??? There are currently copies around selling for +/- £200, would they be 2nd pressings!?

Link to comment
Social source share
Sebastian Veteran

Sebastian

Posted
Posted

Top dollar meaning ..??? There are currently copies around selling for +/- £200, would they be 2nd pressings!?

It seems to be the consensus that all copies around are originals, and that a BIG box of them was found a bunch of years ago.

No one has as far as I know been able to come upp with any real proof (matrix info, different widths of run-in and run-out grooves, volume comparisons etc.) that speaks in favour of two different pressings existing.

Label scans/photos shows the label as being in different shades ranging from yellow to orange, but that's probably due to being scanned by different scanners.

If anyone knows anything else, please post up the relevant info that you've got. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Social source share
Modernsoulsucks Veteran

Modernsoulsucks

Posted
Posted

Simple to tell.

If it's got a small "45" next to "Okeh" logo with a delta # beginning with 9854763027 pressed on styrene with a moulded label, unless it's a paper label from the pressing done on the Tuesday cos the lady who sorted the labels was undergoing a hysterectomy, and when you hold it up to the light you go blind and it's made of cheese.... Then it's deffo a boot.

ROD

Link to comment
Social source share
Baz Atkinson Veteran

Baz Atkinson

Posted
Posted

Simple to tell.

If it's got a small "45" next to "Okeh" logo with a delta # beginning with 9854763027 pressed on styrene with a moulded label, unless it's a paper label from the pressing done on the Tuesday cos the lady who sorted the labels was undergoing a hysterectomy, and when you hold it up to the light you go blind and it's made of cheese.... Then it's deffo a boot.

ROD

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Social source share
boba Veteran

boba

Posted
Posted

Simple to tell.

If it's got a small "45" next to "Okeh" logo with a delta # beginning with 9854763027 pressed on styrene with a moulded label, unless it's a paper label from the pressing done on the Tuesday cos the lady who sorted the labels was undergoing a hysterectomy, and when you hold it up to the light you go blind and it's made of cheese.... Then it's deffo a boot.

ROD

is that for the west coast or east coast press?

Link to comment
Social source share
Ernie Andrews Veteran

Ernie Andrews

Posted
Posted

OK - Im not gonna go into detail because a lot has been said before.

I once had an email from the seller of these(Represses) who in not so many words said they were represes by accident When I challenged him he told me to wise up(This is business)! and guess which dealers in the Uk he was selling them to. Originally I was after another record but he asked me if I wanted a copy of FH. I probed him about the record and thats when he got abit nasty!

This is the same person responsible for some of the other represses.

I cannot get the email up here as its on one of my defunct email addresses and probbaly long gone.

I did send my copy to John M and he said that the 2 copies he had were the same but that could have been because they were 2 genuine originals.

I have Sams old copy which he paid nearly 4 figures to JM for (according to Sam)

Its pretty obvious when you have the original and the repress together.

The repress is of lighter vinyl and as said you can see through it when you put up to a light.

The edge of the record is quite sharp that you could cut yourself on it.

The label has been photocopied as the text is not sharp on the repress and the label is of a lighter colour as shown in the previous pics of it.

AS the matrix numbers are scratched in the original there is no need to compare.

The represses might have been done in small quantity and they will eventually develop value as time goes on but remember they are only represses.As to whether they are boots I am not sure as I dont know the whole history of the making of the record- But who does unless you are the singer/producer/member of the band etc

This game is a gamble & I have been caught out but on this occasion I was lucky to have asked the right questions to establish that represses were made of this record.

Do I think this person will ever admit it - Nope! unless someone who is even smarter than me catches him out.

So the conclusion IMO

Light vinyl /see through/ sharp edge/ light colour label with non-crisp text GET RID!

Heavy vinyl /blunt edge/crisp text - KEEP

Link to comment
Social source share
Cover-up Veteran

Cover-up

Posted
Posted

Eh? I bought a copy of this from the Las Vegas dealer who sells re-presses, and also seems to find unplayed store stock - hence the continued debate. The copy I have is thick vinyl which you can't see light through and has crisp label text and not sharp edges... :wave:

Link to comment
Social source share

Guest Brett F

Guest Brett F

Posted
Posted

Had mine next to the light can't see a thing through it, edge blunt, text is sharp, plus can't believe i've spent 20 minutes looking for it plus stood on a chair with the thing next to the light that nearly blinded me.....and i don't even like the bloody record anymore. :wave:

Link to comment
Social source share
NEV Veteran

NEV

Posted
Posted

The West coast is Double Gloucester and the East is Stilton. Do you Americans know nothing about records!!! And I'd tread caerphilly before making any smart-ass replies as Im running out of puns.

ROD

Rod ,why such a cheesy reply to a serious thread :wave:

Link to comment
Social source share
Guest Brett F

Guest Brett F

Posted
Posted

Plus if John Manship thought it was a repress etc, why not say in the latest guide, also from my 1st edition Manship guide the price was (i think) £1500 in the latest its £250 ?.............

Link to comment
Social source share
boba Veteran

boba

Posted
Posted

Plus if John Manship thought it was a repress etc, why not say in the latest guide, also from my 1st edition Manship guide the price was (i think) £1500 in the latest its £250 ?.............

John Manship specifically thought it was NOT a repress after comparing two copies. Other people here do think it's a repress. That is the controversy.

Link to comment
Social source share
Reforee Regular

Reforee

Posted
Posted (edited)

My copy has thick vynil, scratched matrix numbers but both labels are missing, does this make mine rarer than all the others?????? :shades:

What is it with us Soul music collectors, we always seem to put labels above the track! You pays your money and takes the chance so to speak, I think we have all been caught in someway if we were honest about it.

Whatever happen to the old adage of "its whats in the groove that counts"?

Can anybody enlighten me on how to tell an original CD from a repressed or boot, as I am filing my CD collection and want to get the system spot on from day one. :lol:

The Man In Black

Edited by reforee
Link to comment
Social source share
Ernie Andrews Veteran

Ernie Andrews

Posted
Posted

My copy has thick vynil, scratched matrix numbers but both labels are missing, does this make mine rarer than all the others?????? :rolleyes:

What is it with us Soul music collectors, we always seem to put labels above the track! You pays your money and takes the chance so to speak, I think we have all been caught in someway if we were honest about it.

Whatever happen to the old adage of "its whats in the groove that counts"?

Can anybody enlighten me on how to tell an original CD from a repressed or boot, as I am filing my CD collection and want to get the system spot on from day one. :wicked:

The Man In Black

So are you advocating it doesnt matter what the format of the tune is- If thats the case than why does anyone pay more than £11.99 for any music

I think you have missed the point in a big way mate!

Its whats in the groove that counts but also the format the groove is in that counts just as much! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Social source share
Garethx Veteran

Garethx

Posted
Posted

So are you advocating it doesnt matter what the format of the tune is- If thats the case than why does anyone pay more than £11.99 for any music

I think you have missed the point in a big way mate!

Its whats in the groove that counts but also the format the groove is in that counts just as much! wink.gif

Thing I always go back to with regard to Frederick Hymes III is John Anderson telling me at Cleethorpes the year Butch, Arthur etc. strarted playing it and copies turned up for sale: "don't touch them with a bargepole, they're all re-presses"

I have seen two distinct presses of this record: enough to feel like an epiphany when I saw the copy which was different to the one I first saw. I remember ringing my brother at some un-godly hour to tell him that i'd seen an original Frederick Hymes. It belonged to a well-known deejay and would have cost him a right few quid. It was incontravertably different to the copies friends had bought from various sources from top dollar-down.

If John Manship has empirically tested two copies to see if they're the same I can only come to the conclusion that he tested two originals against each other or two re-presses.

There's been a huge wall of dis-information about this record, moreso than any other I can think of in the recent past: shouldn't that set alarm bells ringing?

I don't want to be a scaremonger but I suspect most people have been saddled with the repress of the record. They can dress it up any way they want to, but this is a scam record.

Link to comment
Social source share

Tony Smith Veteran

Tony Smith

Posted
Posted

Thing I always go back to with regard to Frederick Hymes III is John Anderson telling me at Cleethorpes the year Butch, Arthur etc. strarted playing it and copies turned up for sale: "don't touch them with a bargepole, they're all re-presses"

I have seen two distinct presses of this record: enough to feel like an epiphany when I saw the copy which was different to the one I first saw. I remember ringing my brother at some un-godly hour to tell him that i'd seen an original Frederick Hymes. It belonged to a well-known deejay and would have cost him a right few quid. It was incontravertably different to the copies friends had bought from various sources from top dollar-down.

If John Manship has empirically tested two copies to see if they're the same I can only come to the conclusion that he tested two originals against each other or two re-presses.

There's been a huge wall of dis-information about this record, moreso than any other I can think of in the recent past: shouldn't that set alarm bells ringing?

I don't want to be a scaremonger but I suspect most people have been saddled with the repress of the record. They can dress it up any way they want to, but this is a scam record.

Is it okay to say the fire has gone out?

Link to comment
Social source share
Guest Russ Smith

Guest Russ Smith

Posted
Posted

OK - Im not gonna go into detail because a lot has been said before.

I once had an email from the seller of these(Represses) who in not so many words said they were represes by accident When I challenged him he told me to wise up(This is business)! and guess which dealers in the Uk he was selling them to. Originally I was after another record but he asked me if I wanted a copy of FH. I probed him about the record and thats when he got abit nasty!

This is the same person responsible for some of the other represses.

I cannot get the email up here as its on one of my defunct email addresses and probbaly long gone.

I did send my copy to John M and he said that the 2 copies he had were the same but that could have been because they were 2 genuine originals.

I have Sams old copy which he paid nearly 4 figures to JM for (according to Sam)

Its pretty obvious when you have the original and the repress together.

The repress is of lighter vinyl and as said you can see through it when you put up to a light.

The edge of the record is quite sharp that you could cut yourself on it.

The label has been photocopied as the text is not sharp on the repress and the label is of a lighter colour as shown in the previous pics of it.

AS the matrix numbers are scratched in the original there is no need to compare.

The represses might have been done in small quantity and they will eventually develop value as time goes on but remember they are only represses.As to whether they are boots I am not sure as I dont know the whole history of the making of the record- But who does unless you are the singer/producer/member of the band etc

This game is a gamble & I have been caught out but on this occasion I was lucky to have asked the right questions to establish that represses were made of this record.

Do I think this person will ever admit it - Nope! unless someone who is even smarter than me catches him out.

So the conclusion IMO

Light vinyl /see through/ sharp edge/ light colour label with non-crisp text GET RID!

Heavy vinyl /blunt edge/crisp text - KEEP

This puts it to bed,

Surely,

I've just had my copy up to an anglepoise lamp and I'm in the clear..

can sleep easy now.....

Link to comment
Social source share
Modernsoulsucks Veteran

Modernsoulsucks

Posted
Posted (edited)

did anybody in the world have a copy of this before the first couple went for four figures apart from the guy who had just pressed em all up ph34r.gif

dave

It's a bit cryptic but are you saying the first copy of the record came from Rich Rosen?

Is it then that Rich found "X" number of copies of the 45, got good money, tracked owner down to hopefully get more. Answer was "how many do you want" and owner repressed it. Rich then has originals and represses.

Rich doesn't differentiate between the two so bit of a lottery whether you got one or the other.

Manny then has reduced value in guide as more copies turn up over here from that one source.

Does the guide mention there are represses/reissues?

ROD

Edited by modernsoulsucks
Link to comment
Social source share
Dave Pinch Veteran

Dave Pinch

Posted
Posted

Thing I always go back to with regard to Frederick Hymes III is John Anderson telling me at Cleethorpes the year Butch, Arthur etc. strarted playing it and copies turned up for sale: "don't touch them with a bargepole, they're all re-presses"

I have seen two distinct presses of this record: enough to feel like an epiphany when I saw the copy which was different to the one I first saw. I remember ringing my brother at some un-godly hour to tell him that i'd seen an original Frederick Hymes. It belonged to a well-known deejay and would have cost him a right few quid. It was incontravertably different to the copies friends had bought from various sources from top dollar-down.

If John Manship has empirically tested two copies to see if they're the same I can only come to the conclusion that he tested two originals against each other or two re-presses.

There's been a huge wall of dis-information about this record, moreso than any other I can think of in the recent past: shouldn't that set alarm bells ringing?

I don't want to be a scaremonger but I suspect most people have been saddled with the repress of the record. They can dress it up any way they want to, but this is a scam record.

NO SCAM GARETH. THERE WERE NO COPIES BEFORE 1999.

DAVE

Link to comment
Social source share
  • 1 year later...
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Henry Atkinson found the first copy. The two Las Vegas dealers tracked Frederick Hymes after that discovery actually some time after Henry's find Rossen & Giatino bought the stock from the label owner. There's is no proof there's a bootleg of it, just a ton of copies from the label owner which has happened a multitude of times on the Northern Soul, Doo-Wop, Garage scenes. I've yet to see any copies different to the one I sold Soul Sam, Arthur Fenn etc back in circa 1999 / 2000 my copies never came from Vegas.

We've had 10 copies in recent times all have been the same as the two I had way back when...

if anyone has a "bootleg" I'd love to document it, until I see a different press I, like Sebastian, am considering it a multiple purchase from the label owner.

Edited by john manship
Link to comment
Social source share
Dave Pinch Veteran

Dave Pinch

Posted
Posted (edited)

Henry Atkinson found the first copy. The two Las Vegas dealers tracked Frederick Hymes after that discovery actually some time after Henry's find Rossen & Giatino bought the stock from the label owner. There's is no proof there's a bootleg of it, just a ton of copies from the label owner which has happened a multitude of times on the Northern Soul, Doo-Wop, Garage scenes. I've yet to see any copies different to the one I sold Soul Sam, Arthur Fenn etc back in circa 1999 / 2000 my copies never came from Vegas.

We've had 10 copies in recent times all have been the same as the two I had way back when...

if anyone has a "bootleg" I'd love to document it, until I see a different press I, like Sebastian, am considering it a multiple purchase from the label owner.

thanks for that john. i believe this to be 100% accurate not that it matters what i think. come to think of it henry showed a copy to me at cleethorpes and asked me if i`d ever heard of it. i said no. then he said thats ok dave neither has anyone else and i`m open to offers on it. at that i promptly spent my £75 budget for the evening and walked off...... not on a fred hymes i`d like to add

dave

Edited by dave pinch
Link to comment
Social source share
Guest Brett F

Guest Brett F

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've got my copy out, i got one of these when it appeared after that initial one, just looking at it now, it has a moulded label, slight dish that runs down from where the 'E' in sidE 1 is(look at the scan above), it has an almost fine orange peel effect to the label, with an almost eggshell sheen, only deadwax markings i see are at approx 12.00 and they are as follows: LRSV-ST-4526A, scratched in and not stamped, plus you would read that correctly if you held the Fab Vegas title upside down...I held it too a bright light, i can't see through the vinyl, plus the edge is not sharp but blunt.

Just looked at the scan on the thread, that looks just like mine.

Edited by Brett F
Link to comment
Social source share
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

What is it with us Soul music collectors, we always seem to put labels above the track! You pays your money and takes the chance so to speak, I think we have all been caught in someway if we were honest about it.

Whatever happen to the old adage of "its whats in the groove that counts"?

Can anybody enlighten me on how to tell an original CD from a repressed or boot, as I am filing my CD collection and want to get the system spot on from day one. :thumbsup:

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Social source share
Dave Pinch Veteran

Dave Pinch

Posted
Posted

I've got my copy out, i got one of these when it appeared after that initial one, just looking at it now, it has a moulded label, slight dish that runs down from where the 'E' in sidE 1 is(look at the scan above), it has an almost fine orange peel effect to the label, with an almost eggshell sheen, only deadwax markings i see are at approx 12.00 and they are as follows: LRSV-ST-4526A, scratched in and not stamped, plus you would read that correctly if you held the Fab Vegas title upside down...I held it too a bright light, i can't see through the vinyl, plus the edge is not sharp but blunt.

Just looked at the scan on the thread, that looks just like mine.

as is mine. all copies ive seen are like this. would love to see a scan of steve ecks copy or a scan of one of the see through copies. to finally put this topic to bed

dave

Link to comment
Social source share
Hammersoul Long Time

Hammersoul

Posted
Posted

I've got my copy out, i got one of these when it appeared after that initial one, just looking at it now, it has a moulded label, slight dish that runs down from where the 'E' in sidE 1 is(look at the scan above), it has an almost fine orange peel effect to the label, with an almost eggshell sheen, only deadwax markings i see are at approx 12.00 and they are as follows: LRSV-ST-4526A, scratched in and not stamped, plus you would read that correctly if you held the Fab Vegas title upside down...I held it too a bright light, i can't see through the vinyl, plus the edge is not sharp but blunt.

Just looked at the scan on the thread, that looks just like mine.

Mine is same has yours Brett,mine came out of a big collection where there was some seriously rare pieces but some only in vg+ condition.The Fred.Hymes was mint which did concern me at the time but seller told me he bought it years ago and going by what else was in there would`t disagree.

Also remember the earlier thread to this and pmed a lot of members for ref,it seemed we all had same copy except one who didn`t return reply for some strange reason.:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Social source share
Henry Veteran

Henry

Posted
Posted

Henry Atkinson found the first copy. The two Las Vegas dealers tracked Frederick Hymes after that discovery actually some time after Henry's find Rossen & Giatino bought the stock from the label owner. There's is no proof there's a bootleg of it, just a ton of copies from the label owner which has happened a multitude of times on the Northern Soul, Doo-Wop, Garage scenes. I've yet to see any copies different to the one I sold Soul Sam, Arthur Fenn etc back in circa 1999 / 2000 my copies never came from Vegas.

We've had 10 copies in recent times all have been the same as the two I had way back when...

if anyone has a "bootleg" I'd love to document it, until I see a different press I, like Sebastian, am considering it a multiple purchase from the label owner.

Just thought I'd add some detail to this. I originally found 2 copies of this on a buying trip, in Pittsburgh. It came out of a large find that a friend of mine had bought and allowed me to look through. On my return to the UK I was informed (unconfirmed) that Butch was playing this (until then the only known copy) 'covered up'. Eventually one copy was sold to Arthur Fen, via John Manship and I kept the other one. Arthur then played it uncovered. Some time later I was approached by another UK dealer and asked the details of the record. Following that, the copies started turning up via Giattino on ebay. Unfortunately for the first (UK) ebay buyer (whos name I will not say) he paid $1400. Giattino then continued to sell copies via ebay, one after the other. I did conatct some of the bidders (when you could still do that on ebay) to let them know that this seller had multiple copies. As you can imagine, Giattino wasn't too happy when he found out that I was doing this. I could understand if he found a very small amount but he found at least 50+. As such he should have made it clear that he had multiple copies and people would then been able to make their choice knowing this in advance.

To my knowledge; ALL copies that I have seen are exactly the same and this has not been booted/re-issued in any way. I have never seen any copies that are in any way diffferent from the 2 that I originally found. I am open to being corrected, if wrong.

Hope this helps!

Link to comment
Social source share
Steve G Veteran

Steve G

Posted
Posted

When I went to LV a few years ago, in Richie Rosens shop I was asked if I "needed a FH", copies were kept under the counter, got the impression there was a box full of them,. Didn't they do exactly the same with the Prix back catalog - drip feeding them out one a fortnight etc?

Link to comment
Social source share
funkyfeet Long Time

funkyfeet

Posted
Posted

I had 50 copies off Giattino then took another 25, when I went back for some more he didn't have anymore, the story is that they came from Hymes himself and they were the left over stock from the days when he did live shows and sold them after the show, the record didn't go into shops, they were just sold at his live shows, which is no different from 100's of artists, and was a regular thing to do even in the UK.

Link to comment
Social source share

Get involved with Soul Source

Add your comments now

Join Soul Source

A free & easy soul music affair!

Join Soul Source now!

Log in to Soul Source

Jump right back in!

Log in now!
 Share
Go to topic listing

Source Advert





×
×
  • Create New...