what makes an older pressing expensive?

[slide_advantage_redoux]

At an estate sale recently, I picked up several early pressings of LPs. Among them:

"Anita" (Anita O'Day) Verve/Yellow label

"Jammin' at Condon's (Eddie Condon and his All-Stars) Columbia/Maroon label/mono

"Jazz Session" (Harry James and orchestra) Columbia/maroon label)

After looking them up in Goldmine, I was astounded at how much higher they were valued than the later pressings. Is is due to the scarcity of the first pressings, or was the quality and sound better than on later pressings - or what?

Edited October 31, 2005 by Greg Waits

[Stefan Wood]

Usually the quality of sound, and how many were printed of that pressing.

[Stereojack]

At an estate sale recently, I picked up several early pressings of LPs. Among them:

"Anita" (Anita O'Day) Verve/Yellow label

"Jammin' at Condon's (Eddie Condon and his All-Stars) Columbia/Maroon label/mono

"Jazz Session" (Harry James and orchestra) Columbia/maroon label)

After looking them up in Goldmine, I was astounded at how much higher they were valued than the later pressings. Is is due to the scarcity of the first pressings, or was the quality and sound better than on later pressings - or what?

←

Collectors like first editions and original pressings, and will pay a premium for them. Sometimes it may have to do with sound quality, but more often than not it is simply the fact that it is a first pressing makes it desireable.

That said, I would take any "values" listed in Goldmine with a grain of salt.

[Christiern]

I agree, it has little to do with the sound. Dyed-in-the-wool collectors are often not as much interested in the music and sound quality as they are in the matrix number and physical condition. In the case of LPs, a Prestige disc, for example, that has the company's New York Address on the label is of greater value, because it is older.

[patricia]

=Christiern,Oct 31 2005, 07:58 AM]

I agree, it has little to do with the sound. Dyed-in-the-wool collectors are often not as much interested in the music and sound quality as they are in the matrix number and physical condition. In the case of LPs, a Prestige disc, for example, that has the company's New York Address on the label is of greater value, because it is older.

←

I agree. The rarity of a particular record is more often what determines the price sought.

10" LPs featuring rarely assembled one-time performances on since defunct labels of artists who went on to become legends are highly valued because there are so few that exist to be acquired. Quite often, they stay in jazz lovers' collections until they die and the heirs put their collections on the market, or even in garage sales.

My heart actually races when I from time to time discover one of these treasures.

For example, I recently found 2 10" LPs:

The first one is a Clifford Brown with Zoot Sims, Stu Williamson, Bob Gordon, Russ Freeman, Joe Mondragon and with Shelly Manne on drums, on the Vogue label.

The other is another 10"P by Rafael Mendez, recorded in 1952 when he was new on the scene. Mendez was already being called "the world's greatest trumpet virtuoso" and I believe that he retained that distinction for his entire career. An amazing musician, composer and arranger. His performances, IMO, stand alone in their excellence.

Both records are in very good condition, but were recorded when 10" LPs were the standard, before 12" records were being pressed.

Their rarity more than the sound being somehow better is what makes them collectable. The bonus is that these were often the very early performances of the artists. Of course, '78s are much older and more rare, but unlike LPs, they are quite often so ratched that they are not so desireable as a collectable. 10" LPs were about three times the price of '78s and were a new idea and produced for a quite short time. I don't think that many people who collected records bought the LPs lightly and so they looked after these more expensive ones more carefully. They are quite often still in amazingly good shape, which always amazes me.

Edited November 1, 2005 by patricia

[slide_advantage_redoux]

For example, I recently found 2 12" LPs:

The first one is a Clifford Brown with Zoot Sims, Stu Williamson, Bob Gordon, Russ Freeman, Joe Mondragon and with Shelly Manne on drums,  on the Vogue label.

Is this the same session that was released on Pacific Jazz, recorded in California? That is a very nice date, with some excellent arrangements! I have the Pacific Jazz release.

[sidewinder]

For example, I recently found 2 12" LPs:

The first one is a Clifford Brown with Zoot Sims, Stu Williamson, Bob Gordon, Russ Freeman, Joe Mondragon and with Shelly Manne on drums,  on the Vogue label.

Is this the same session that was released on Pacific Jazz, recorded in California? That is a very nice date, with some excellent arrangements! I have the Pacific Jazz release.

←

Sounds like it. That Clifford Brown Pacific Jazz session certainly came out on a UK Vogue 12" LP. Lots of Pacific Jazz sessions were UK issued under the Vogue label.

[patricia]

=sidewinder,Nov 1 2005, 03:10 AM]

For example, I recently found 2 12" LPs:

The first one is a Clifford Brown with Zoot Sims, Stu Williamson, Bob Gordon, Russ Freeman, Joe Mondragon and with Shelly Manne on drums,  on the Vogue label.

Is this the same session that was released on Pacific Jazz, recorded in California? That is a very nice date, with some excellent arrangements! I have the Pacific Jazz release.

←

Sounds like it. That Clifford Brown Pacific Jazz session certainly came out on a UK Vogue 12" LP. Lots of Pacific Jazz sessions were UK issued under the Vogue label.

←

The session was recorded in Hollywood in 1954. The record is on the London label, L.D.E. 158. The cover notes are a litany of high praise for Clifford Brown's astounding talent and written by Alun Morgan.

The track list is:

Side 1

Tiny Capers

Bones For Jones

Daahoud

Side 2

Gone With The Wind

Joy Spring

Finders Keepers

Blueberry Hill

I was merrily playing the record, marvelling at it's excellent condition and the terrific sound quality, considering that the cover is a mess, when I was dismayed to discover that the single "skip" is on my favourite track, Blueberry Hill.

The album cover is almost disintegrating, to the point where whoever had it before me had fashioned a paper inner cover and slid the record inside that. That they went to the trouble to protect the record speaks volumes for the love they had for this record.

Edited November 1, 2005 by patricia

[Jim R]

I'm a little confused by the references to the 10's vs the 12's here. I see that Patricia edited in one correction, though. Anyway, the original (10") LP on Pacific Jazz was:

"Clifford Brown Ensemble"

Later reissued as "Jazz Immortal", as a 12" (and CD) with this cover:

[patricia]

=Jim R,Nov 1 2005, 12:33 PM]

I'm a little confused by the references to the 10's vs the 12's here.  I see that Patricia edited in one correction, though.  Anyway, the original (10") LP on Pacific Jazz was:

"Clifford Brown Ensemble"

Jim, this is the record I have in my hands right now. It's the Pacific Jazz session but the record was pressed in London on the Vogue label.

The 12/10" descrepency was a typo that I edited this morning.

Along the edge of the label is the warning: "Unauthorized Public Performance Broadcasting and Copying Of This Record Prohibited". I hope I don't get flung into an airless dungeon for cutting a CD of it.

Edited November 1, 2005 by patricia

[Jim R]

Patricia, your post #5 still includes this, which was one of the things that didn't make sense to me:

"12" LPs were about three times the price of '78s and were a new idea and produced for a quite short time."

Obviously, it was 10" LP's that only lasted a short time. Between that and the one you edited, I wasn't sure whether you meant to say 10" in any of the other places where you were tallking about 10 vs 12.

[patricia]

=Jim R,Nov 1 2005, 12:59 PM]

Patricia, your post #5 still includes this, which was one of the things that didn't make sense to me:

"12" LPs were about three times the price of '78s and were a new idea and produced for a quite short time." 

Obviously, it was 10" LP's that only lasted a short time.    Between that and the one you edited, I wasn't sure whether you meant to say 10" in any of the other places where you were tallking about 10 vs 12.

←

Final word, Jim. TEN INCH. Sorry for the confusion. The picture is the record I have. Reading off the cover, "Clifford Brown Ensemble Featuring Zoot Sims A Vogue production LDE 158. "

[Jim R]

I hope I don't get flung into an airless dungeon for cutting a CD of it.

←

Hmmm... why not just buy the "Jazz Immortal" CD?

[Jim R]

=Jim R,Nov 1 2005, 12:59 PM]

Patricia, your post #5 still includes this, which was one of the things that didn't make sense to me:

"12" LPs were about three times the price of '78s and were a new idea and produced for a quite short time." 

Obviously, it was 10" LP's that only lasted a short time.    Between that and the one you edited, I wasn't sure whether you meant to say 10" in any of the other places where you were tallking about 10 vs 12.

←

Final word, Jim. TEN INCH. Sorry for the confusion. The picture is the record I have. Reading off the cover, "Clifford Brown Ensemble Featuring Zoot Sims A Vogue production LDE 158. "

←

Ah, okay. Looks like post #5 needs more editing!

[patricia]

=Jim R,Nov 1 2005, 12:59 PM]

Patricia, your post #5 still includes this, which was one of the things that didn't make sense to me:

"12" LPs were about three times the price of '78s and were a new idea and produced for a quite short time." 

Obviously, it was 10" LP's that only lasted a short time.     Between that and the one you edited, I wasn't sure whether you meant to say 10" in any of the other places where you were tallking about 10 vs 12.

←

Final word, Jim. TEN INCH. Sorry for the confusion. The picture is the record I have. Reading off the cover, "Clifford Brown Ensemble Featuring Zoot Sims A Vogue production LDE 158. "

←

Ah, okay. Looks like post #5 needs more editing!

←

Picky, picky, but OK.

DONE. I didn't realize I had erred so often in post#5.

But, speaking of 10" LPs, it always puzzled me when I was a little kid and these came out that they were the same size as '78s, but magically had several songs on them and had to be played on a different speed. That was the reason, originally, that my father put his jazz LPs in a locked cabinet, because my brothers and I thought it was amusing to play them on '78 so that they were unnaturally and hilariously, we thought, cartoon-like.

Edited November 1, 2005 by patricia

[Jim R]

Patricia, I wasn't trying to pick on you or being picky for picky's sake. I was just trying to help you clarify your post #5, where you said "12"" (apparently) every time when you meant "10"". I for one have seen very few Vogue or London LP's over the years, and I was curious as to what size they really were.

[sidewinder]

These Vogues can be very nice finds if found in good condition. Early ones from the mid-50s were in the 10", later issues through into the 1960s were 12". The Pacific Jazz pressings come in either 10" or 12" - most of the PJ's I've seen are the 12". I have in my collection Vogues of the 'Bob Brookmeyer With Strings' and a couple of the Bud Shanks. They also did some of the early Lexington Blue Notes.

Nice to see mention of Alun Morgan's name, Patricia. His essays and sleevenotes are usually very informative and immaculately put together. I rank him up there along with Charles Fox, in that respect.

Edited November 2, 2005 by sidewinder

[slide_advantage_redoux]

.....my father put his jazz LPs in a locked cabinet, because my brothers and I thought it was amusing to play them on '78 so that they were unnaturally and hilariously, we thought, cartoon-like.

Uhh, you don't happen to have the key to that cabinet now do you?

[patricia]

Patricia, I wasn't trying to pick on you or being picky for picky's sake.  I was just trying to help you clarify your post #5, where you said "12"" (apparently) every time when you meant "10"".  I for one have seen very few Vogue or London LP's over the years, and I was curious as to what size they really were.

←

I know you weren't being picky. I was wrong. I wasn't thinking.

The record is pristine, except for that one skip, which filled me with joy. The cover on the other hand is a mess. It really did need the makeshift paper sleeve that was added later, to preserve the record and keep what was left of the original cover in one piece, more or less.

And no, Greg, I never did get the key to Dad's record cabinet. For all I know there could have been a pit bull in there too. I still remember the displeasure Dad expressed when he realized we kids were foolin' with his records. He never got mad, but was he hot!! The very next weekend he bought and installed a lock on his treasures. No wonder. We kids were a curious gang and that was the only way.

Oh, and as to why I didn't just buy the Jazz Immortals CD, well gosh, I don't know. I could cut my own CD, so I did.

Oh, another 10" treasure is Sidney Bechet Jazz Festival Concert Paris 1952. - Blue Note 7024. The cover is perfect. The record is perfect. It's interesting to listen to the MC speaking French, the crowd noises and of course, the music.

Bit of trivia. Usually if a record is a little dusty I run it under the hot water tapto clean it, then blot it gently dry before I play it. This is the first record that I washed this way on which the colours ran. I can still read it, but that was weird.

Edited November 2, 2005 by patricia