Guest in town Mikey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I know there have been discussions about this before. So, can you tell me if this is this kosher?? https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...item=4733496313 Thanks Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Steve G Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I know there have been discussions about this before. So, can you tell me if this is this kosher?? https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...item=4733496313 Thanks link Looks legit - but a bit used and abused . Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 looks kosher to me mike wouldn't bet my house on it though! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest in town Mikey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Can anyone with more teccie knowledge than me post a link to the previous discussion about the difference between the legit and snide copies. It would be appreciated. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest uroffal Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) Can anyone with more teccie knowledge than me post a link to the previous discussion about the difference between the legit and snide copies. It would be appreciated. link Mikey, Looks genuine enough. As far as I can remember boots are brown vinyl (which you can tell by holding them up to the light). The seller 'claims' there is a circular stamp in the run out which contains two characters (although he says these are hard to see). If my memory (failing with age) serves me correctly these should be AR and I think are only on originals. Edited June 1, 2005 by uroffal Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 i can't mike personally basing my thoughts on: it looks like the one my mate dave had think the typeface on the real ones is a bit smaller, like this it doesn't have the fake date stamp that the boots i've seen have (inc the last one on ebay) it looks genuinely knackered rather than fakely knackered! but like i say wouldn't bet too much! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 100% definite original. The delta number is written in different handwriting in a different place to the boot; the stamp is far more clearly defined as well. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
tony_i Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Can anyone with more teccie knowledge than me post a link to the previous discussion about the difference between the legit and snide copies. It would be appreciated. link Couple here. https://www.soul-source.co.uk/index.p...p;+The+Wierdest https://www.soul-source.co.uk/index.p...p;+The+Wierdest Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest in town Mikey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Brilliant stuff guys. Thanks a lot for your help. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 100% definite original. The delta number is written in different handwriting in a different place to the boot; the stamp is far more clearly defined as well. link was just starting to think you were some sort of seer, pete then i decided to see if there were any other pictures than the main one of the label doh! btw missed the post last night but it has gone off today Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest uroffal Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Mikey, Looks genuine enough. As far as I can remember boots are brown vinyl (which you can tell by holding them up to the light). The seller 'claims' there is a circular stamp in the run out which contains two characters (although he says these are hard to see). If my memory (failing with age) serves me correctly these should be AR and I think are only on originals. link AS not R (sorry age is making me one letter out!) Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Has anyone but me noticed that Manship has a scan of it in his "rarest of the rare" gallery, and that it has what looks like a so called fake date stamp on the label? Any comments? Have a look. https://www.raresoulman.co.uk/rarestoftherare.htm?&pg=51 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I'm just wondering why something pressed at Monarch would have a stamp saying AR instead of MR ???? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Has anyone but me noticed that Manship has a scan of it in his "rarest of the rare" gallery, and that it has what looks like a so called fake date stamp on the label? Any comments? Have a look. https://www.raresoulman.co.uk/rarestoftherare.htm?&pg=51 link Rob Thomas has a copy that looks exactly the same as that. Saw it Saturday, and obviously, its a real one. Could be the one used for the scan Christian. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ted Massey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I'm just wondering why something pressed at Monarch would have a stamp saying AR instead of MR ???? link Ray Agee and the Sweets have the same marking, the one on ebay now does shows the proper mark really well Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ted Massey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Mikey, Looks genuine enough. As far as I can remember boots are brown vinyl (which you can tell by holding them up to the light). The seller 'claims' there is a circular stamp in the run out which contains two characters (although he says these are hard to see). If my memory (failing with age) serves me correctly these should be AR and I think are only on originals. link The boot legs did have a circle with the AS or AR in it but it had been scratched in with a pin and some of them had been given the Lovejoy distressed treatmen . If i remeber a certain very well know dealer bought 2 as originals when they were introduced. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Ray Agee and the Sweets have the same marking, the one on ebay now does shows the proper mark really well link That marking is not the regular Monarch MR in a circle, it says something else, though I'll be damned if I can tell what, I have a few things from this plant. Johnny James on Circle M among others. Is it a different plant or is it another marking used by Monarch? I can't find any conclusive info on David Flynn's otherwise excellent site. The ones I have with this stamp have delta numbers too. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Has anyone but me noticed that Manship has a scan of it in his "rarest of the rare" gallery, and that it has what looks like a so called fake date stamp on the label? Any comments? Have a look. https://www.raresoulman.co.uk/rarestoftherare.htm?&pg=51 link hmmm that opens up a major can of worms suggests that the one which was sold on ebay last month was real (so about 40 of us could be receiving papers for a libel suit shortly) and that loads of others have knocked around over the years which were real but thought to be fake! unless manship has put it up by mistake or as some sort of joke? the colour is paler than the previously-believed-to-be-real ones I've seen either in person or online etc, though repro can be off sometimes but the date stamp is a real foxer I agree Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 hmmm that opens up a major can of worms suggests that the one which was sold on ebay last month was real (so about 40 of us could be receiving papers for a libel suit shortly) and that loads of others have knocked around over the years which were real but thought to be fake! unless manship has put it up by mistake or as some sort of joke? the colour is paler than the previously-believed-to-be-real ones I've seen either in person or online etc, though repro can be off sometimes but the date stamp is a real foxer I agree link Heres an idea Dan, The copy on the scan was one of the first to be found. It had the date on it originally. When the boots came out, some of them were date stamped exactly the same, in case people had seen the original, in an attempt to deceive. Now, about John F Kennedys assassination ...................................... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Iancsloft Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 When the counterfiets where done a few copies had the date stamped on the majority of the counterfiets did,nt .. That I do know Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Soulscene Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I had an original with a date stamp on, I know this for a fact as I had one before the boots were ever done. DS Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ted Massey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I had an original with a date stamp on, I know this for a fact as I had one before the boots were ever done. DS link Manship should know a real one(i bought mine from him in 1989 and unlike a lot of other UK dealers i dont think or know of him ever trying to pass of a boot as a real one of any title) but may be to just to show what the record looked like he got a scan of the boot. Any way now that one on ebay has got good scans of the proper marks we should not have any problems in future Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Heres an idea Dan, The copy on the scan was one of the first to be found. It had the date on it originally. When the boots came out, some of them were date stamped exactly the same, in case people had seen the original, in an attempt to deceive. Now, about John F Kennedys assassination ...................................... link you might just be onto something steve i'll ask my mate lord lucan, who bought the original copy off king arthur who'd swapped it for shergar with the yeti looks as though one way to tell 'boots' isn't right after all! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Iancsloft Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 When the counterfiets where done a few copies had the date stamped on the majority of the counterfiets did,nt .. That I do know link =================================================== The counterfiets where copied off a original demo, the reason only a few had the date stamp on is because the ink took ages to dry...This info from the nice chap who made such a good job of making such a good lookin lookalike to fool quiet a few would be experts when they where first done Personally and from my own point of view over the past few years I think one or two other so called originals that have turned up unexpectingly are of lets just say Anyone with ideas of 45,s that just dont look right Four Vandals classic example of how easy it his to fool so called top collecters / DJ,s................ P.S The John & Weirdest was the only one done at the time over in the States and it was never intented to be sold as a original and they where being sold over here at the time by Matchie for £15 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Awake 502 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 =================================================== Anyone with ideas of 45,s that just dont look right Dennis Edwards "Johnny on the spot" Met him in 1991 and showed him a copy, he swore blind it was not him. Although if he was moonlighting between Contours and Temptations days, maybe he wouldn't admit to it anyhow...... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Ray Agee and the Sweets have the same marking, the one on ebay now does shows the proper mark really well link This west coast matrix stamp is exactly the same as on the so called boot by the Trips on Soultown,iv`e allways wondered about this and why an early viinyl boot would have a matrix stamp like this,also with the Soultown copy if it`s a boot of the Soundville copy then all the sides should be the same recordings,so why are the tracks "Love can`t be modernized" slightly different takes on each label,any takers on this one Dave f............. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Steve G Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Yeah - long time ? on this. A number of us have always had doubts.... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest in town Mikey Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 So, in summary. The boot may or may not have been a boot, but the original is definetly kosher, unless the boot actually turned out to be the real original, in which case the original is a boot. The defining stamp is a bit Monarch, but not a Monarch stamp. It might have been done at one or other plant, that may or may not have been a Monarch plant. The lighter label is different to the darker label, and some with date stamps on are originals but only the ones found before the boot, and the boot has a date stamp on, except the boots that dont. Cheers for clearing that up for me lads Now can we clear up my Dena Barnes - These Heartaches?? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 So, in summary. The boot may or may not have been a boot, but the original is definetly kosher, unless the boot actually turned out to be the real original, in which case the original is a boot. The defining stamp is a bit Monarch, but not a Monarch stamp. It might have been done at one or other plant, that may or may not have been a Monarch plant. The lighter label is different to the darker label, and some with date stamps on are originals but only the ones found before the boot, and the boot has a date stamp on, except the boots that dont. Cheers for clearing that up for me lads Now can we clear up my Dena Barnes - These Heartaches?? link Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
pikeys dog Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 (edited) This west coast matrix stamp is exactly the same as on the so called boot by the Trips on Soultown,iv`e allways wondered about this and why an early viinyl boot would have a matrix stamp like this,also with the Soultown copy if it`s a boot of the Soundville copy then all the sides should be the same recordings,so why are the tracks "Love can`t be modernized" slightly different takes on each label,any takers on this one  Dave f............. link Just been looking through the boots and re-issues I sold on eBay and found that the stamp below is also on the Len Jewell 'Bettin' on love' re-issue. Edited June 2, 2005 by pikeys dog Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Just been looking through the boots and re-issues I sold on eBay and found that the stamp below is also on the Len Jewell 'Bettin' on love' re-issue. link Exactly, that's the one. Sure as hell doesn't say MR, and obviously not the same as the regular Monarch stamp (MR in a ring...). What plant is this then? One explanation to some mysterious boots might be that the plants in question were still in business in the 70's and someone like Soussan or whoever used them to press things up? Lots of boots were manufactured in the 70's by Monarch and thus have proper Monarch stamps. Same thing could have been done at other plants, that basically just pressed what you paid them to press I presume. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Yeah - long time ? on this. A number of us have always had doubts.... link What have you had doubts about? Doubts about the discs authenticity or if it is Dennis or not? Sounds exactly like him to me anyway. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Just been looking through the boots and re-issues I sold on eBay and found that the stamp below is also on the Len Jewell 'Bettin' on love' re-issue. link So the Soultown copy could be a legal re-issue and not a boot,but i`m still confused about the defferent alt take on "Love can`t be modernized" on the Soultown & Soundville labels. Dave f............. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Exactly, that's the one. Sure as hell doesn't say MR, and obviously not the same as the regular Monarch stamp (MR in a ring...). What plant is this then? One explanation to some mysterious boots might be that the plants in question were still in business in the 70's and someone like Soussan or whoever used them to press things up? Lots of boots were manufactured in the 70's by Monarch and thus have proper Monarch stamps. Same thing could have been done at other plants, that basically just pressed what you paid them to press I presume. link The boots done at Monarch with the MR circle in the 70s were pressed on styrene,the ones with the same circle stamp as John & the W are on vinyl so as you say C where were these done?? Dave f.......... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Garethx Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 (edited) A whole host of Californian soul records were not pressed at Monarch: it wasn't the only pressing plant in the state. The John & the Wierdest 45 shares the same pressing marks as the records mentioned above plus things like J.D. Abram on Reena. Does anyone know the identity of this pressing plant? On the main subject, the one on ebay is definitely an original, and like Ian C says, when the reproductions appeared they weren't an attempt to fool anyone, and were sold for 10 to 15 quid. Subsequent attempts to pass them off as genuine originals are a bit naughty (to say the least) but you'd have to be visually impaired or have a poor grasp of record collecting to be fooled. Problems could arise when an ebay seller could use someone's scan of an original and sell the reproduction in its' place. On the Dennis Edwards subject: can anyone tell me if there were genuine black issues of this 45, or just WDJs? Edited June 2, 2005 by garethx Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ted Massey Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 A whole host of Californian soul records were not pressed at Monarch: it wasn't the only pressing plant in the state. The John & the Wierdest 45 shares the same pressing marks as the records mentioned above plus things like J.D. Abram on Reena. Does anyone know the identity of this pressing plant? On the main subject, the one on ebay is definitely an original, and like Ian C says, when the reproductions appeared they weren't an attempt to fool anyone, and were sold for 10 to 15 quid. Subsequent attempts to pass them off as genuine originals are a bit naughty (to say the least) but you'd have to be visually impaired or have a poor grasp of record collecting to be fooled. Problems could arise when an ebay seller could use someone's scan of an original and sell the reproduction in its' place. On the Dennis Edwards subject: can anyone tell me if there were genuine black issues of this 45, or just WDJs? link I thought the issues were brown Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Garethx Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 You tell me... i've never seen one. I know it was booted on a black label issue. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 You tell me... i've never seen one. I know it was booted on a black label issue. link Also on a white label boot Dave f........... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Whatever this 'other' west coast plant is, it seems to use the same delta numbering system as Monarch. I have things from Oakland, San Fansisco and L.A. with this pressing plant stamp and they all have 5 figure delta numbers. Ray Agee (and many other northern 45's) on Soultown also has this stamp I think. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Garethx Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Agree with the point that these discs have a Delta numbering system that fits in with the Monarch one, but 45s such as J & TW, Troy Dodds, Ozz & The Sperlings etc. often utilise typefaces on the labels which Monarch records typically didn't (not merely on logotypes, but on credits too). Could be a regional (northern Californian?) outpost of the main Monarch plant. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ted Massey Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Whatever this 'other' west coast plant is, it seems to use the same delta numbering system as Monarch. I have things from Oakland, San Fansisco and L.A. with this pressing plant stamp and they all have 5 figure delta numbers. Ray Agee (and many other northern 45's) on Soultown also has this stamp I think. link Hi this a scan of the Delta dating page that apperared in Shades of Soul August 1987 it may help some people but i expect most of you have it Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Garethx Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 The white label boot of Dennis Edwards is quite different from a real WDJ (using modern computer typesetting as opposed the original RCA-type lettering). The boot I was thinking of was on a black label, a virtual facsimile of a real WDJ, but reversed, and minus the details relating to it being a promo only. Has anyone got a scan of a real issue copy? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Agree with the point that these discs have a Delta numbering system that fits in with the Monarch one, but 45s such as J & TW, Troy Dodds, Ozz & The Sperlings etc. often utilise typefaces on the labels which Monarch records typically didn't (not merely on logotypes, but on credits too). Could be a regional (northern Californian?) outpost of the main Monarch plant. link Many (like Johnny James) do have the typical west coast typeface for the credits and logo though. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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!