Gasher Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 item number..please clarify..I always thought this was the bootleg..https://cgi.ebay.com/NORTHERN-SOUL-BOB-RELF...1QQcmdZViewItem4832747365 https://cgi.ebay.com/DAYBREAK-I-NEED-LOVE-P...1QQcmdZViewItem also who in their right mind pays £30 for a ten pound reissue??? twats Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Harrogatesoul Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 item number..please clarify..I always thought this was the bootleg..https://cgi.ebay.com/NORTHERN-SOUL-BOB-RELF...1QQcmdZViewItem4832747365 https://cgi.ebay.com/DAYBREAK-I-NEED-LOVE-P...1QQcmdZViewItem also who in their right mind pays £30 for a ten pound reissue??? twats Same old story on the Daybreak....Might nip off to Juno and grab me a few at a fiver...... Thought the Bob Relf was a boot too.. still ppl will continue to pay these daft prices for these things. ATB Rich Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Headsy Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 it is a boot but states original ( just PMd the bidder ) Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Gasher Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Imsure Brisoul is on here too the seller Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Trevski Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Imsure Brisoul is on here too the seller Should be ashamed of himself then.... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
pikeys dog Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 There is a rare Yellow label original, but it has the same design label as the orange one. There is also a Canadian issue on a Yellow label, again with the same design as the orig U.S. issue. Any copy with just text is a boot. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I've been led to believe in the past- can't remember who by now but it was a trusted source- that the Bob Relf I'm seeing there is an original. Not that I'm disbeleiving anyone here, but is there some definitive ? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Headsy Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 gotta have the ''hands'' logo to be original surely.? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Looks well diffrant from the yellow boots i`ve seen,and the star on the A side?,dont know what to think? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
pikeys dog Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I've been led to believe in the past- can't remember who by now but it was a trusted source- that the Bob Relf I'm seeing there is an original. Not that I'm disbeleiving anyone here, but is there some definitive ? Doubt it very much - Another thing that makes it 'stink' is the fact that two different fonts were used on the labels in the scans. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Simon T Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 On my original orange issue the number is 213-389-9938 not 213-384-9334 as on that scan. If it is a boot, the hands logo might have been too complicated to reproduce and they failed to notice the label is actually TRANS.AMERICANS, not TRANS RECORDS! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
vaultofsouler Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) item number..please clarify..I always thought this was the bootleg.. https://cgi.ebay.com/NORTHERN-SOUL-BOB-RELF...1QQcmdZViewItem I've been led to believe in the past- can't remember who by now but it was a trusted source- that the Bob Relf I'm seeing there is an original. Not that I'm disbeleiving anyone here, but is there some definitive ? On my original orange issue the number is 213-389-9938 not 213-384-9334 as on that scan. If it is a boot, the hands logo might have been too complicated to reproduce and they failed to notice the label is actually TRANS.AMERICANS, not TRANS RECORDS! Always led to believe it was a boot" myself.... but I've also had conversations years ago about this because the original has a matrix stamp "that looks like 2 oval circles with a centre dot with a V running from the center" (to quote JM's guide).... and this DOES as shown in piccies taken (not brilliant via a phone camera) from "the boot" I've had and stored away since being young and unknowing.... I seem to remember being told back then that the numbering difference, as Simon T points out, was an indication of an "earlier" release number based on sequential numbering.... Not suggesting it is "real" by any means, but the inclusion of the "original stamped matrix" is interesting IMO.... as I'm told the other "boots" (the counerfiet label copy & the trans am only logo copy) don't have this.... opens up the whole debate about duplicating original matrix stamps even in the early days, unlike those that have scratched in copied matrixes.... Isn't collecting a wonderful game .... Edited February 10, 2006 by vaultofsouler Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 That's a boot. If it's not, I've sold the original for £5 a dozen times. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ged Parker Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 it is a boot but states original ( just PMd the bidder ) Never had an original of this and not sure of the differences between a real one and a boot. But the seller is Flanny so can't imagine he would sell a boot as an original unless he was sure. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Russ Smith Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) Ive sold this as a boot a couple of times over the years..... Always thought its an early/mid 70s pressing.. Got me thinking now though... Edited February 10, 2006 by Russ Smith Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Paul R Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I would say definately a boot, I've had this since the 70s and always known it as a boot. It has the two ovals with a V matrix stamped. And as Pete says a fiver is probably right. Before these were seen the orange "hands" issue was the only one around. If it is original there are plenty around. Paul Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Netspeaky Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I would say definately a boot, I've had this since the 70s and always known it as a boot. It has the two ovals with a V matrix stamped. And as Pete says a fiver is probably right. Before these were seen the orange "hands" issue was the only one around. If it is original there are plenty around. PaulThere were lots of real re-issues in the early-mid 70's due to demand from the UK, remember some of these records were only a couple of year old at the time, and the labels and owners were still in business. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Peter Richer Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 As I understand it, the 'Trans' copies are legitimate re-issues, as opposed to the 'Trans American' originals. The interesing point is that they were pressed from the original plates, and therefore have identical matrix markings. Value ought to be in the £10 to £20 (absolute max) range. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Trevski Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 As I understand it, the 'Trans' copies are legitimate re-issues, as opposed to the 'Trans American' originals. The interesing point is that they were pressed from the original plates, and therefore have identical matrix markings. Value ought to be in the £10 to £20 (absolute max) range. That sounds about right. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 This throws up an interesting point -the way the term 'boot' is bandied around very easily. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Gasher Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) This throws up an interesting point -the way the term 'boot' is bandied around very easily Yeah especially in the cobblers and shoe repairers guild circles..Ask Sepia..he's a cobbler..he was always easily tempted by an old boot.. eh Steve? SO ARE WE CONVINCED>>>THIS IS A BOOT THEN>>>>>>I am Edited February 10, 2006 by the gasher Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Netspeaky Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 This throws up an interesting point -the way the term 'boot' is bandied around very easily. People assume if it's not the original first press then it's a boot. Small label setup pressed up small numbers, if it sold then they went back to pressing plant for a second or third run, quite often it could be on different colour/texture/design etc, all originals. Also record could have be pressed in multiple pressing plants. Differences in label design etc can be caused by any of the following. Mistakes Problems Lack of original materials (Colour Paper/ Designs/ etc) Change of Label design between 1st press and following Location differences Some notable POP records which this happen to: Beatles - "Love me do" (Red / Black) The black aren't boots are they T-Rex - "Ride A White Swan" (Brown / Grey) The Grey aren't boots either. Massive difference in price for your Beatles Red/Black releases but the are all original. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 What a great double sider it is-one of the best for me. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Winsford Soul Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Never had an original of this and not sure of the differences between a real one and a boot. But the seller is Flanny so can't imagine he would sell a boot as an original unless he was sure. Ged . I was with Flanny 5hrs ago at the lowton niter He is gutted that people think he is trying to rip people off. We had a good chat about this topic with a few people who have got a lot more knowledge imo than most and came to the conclusion that it is a real one. I,ve known flanny years,big time player on the record buying side of things and he would NEVER try and pass off a boot as a real one. Steve Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Larsc Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 As I understand it, the 'Trans' copies are legitimate re-issues, as opposed to the 'Trans American' originals. The interesing point is that they were pressed from the original plates, and therefore have identical matrix markings. This sounds to me as the most probable explanation. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Epic Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Ged . I was with Flanny 5hrs ago at the lowton niter He is gutted that people think he is trying to rip people off. We had a good chat about this topic with a few people who have got a lot more knowledge imo than most and came to the conclusion that it is a real one. I,ve known flanny years,big time player on the record buying side of things and he would NEVER try and pass off a boot as a real one. Steve I too was at Lowton - looked at the said record - looks genuine to me - different - yes - even got all the right stamps in the deadwax - can't imagine bootleggers going to that much trouble. Flanny is one of the "good guys" - he would rather do you a favour than any harm. If he thought the record was a boot he would have said so - either way Flanny couldn't exactly retire on the proceeds of a Bobby Relf could he? Sometimes people on this site are too quick too crucify others - opinions are like a**eholes - we've all got one!!! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Gorgeous George Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I too was at Lowton - looked at the said record - looks genuine to me - different - yes - even got all the right stamps in the deadwax - can't imagine bootleggers going to that much trouble. Ive got one too, its nothing like the cheap yellow boot leg you see. Its stamped up and just looks right, maybe a different pressing plant or pressing run. The honest answer has to be not 100% sure. No way would Flanny deliberately decieve anyone! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) Think it's setled then- it's a totally legit 45 , non bootleg, second issue? Edited February 11, 2006 by Simon White Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Gasher Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 Thats good enough for me. All I wanted to know. Ive had it and sold it as a boot ,its clearly not its a legit reissue.I was not slagging anybody off .As I started this thread.. I have dealt with Flanny in the past and wouldnt dare to knock his credability on the scene..No one accused him of trying to pass it off as an original ..just wanted it clarified..no more no less Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Thats good enough for me. All I wanted to know. Ive had it and sold it as a boot ,its clearly not its a legit reissue.I was not slagging anybody off .As I started this thread.. I have dealt with Flanny in the past and wouldnt dare to knock his credability on the scene..No one accused him of trying to pass it off as an original ..just wanted it clarified..no more no less F*cking hell, don't they take it seriously, nobody said he was trying to rip anyone off, like Ritchie says, he was just trying to find out about it. I'd still sell that record as a pressing whether it's a legitimate reissue or not, or is this some new phase in record collecting: legitimate reissues, because they are 'legitimate' you can add another £10 on to the price. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Chalky Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 (edited) There is a rare original yellow press of this record. The one Flanny has is stamped and like Ged says he would never knowingly sell as an original if he knew otherwise, Flanny is as honest as they come!. It was shown at Lowton to several and opinion was divided. I didn't think it was a real one, it was too thin for my liking and like Roger Banks mentioned a different shade of yellow. Edited February 12, 2006 by chalky Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Iancsloft Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I.ll second that Chalky , ive known Flanny for years and he,s one of the nicest blokes you could ever meet and as straight as they come Flanny bought that 45 as a original and the info he was given regarding its originality came from a well known source personally I told him Friday at Lowton that I thought it was a mid 70,s U.S Re-Issue done by Bob or possible Simon Soussan to ship over he because of the popularity of Blowin my mind to pieces............... Kind Regards Ian Cunliffe Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Paul Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Hello, The yellow Trans label 45 may have been a legitimate reissue. It was pressed at Rainbo in the early '70s using the original plates or stampers. Paul Mooney www.millbrand.com 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!