Sebastian

It was manufactured at three different pressing plants (at least):

Fantastic uptempo non-falsetto tune by Donnie Elbert:

I guess I'm just a bit naive. I usually try to think the best of people. Big mistake, I know.

Yes, I realise that. I just didn't think that people could be so ignorant and/or stupid. It's as if they don't know what the word "rare" means in this context. The concept of "rarity" isn't hard to understand, or is it? I mean, we're not talking about a steak! My previously fairly positive outlook on human kind is dwindling by the minute.

Tried to send these to you in a PM, but the files wouldn't upload. Anyway, here is the 7 page biography about them from the gigantic book "Heeey Baby Days Of Beach Music". The pictures are big so if you download them you can zoom in and read the text. Also, check this out: https://heybabydays.com/Catalinas.pdf

Does anyone on here actually say that they only play "rare soul" or only like "rare soul"? "Rare soul" is not a genre. By a lot of peoples posts in this thread it sounds as if they think that soul records that are rare/scarce -- i.e. "rare soul" -- has got a specific sound or style. That's just ridiculous. The northern soul scene has always concerned itself with rare records. Most of the best-loved tunes on the northern soul scene are in the grand scheme of things rare/scarce 45s on their original release.

The following uses the same backing track: Rodd Keith - Like The Lord Said Rodd Keith - Gloria Rodd Keith - Don't You Tempt Me Rodd Keith - I'm A Man There's supposed to be another version of it by Rodd called "If You Don't Dig Rock'n'Roll" but I've never heard it. Plus an LP-only track by The MSR Singers as well, don't know the title of it but Pete S has mentioned it in the past.

Fantastic tune! It is "Need You" by the New Orleans artist Prince La La. A previously unissued track that appeared on the "More Gumbo Stew" CD on Ace (CDCHD 462 : https://www.acerecords.co.uk/content.php?page_id=59&release=518 ). Don't think it ever has gotten a vinyl release. That entire "Gumbo Stew" CD series is filled with good (mostly unissued) New Orleans stuff.

Was asked a moment ago by soulgirl85 to close this topic. I will do that and re-open it when I have recieved the 45 to tell you about it. If any further problems arises I'll let you all know about it here.

That sounds great. Looking forward to recieve the 45. I'm sure the package will weigh more than 97 grams when you post it.

As far as the registration info / sheet goes... if you read in the picture it say that the package weighs 97 grams. A question to frequent sellers on here: how often do you manage to pack a 45 in a US style cruciform mailer along with two stiffeners and still get it to under 100 grams? It's always 150-ish grams or more when I do that. Strange...

The package was indeed packed very well. A nice US style cruciform mailer with two stiffeners. It was sent registered and I have collected it. No argument there. BUT THERE WAS NO RECORD INSIDE THE PACKAGE! The package had not been opened by anyone else but me. The two stiffeners that you had used were still taped together when I opened the package. The address sticker on the package was taped ON TOP of the brown tape that sealed the package. So it can't have been opened by anyone on the way to me. I do realize that this will probably be going nowhere and I'm f**cked, but this is out of order, and I had to write somewhere about it. Perhaps you made a mistake, I don't know, but please have a look around your flat/house to see if you might have forgotten to put it in the package before mailing it to me.

Have you had a similar experience with the seller soulgirl85? The record I was supposed to recieve is Bobby Dobyne's "Soulful Sound Of Music" on CROWN LTD. Here is the sales thread: The seller says that the record was sent out in the package that was sent registered, I sent the payment as gift, so I guess I'm f**ked. STUPID STUPID ME! this is the second time i've sent as "gift" to a seller on here and it has backfired on me, will NEVER do it again. Oldest trick in the book I guess, sending a package registered without a record in it. And I can't do a thing. AAAARRRRGGGGGG! This week is really shaping up to be a good one...

Thanks for getting back to me. It's very weird recieving a package without a record in it sent registered. Hope you'll be able to set things right.

Really looking forward to that!

Haha! My mistake. Sorry! The differences between the orig and repro of JD Hall are explained here and three posts down:

Great info from neckender! Can someone please post up a picture of a yellow labeled copy. All I've ever seen have been orange. The ones that look yellow on Popsike are actually orange. I know because a few of my friends bought those exact copies and they are deep orange. Can someone please post up pictures that illustrates the "significant dip" vs. one that hasn't got a dip? Just tilt the record so that light reflects the dip and take a picture of it. The reason I keep asking for these things to be put forward is because it is not hard nowadays to take pictures of records or scan them. Yet, no one is doing it. Providing proof that two issues exists should be easy if the differences are so apparent. Yet, no one is doing it. And when people aren't able to prove things that are EASY to prove, then that makes me question the whole thing.

I don't have them side by side. I thought that was obvious by my initial post. That's why I asked for the exact matrix details of the two different issues. If I had both there would be no question, the darker green would've been the bootleg. But I couldn't make that comparison. Hence I thought your comment "you can clearly tell by the label colour which is which" was a bit flippant. Hope you understand what I mean. Apparently I haven't. Mine has got the correct matrix details. 5444 on the a-side, 5544 on the b-side. The bootleg has got 5544 on both sides.

The original looks pretty iffy as well if you ask me. They even got the matrix "wrong" on the original (surely should be 5444-A / 5444-B if they'd done it right). Knowing the matrix is the best way to determine its authencity. It seems to be the definite way of telling the boot from the original without even having to see a scan of it. Also, the "R" and "P" in "INCORPORTATED" bleeds into each other on the bootleg. On the original there is green space around both of those letters. I'm having a total shit week and the last thing I needed was recieving a bootleg of this 45. Please excuse me if I come across like a jackass.

If you have both issues in your hands at the same time, yes. However if there are such glaring differences in the matrix info as in this case (5544 on both sides on the boot, 5444/5544 on respective sides on the original), surely that's an easier way to tell which is which?

Well, that's the clincher! Mine is an original. Big thanks!

Thanks! I've looked at that thread as well, but it's still confusing. The matrix info on the original that you describe corresponds with mine, which is promising! 5444 on "Destination" and 5544 on "Crying". But what are the matrix details on the bootleg? Can anyone confirm what they are?

Thanks again! I don't think the "MZL" on this one can have been scratched in by hand after the record was pressed. I've always been lead to believe that the surefire way of telling the boot vs. original is in the 5444/5544 matrix details, but perhaps that info is the same on both the orig and the boot? Would be great to get a 100% answer on this one from Manship or anyone else on here who knows for sure.

Thanks for your reply. I really hope so as it corresponds with what is written in Manship's guide (and that is what I relied on when buying this 45). I just got a bit thrown by the fact that the "MZL" is scratched in and not stamped (I assumed it was going to be stamped and look exactly the same on both sides). Also the whole "olive green" label (orig) vs. "sherwood green" label (boot) is a bit hard to tell when you don't have them side by side. Has anyone on here got the bootleg/second issue that they can describe in detail? Big thanks in advance.

Thanks for the clarification, Kev. I don't think Chuck Wood sounds like any of the J.R. Bailey tunes I've heard, but stranger things have happened.