maslar

Out of interest - I see that previously he's sold a copy of Don Gardner, Cheatin Kind. He claims this is from a limited edition reissue of 400 licensed by Don Gardner himself. Is this true?

just out of interest and for clarification how many of these new batch of pressings have been sold as originals. Explicitly as originals with an accompanying price tag? Is a figure known?

I think that release had it's own unique characteristics and isn't at all the same thing that we're talking about.

Absolutely not. Well not to me anyway. A good beginners 101 would be to go to popsike. The "no results" would be a pretty good starting point for any further investigation. There is so much info available nowadays -detailed discographies such as on soulfulkindamusic, that really any such record should be easily spotted for what it is (in terms. of actual release). And if by some chance this really did happen (a genuine "find" came to light) then the subsequent investigation would easily validate it.

Huh? surely these are the easiest to identify? And also the least contentious?

That's a deal that anyone with any sense would readily accept. You don't need a psychology 'o' level to expect that the 300 coming will probably be better than "average".

And a complete refund would be unmanageable. The same thing would happen but who would cover postage costs? The seller could end up massively out of pocket as some chanced for a better deal..

I said exactly the same thing and was accused on condoning theft. Yes, apparently that is theft.

To be honest I'm getting a little tired of this. A counterfeit in this instance refers to the music. Don't you get it? It's the music that is licensed that is replicated. The medium by which it is done is largely irrelevant. Ok on the northern scene its usually vinyl but it could be tape or cd. or whatever. Reproductions are just one form of counterfeiting. that may have other issues attached to them (possible deception, prices, etc). Counterfeiting refers to the reproduction of the music - that (what you hear) is the copying aspect - not the physical form it takes. Reproductions take this one step further in that there may be an attempt to deceive - but not necessarily.

Really? When I started buying records on the northern scene everyone called them "pressings". I don't remember "boots" being used much at all. And legit reissues aren't original neither are they in any way "boots". See the problems that arise when you don't use the correct terminology? Life could be so much simpler - Really

What a stupid post. You're on the wrong topic anyway. Dazed and confused. Maybe. I don't know enough about how that process works make any real comment.

Indeed.

There most certainly is. It's been proven by the successful release of such material

You're referring to what I call "counterfeits" as bootlegs - then using this (your own definition) to refer to my definition of bootleg (which is different). From my perspective (and within record collecting in general) the two are fundamentally different. You're using only one term (bootleg) and in doing so causing misrepresentation of what i'm actually saying.

- NO because as you already know it's not illegal to own bootlegs.

OK fair point. I'm not sure whether legally it would be true or not. Why then have such acetates been legally released onto the market? (By legally I refer to lack of criminal proceedings ensuing). The example that springs to my mind in the release, a couple of decades ago, of the very early unissued Marc Bolan track "The Road I'm On" c/w Blowing In the wind. The person that released is as a limited release with picture sleeve owned the acetate. The subsequent release was advertised in full half page advert in Record Collector over a considerable time, even before it's release. (Record Collector being the main record collecting magazine in Europe. This was a bootleg in record collecting terms. There was a large demand for it from fans and the price was reasonable. As far as I'm aware no one was ever prosecuted. There are of course numerous other examples. I'm sure this particular example falls into the grey area category. Nevertheless RC mag -which had a policy of not advertising illegal recordings featured it. So essentially it comes down to a grey area involving ethics.

You seem unable to grasp the basic fundamentals of what I'm saying. And to be honest I'm in danger of going round and round in circles. But one last point and example and then that's it from me on this topic unless someone make a point that I can relate to. Just to reaffirm: Bootlegging in record collecting -refers to the release on any medium of previously unissued and unavailable material. The ownership of this material may be known, a grey area or unknown. For example. Imagine I purchased an acetate of an unreleased track. I own the acetate. Do I own the rights to release it on vinyl? Maybe, maybe not. But this has been done successfully numerous times. This is potentially a grey area that could be contested in court if anyone actually gave toss.

As I stated I'm specifically talking about terms used within record collecting - and unless you have a knowledge of the wider record collecting sphere then it's probably going to take a little thinking about. I've already stated what the term "bootleg" refers to. No need to go over that again I'm sure. But I will elaborate on the term "counterfeit" becasue you don't seem to get it. it's the music that is counterfeited. The medium by which this is done is largely irrelevant in term of legality. Years ago some on the northern scene used to make cassette tapes full of rare sounds and distribute them to their friends. These are counterfeits. Taking a track of an LP and producing as a single is counterfeiting, just the same as if you'd put it onto a cd or dvd. Counterfeiting is the illegal production of licensed product. The means why which this reproduction is done is largely irrelevant. Back in the 70s there used to be a debate - when Phillips cassette recorders came onto the market - about whether taping off the radio was illegal. technically it was but no one bothered since it wasn't for profit and was too wide scale anyway. Anyone who ever taped a song off the radio onto a cassette tape was making a counterfeit recording. According to some on here these same people would be deceitful thieves. It's laughable. However, within the sphere of counterfeiting there is indeed the criminal activity of producing potentially financially lucrative replicas. This is it's own topic and should not really be confused with other bootlegging and counterfeiting. Think of it like this. If I made a tape or cd of a rare record and tape and gave it to a friend for free would I be doing anything criminal? Don't forget in legal terms the rarity of a track has no bearing. It's just the same as for example a current song in the charts This is no different to me producing the same track on vinyl and giving them a copy. The medium if irrelevant and nobody cares less. Unless i try to make money out of it, And in reality only then if it's large sums of money. On the northern scene there a tendency to group all bootlegs, counterfeits, and (amazingly) even legal reissues under the term "boots". Now if you're going to argue that the northern scene has it own terminology then fair enough. But that doesn't avoid the fact that its only going to lead to confusion.

There's nothing complicated about it. Unless you want to make it complicated. You either get it or you don't. it looks to me like you actually don't want to get it since as a basic concept it's pretty easy to understand. Once again you try and and attribute sentiments to me that I don't share and have never stated. You claim that that I approve of deception. it's twice now you've done this and to be honest it's getting tiring. For the record (once again) I don't condone stealing or deceiving people. That I should even have to make such statement I find offensive. Your whole argument is pretty lame: To group all bootlegs and counterfeits under the same umbrella -which is what you are doing - and then attaching tags such as thieving and deception to this "group" you have established is ridiculous. When I started buying northern soul records I bought pressings. They cost about £!..00. They were copies. Was I being deceived? Was my money stolen? I knew exactly what I was getting. Your comments about bootlegs again shows you don't really know anything about the subject. That isn't really surprising since the whole bootleg movement was originally associated with rock music or rock/pop in the case of the Beatles. The whole ethos of bootlegs was to make available music that was unavailble and had little chance of ever becoming available. Bootlegs were never about deception or theft. Everyone knew what they were getting and generally they were either distributed freely or at a reasonable low cost. I wouldn't have any qualms about owning a bootleg of my favourite artist or even a misc genre. In fact bootlegs have played a vital role in the way record companies have released music over the last couple of decade. particularly the abundance of anthologies with unreleased tracks, alternate takes , rehearsals and jams. The record companies only did this as a reaction to the bootleg movement. To meet demand. The fact you label these as the same as the production of replicas which are deliberately designed to deceive people and make large sums of money shows a complete lack of understanding.

Id just like to clarify a few points because following all this is interesting - better than the telly atm - but a little confusing. What most people refer to as "boots on the Northern scene are actually what may be referred to as counterfeits in the wider record collecting scene where: Bootlegs are unissued material previously unavailable and possible ambiguous ownership. These are different to Counterfeits - which are reissues (in this case vinyl) of previously released material. from any source or format. Within the sphere of counterfeits there are "reproductions". Would I be right in saying these new records (pressings) contain both bootlegs and counterfeits - and also reproductions. And since the unissued material (bootlegs) and the LP tracks (counterfeits) are easily recognizable as such the main issue is with the reproductions? If this is the case my question is as follows: Are the reproductions (which has been stated are of a high quality) distinguishable from the original? And if so how easily? It seems to me from what I've read that there would be indications that they are not actually originals (eg vinyl instead of styrene).

No it's not a joke.

Just a few random thoughts on the matter: 1 £1000 is a lot of money (in case anyone hadn't realized). 2 These packs are clearly aimed at collectors with an eclectic interest - ranging from jazz , all shades of soul music to disco and funk. Neither are they aimed at collectors wishing to become dealers. Or get rich quick. 3 Even with my limited knowledge of what IL is offering I still have a rough idea of what I would get for my £1000 . I can kind of picture it. 4 I wouldn't buy a pack such as this without asking questions first: while I realise detail is out of the question I'd still want reassurance about the ratio of stuff I was getting and condition. This would be reasonable given the money involved. As a buyer you're entitled to ask as many questions as you like and to get any assurance you require. At the end of the day you can always say - no thanks 5 In terms of satisfaction after receiving I'd want the follows: If I was happy with 250 then that would be my minimum. I'd be ok with that. Ideally I'd expect to be happy with about a half. The rest I could dispose off and not be too upset about it. Any thing over half would be a bonus.

This to me is the true ethos of "bootlegging" - making material available that would otherwise be lost. I wouldn't have any qualms whatsoever about owning this or paying for it.

Well it's obviously not a soul record. But then again neither is it "psych". Not to me anyway. I'd class it more "bubblegum". Sounds like something you might have seen/heard on Eurovision 45 years ago. Not my cup of tea anyway.

He has put "reissue" in the title. "Re" is a standard abbreviation for re-issue. The fact that anyone buying this record doesn't realise that is neither here nor there. Ebay actually list it as an accepted, standard abbreviation. If someone bought this they couldn't claim they were duped. As far as I can see he hasn't claimed it's an original. The seller hasn't actually done anything wrong. Even the term "rare" is entirely subjective.