Gatefold LP covers with Insert on Inside of Gatefold

[Teasing the Korean]

Random record geek rant: I hate gatefold LP covers that have the insert on the inside of the gatefold. Dionne Warwick Scepter LPs are like this. They always come unglued, and I can never get the inner sleeves to go under the flaps. I have a Ben Sidran LP on Blue Thumb like this also. I'm glad this design never caught on.

[JSngry]

Unipak

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.collecting.vinyl/c/IuNCs0w9LpY?pli=1

[Big Beat Steve]

Nice vinyl geek rant anyway, TTK!

I had to look up the Unipak definition linked by JSngry to see what exactly you are referring to.
Now I understand what you mean but I can assure you that Unipak definition misses the point at least as far the time frame is concerned.
I don't know for sure about the USA but here in Europe LP covers with this layout weren't all that uncommon from back in the (more or less) early 50s. To the point that I did not even pay attention to this peculiarity up to now but took them for "granted" as a period design detail, particularly on 10" records.
The European covers had thinner covers than in the US (similar to the typically thin covers of UK pressings, which made them much less prone to ring wear and split seams than the US cardboard covers but much more prone to fraying round the edges). The inner sleeves of these "Insert on the inside" gatefolds usually were clear plastic sleeves that were glued or stuck inside the cover.
At least one such item must have been all over the place in the US from back in the 50s as well, however, i.e. the JAZZTONE "Jazz Sampler" J-SPEC100 (the introductory item for prospects interested in joining the Jazztone mail order service). I have US, German, French and Swiss pressings and releases of this particular sampler and they all have the gatefold cover with extended liner notes not only on the back cover but on the inside too (US pressing below).

OTOH, strangely enough this sleeve design often did not even make use of the space on the inside of the gatefold covers for added liner notes or photographs but just had blank surfaces there (or at most a generic list of other relases on that label, e.g. on Telefunken semi-generic covers of the early 50s). Without even searching hard I pulled out half a dozen such items (with "inside blanks") from the 10" jazz corner of my collection (both traditional and modern jazz). So this kind of sleeve design must have been fairly common. IMO its relatively widespread use was pioneered by releases of classical music where extensive liner notes (that needed more space than would fit the back cover) were frequent. So it seems to have been retained even on releases where the inside space wasnt even needed. Maybe some producers figured this offered better protection to keep the LP from sliding out of the cover?

Sometimes they did make full use of the inside space, though, as on this French LP by Les Chaussettes Noires from the "Ye-Ye" R'n'R era of the early 60s, showing how to do the Twist: 😉

And here's a variation on that theme: "How to get a maximum of printed matter inside the gatefold sleeve", with the record on the left and a booklet stapled inside" on the right (a French "Jazz pour tous" compilation 10" LP - Philips D 99 556R). 

This type of sleeve must eventually have disappeared during the 12" era but seems to have been around for a while.
Two such items that I quickly located in my collection are:

- Lionel Hampton "The Mess Is Here" (rec. 1958) on Bertelsmann 61017 (which existed both as a gatefold and a non-gatefold pressing. Which both look to be of roughly the same vintage to me. Catalog no. and label are identical).
- the German pressing of the "Introduction to Jazz" LP curated by the Rev. A.L. Kershaw (Brunswick 87003 LPBM) which even has a double-foldout gatefold sleeve:

This "newbie introduction to traditional jazz" LP must have remained in print for quite some time. I have two pressings: One with a printing date of 11/59 on the back cover (printing dates were customary on German Brunswicks and Corals of that period), and another one with no printing/pressing date at all but otherwise same artwork. Which must date this to post-1965 or thereabouts (the most recent such Brunswicks with printing dates I have seen are from 1965).

The UK pressing of this same LP (Brunswick LAT 8124) was able to make do with a standard cover and a double-sided cardboard insert inside the sleeve because it did not have to include the German and French versions of the comments on each track.

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Big Beat Steve

[mjzee]

Unipaks!  If it makes you feel any better, TTK, they were hated when they first came out, too, and didn't last long in the marketplace.  An additional problem: the covers frayed badly at the crease, and since that spine held the album name, you saw these frayed spines when you filed the LP.

[HutchFan]

Unipaks always make me think of the Mainstream label.  

 

20 minutes ago, mjzee said:

An additional problem: the covers frayed badly at the crease, and since that spine held the album name, you saw these frayed spines when you filed the LP.

Yep.  

 

[Teasing the Korean]

2 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Nice vinyl geek rant anyway, TTK!

I had to look up the Unipak definition linked by JSngry to see what exactly you are referring to.
Now I understand what you mean but I can assure you that Unipak definition misses the point at least as far the time frame is concerned...

Thanks for this detail.  I think I have a few European LPs like that.  It seems like the Unipak's European cousin was a little sturdier and less problematic than the dreaded Unipak.

[Big Beat Steve]

One Unipak LP series that may have remained under the radar because it was a reissue series (and not original releases) was the EPIC "Encore Series" (released and pressed in the late 60s/early 70s, it seems):

https://www.discogs.com/label/399356-Epic-Encore-Series

They seem to have existed both with this "Unipak" layout and the conventional layout with the LP opening at the outside of the back cover, not towards the spine. My copy of the Gene Krupa LP (EE22027) has this conventional layout whereas my Earl Hines (EE22021) has the Unipak layout.
These LPs look sturdy enough to me, including at the spine, probably because they are not those darn typical US cardboard covers where the front and rear cardboards making up the cover are taped together with just (paper-thin) paper along the edges (including the spine) all the more prone to seam splits.
Yet this Unipak layout with the LP slot at the "reverse" end may have annoyed owners enough to take drastic measures. On my copy of the Artie Shaw LP (EE22023) - one of those fleamarket chance purchases - a previous owner had radically cut off and dumped the front flap so that only a "standard" LP remained where the LP can be extracted and put back the "usual" way without being "bothered" by that flap (and the track list now is on what has become the "front" of the cover).  And through the years I've seen other secondhand items from that series subjected to the same treatment.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Big Beat Steve

[Teasing the Korean]

1 hour ago, mjzee said:

An additional problem: the covers frayed badly at the crease, and since that spine held the album name, you saw these frayed spines when you filed the LP.

As my Dionne Warwick Scepter LPs demonstrate.

[GA Russell]

Although I disliked the design somewhat, what bothered me was that they were cheap and fell apart.

If they had been well made, the idea of the LP being unable to accidently leave its enclosure would be a plus, I think.

[clifford_thornton]

the Jazz Pour Tous jacket is what I thought the op meant -- some 60s OCORA LPs and earlier Barenreiter Musicaphon titles are like this. Common for, yes, getting the maximum amount of text and photos into a gatefold package. And the tipped-in liner notes do tend to come unglued over time. But those Charles Duvelle photos are well worth looking at, really fascinating.

[Teasing the Korean]

2 hours ago, GA Russell said:

Although I disliked the design somewhat, what bothered me was that they were cheap and fell apart.

Yes, this is the point I was addressing, plus the fact that I could never get the inner sleeves in the top and bottom flap correctly.  It was like a cover was about 1mm larger than the inner sleeve.