20 Bands With Their Own Theme Songs: Hey, Hey, We're the ...
Jan
Ron Fowler
Congoleum Breckenridge
> Tra-la-la, la-la-la-la, tra-la-la, la-la-la-la
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbU5CzPi0zM
Ron Fowler
"Raiders Theme" but it never caught on. More often they performed
"We're An American Band" as their opener.
Dr. Strangemonde
What's really confusing is one act doing another act's theme song
("Hey, Hey, We're The Monkees" by Ray Stevens) or even more obnoxious,
WRITING the theme for another band ("Hi, We're The Replacements" by
They Might Be Giants).
- Dr S
Ron Fowler
heard that one!
catg...@aol.com
> Ray Stevens did the Monkees theme? I know some of Ray's music, but never
> heard that one!
True. Ray recorded the Monkees's theme song in the late 70s or early
80s and released it on one of his albums for Warner Brothers. I don't
remember which album it was but thought that was a bizarre choice for
Stevens. Then again, given the sense of humor in many of his songs,
maybe not that bizarre of a choice. Btw, Al Hirt recorded an
instrumental version of the Monkees's theme in the 60s, which I think
made him the first major artist to cover a Monkees tune in the wake of
their success. (Not counting the pre-Monkees versions of "Steppin'
Stone" by the Raiders or "Mary, Mary," by the Paul Butterfield Blues
Band or the album of instrumental Monkee tunes released by the
Hollyridge Strings or 101 Strings also in the wake of the Monkees's
success.)
Dr. Strangemonde
<catgo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Ray Stevens did the Monkees theme? I know some of Ray's music, but never
> > heard that one!
>
> True. Ray recorded the Monkees's theme song in the late 70s or early
> 80s and released it on one of his albums for Warner Brothers. I don't
> remember which album it was but thought that was a bizarre choice for
> Stevens. Then again, given the sense of humor in many of his songs,
> maybe not that bizarre of a choice.
I have it on the 16 CD set (!) of Monkee covers that a member of this
forum sent me (unsolicited, even -- talk about a surprise in the
mailbox!) and the "comedy" is based on having a stereotypical German
stein-swinging sauer-kraut belt out the lyrics: "Harr, Harr, Ve ist
der Monkees!"
BTW: When I was a kid and went to Astroworld, we missed the Monkees by
one day and saw Ray Stevens instead. A poor sustitute, I assure you.
- Dr S
Ron Fowler
the Hornet". The cover shows Mr. Hirt (and his horn) with Van Williams,
aka the Green Hornet - in mask, hat, and holding the Hornet Sting. Al
Hirt did the Green Hornet Theme for the 1966-67 television show, so I
guess it was natural for him to do an album of tv themes - he also does
the Batman Theme on this album, Get Smart, T.H.E. Cat, and a couple of
original songs with Hornet related titles. BTW, I was at Disneyland with
my family years ago, and Ray Stevens was playing. We walked over to the
show area, but it was packed. I would've stayed, but mom and dad had no
patience for that kind of thing. I think we saw him do "Ahab the Arab"
and one other song before leaving.
catg...@aol.com
> forum sent me (unsolicited, even -- talk about a surprise in the
> mailbox!) and the "comedy" is based on having a stereotypical German
> stein-swinging sauer-kraut belt out the lyrics: "Harr, Harr, Ve ist
> der Monkees!"
That's not too surprising for Stevens, although the idea is more than
a little on the dull side and way too cartoonish. I figured that more
than anything else, his version would've been some kind of sequel to
his 1969 novelty hit, "Gitarzan!"
> BTW: When I was a kid and went to Astroworld, we missed the Monkees by
> one day and saw Ray Stevens instead. A poor sustitute, I assure you.
Stevens has always been something of a country comedian and his songs
sometimes reflect the corniness of that genre. But in his music, his
comedy has always been something of an acquired taste. Sometimes, his
novelty stuff would work out well, as was the case with "Gitarzan!"
and "The Streak." Other times, the novelties were too corny and never
quite took off. But, he has his audience. A video of a Stevens show
(from Has Been City, a/k/a Branson, MO, I think) in which he performed
mostly his goofy novelties was sold on TV a few years ago. It was
another in the long line of hits by artists whose success was achieved
through sales from TV, even though the video was also available by
mail order. Don't think it was in the stores though I could be wrong
Dr. Strangemonde
wrote:
> A video of a Stevens show was sold on TV a few years ago.
> Don't think it was in the stores though I could be wrong.
Oh, it's in stores all right -- thrift stores!
- Dr S
catg...@aol.com
> > Don't think it was in the stores though I could be wrong.
>
> Oh, it's in stores all right -- thrift stores!
Thrift stores are the natural habitat for bad movies and bad music
videos. They also stock old vinyl LPs and 45s but unfortunately, the
titles they have are generally by artists no one wants and are in even
worse shape than the videos. I once saw some old "Partridge Family"
albums that were so badly scratched that all they were suitable for
was target practice or as Frisbees.
Dr. Strangemonde
wrote:
I never understood why they even wasted floor space on unplayable
records, much less expected anyone to pay a single penny for one!
- Dr S
catg...@aol.com
> records, much less expected anyone to pay a single penny for one!
Me either. Flea markets are also sources for unplayable records and
old videotapes, and I suppose dvds now as well. I once came across a
LP copy of "More of the Monkees" with a deep, thick scratch that cut
across all of the songs on side two. The seller claimed the record had
a value of $25 but because of the scratch, they were willing to part
with it for $20! I've also seen badly scratched 45s and LPs by Elvis
and the Beatles, for which the sellers wanted a lot of cash to part
with. They usually say the prices are the current rates charged by
other sellers but they don't seem to understand that those rates apply
to records that are in reasonably good shape!
Ron Fowler
something. A friend's mom has original Elvis and Everly albums from the
50's, wanted to know if they were valuable, and i told her no, because
she'd been playing them repeatedly, and they were very scratchy. My
uncle's record collection is valuable because he got in the habit of
taping them years ago. His records are pristine.
catg...@aol.com
> something. A friend's mom has original Elvis and Everly albums from the
> 50's, wanted to know if they were valuable, and i told her no, because
> she'd been playing them repeatedly, and they were very scratchy. My
> uncle's record collection is valuable because he got in the habit of
> taping them years ago. His records are pristine.
Sounds like your friend's records are in very good to excellent/near
mint condition. I'd be very surprised to find any LP or 45 from the
50s in mint condition, as I consider that classification as meaning
having never been played. But, there probably were individuals who
bought the records but then never played them. I recall Goldmine and
DISCoveries both touched on the subject of people who bought records
as investments, rather than as something to be played and enjoyed.
Most of the people who responded to stories like that were against
buying records as investments, never to be played. As for the value of
records by Elvis and the Beatles, I think the mono copies of their
original albums are worth more because of some sound differences in
the songs. Very scratchy records though, I don't think I'd give more
than $2 per title. Stereo recordings, I'd give less, probably just a
quarter.
Dr. Strangemonde
wrote:
> I've also seen badly scratched 45s and LPs by Elvis and the Beatles,
> for which the sellers wanted a lot of cash to part with.
I once found a copy of Elvis' first Sun Records 45 at a garage sale
for a quarter. It was in such bad shape you could barely hear the
music over the roaring static. I fixed all the skips on the A-side
("That's All Right Mama") by literally JAMMING a needle down in the
groove and digging out the crud -- I figured I couldn't do any more
damage to it. I ended up getting about $50 in trade for it, and
would've gotten more if I'd fixed the skips on the B-side as well!
So SOME records are actually worth something even when they're in poor
condition -- I won't even get into the story about my friend's copy of
the Beatles' "butcher album" that was heavily defaced and written on
in marker by its original owner -- a kid by the name of "Stevie
Vaughan"...
- Dr S
Dr. Strangemonde
wrote:
> I think the mono copies of their original albums are worth more
> because of some sound differences in the songs.
Also, in the case of post-1966 mono LP's, the increased value is due
to the fact that fewer copies were pressed than the stereo versions.
- Dr S
catg...@aol.com
> for a quarter. It was in such bad shape you could barely hear the
> music over the roaring static. I fixed all the skips on the A-side
> ("That's All Right Mama") by literally JAMMING a needle down in the
> groove and digging out the crud -- I figured I couldn't do any more
> damage to it. I ended up getting about $50 in trade for it, and
> would've gotten more if I'd fixed the skips on the B-side as well!
I've heard of various methods for cleaning up the skips on a 45 or LP
but jamming a needle down in the groove is a new one. I once tried
Windex on a 45 because someone else said it worked. I don't remember
it working and remember thinking the Windex solution only made it
worse by adding liquid damage to the 45. Still playable but with extra
added hissing noise!
> So SOME records are actually worth something even when they're in poor
> condition -- I won't even get into the story about my friend's copy of
> the Beatles' "butcher album" that was heavily defaced and written on
> in marker by its original owner -- a kid by the name of "Stevie
> Vaughan"...
A double collectable...wow! Your friend could probably realize a small
fortune if he wanted to sell that record. I don't think the butcher
cover alone would generate as much excitement as it once did, as I
recall a story on the cover regarding how a lot of copies have turned
up over the years. But, a signature by Stevie Vaughan on the cover
could possibly bring 10k at the minimum, if not more, if your friend
was of the mind to sell.
catg...@aol.com
> to the fact that fewer copies were pressed than the stereo versions.
I still recall the hoopla over RCA's announcement in 1968 that they
were dropping mono editions of their recordings, which included the
Monkees's Colgems releases. There were some fans then who only wanted
the album in mono but RCA assured everyone there would be no loss in
sound. Which wasn't quite true as if you had a small monophonic record
player, only one stereo channel dominated the sound you heard coming
from the player. The other channel was shut out completely. My memory
is that the left side prevailed, which was okay with me on the mixes
for some of the Monkees's songs. Some of the sounds coming from the
right side seemed rather thin. The harmonies on "Hangin' Round" and
orchestrations on "Daydream Believer" almost appeared to be non-
existent on the right side. "Words" sounded horrible in stereo, even
when played on a stereo but it sounded worse on the right channel. The
left channel contained most of the rhythm and a better vocal mix, but
it wasn't that way with every band or artist.
Ron Fowler
tone arm to weigh it down. I think he had some coins and maybe a magnet
to keep the needle down in the groove. He'd left some records in a
milkbox on the front porch on a sunny day, and when he came back from
wherever he was, they were severely warped!
catg...@aol.com
We also put some coins on the top of the tone arm to weigh it down --
that, or we held it down until it played through without any skips. We
had a TV/stereo combo (anyone remember them?) on which the record
player's arm would lift near the end of the 45 or LP before it was
finished playing. That really annoyed the hell out of me as it tested
my patience severely in trying to stop or fix the problem. The fix was
also using coins or holding it down until it played all the way
through but it took longer to accomplish that than taking out the
skips.
Ron Fowler
mint condition copies of records from the 50's and 60's - us kids were
unintentionally destroying them! There was a time when I was interested
in seeing how many 45's I could stack up on the record changer. By the
time it got to the last record, the tone arm was reaching upward to play
the last record! Horrible, the things i did! Now I treat my records and
cd's like the precious gems they are.
catg...@aol.com
That was the intention: to play those records. We didn't know how self
destructive some of our practices were in playing those records. But,
I learned early on to take care of the 45s and LPs I had in my
collection. Wish I could say the same for the too few picture sleeves
I have or the album covers with bad "ring" wear but at least most of
the records are in very good shape. I can't say the same for my
brother's collection. Every single he bought or I bought for him was
taken out of its paper sleeve and placed in one of those wire racks
designed for singles. If you were keeping your 45s in one of those
damned things, you had to take them out of the sleeves as the sleeve
would eventually tear and would have to be thrown away. But,
unprotected on those racks allowed dust particles to settle in the
grooves, resulting in the 45 having a heavy overload of hiss. Some of
those were victims of the Windex solution.
At the same time, I never understood people who bought records as
investments with no intentions of ever playing them. That was a little
risky in that the nostalgia market was nonexistent in the 50s and 60s
and only just beginning to take off in the mid 70s. You didn't know
what artists or what 45 or LP were going to command the big bucks.
Some investors assumed the big bucks would be with the artists who
sold the most (read Elvis, the Beatles) but it was only some of their
records that were and are valuable, The truly valuable recordings were
even more scarce and not readily obtainable, but as always, the
nostalgia market depended on what people were willing to pay for an
item. But, some of the 45s and LPs weren't worth the price people paid
for them.
For instance, I have a Monkees LP ("The Monkees Golden Hits") that I
paid a dollar for, for which some people have paid more than $100 for,
just to have it. But, there's nothing special about the record that
makes it that valuable. No ultra rarities, like a much longer version
of one of the songs or an alternate take. About the only thing that
makes it different is its catalog number, which is an RCA special
products catalog number (PRS 329). The label is Colgems but that
number is an RCA number. RCA manufactured and distributed Colgems, but
the Colgems catalog numbers were always different from RCA catalog
numbers. It's surprising RCA didn't come up with a letter prefix for
special product releases on Colgems. But, who knows, a special letter
prefix may have been too pricey. There wasn't that many artists on
Colgems outside of the Monkees.
Ron Fowler
sleeves so he could put them in his record rack - I viviidly recall him
throwing out at least one picture sleeve! Soiunds like my dad and your
brother were cut from the same cloth! I used to have a couple
non-Monkees Colgems 45, Sajid Khan "Getting to Know You", andthe Lewis
and Clarke Expedition, "Destination Unknown"/"Freedom Bird'. I lost it
in a flood, had the picture sleeve, the record was worn from heavy play,
but still listenable. I'd like to find that one again someday. I still
see Sajid's record occasionally at record shows. Some of my Monkees
albums have inner sleeve's listing other Colgems releases, including
Sally Field as the Flying Nun!
catg...@aol.com
The inner sleeve promotions for the Monkees's albums and albums by
other artists or soundtrack albums began with "The Birds, the Bees and
the Monkees." I haven't looked at that sleeve in a long time but seems
like the only artists listed besides the Monkees were the albums by
the Lewis and Clarke Expedition and the one by Sally Field. Everything
else was an album soundtrack. Some of the '69 albums updated the
Colgems releases to include the "Head" soundtrack and the album by
Sajid Khan. I've tried getting the albums by the L&CE and by Sally but
my luck has been all bad.
As for my brother's singles in the wire racks, well, he was always
playing those records everyday, so I'm pretty sure it was a lot more
convenient for him to have them where he could have easy access to
them. Even though it wouldn't have taken too much time to have taken
them out of the paper sleeves. I played them as well but the hiss in
those 45s was just annoying! I never found anything that could really
get the dust out of the grooves. Everything that was recommended just
seemed to make the problem worse. Once the cds came along, I started
buying them although because I didn't have a cd player initially, I
had to buy the 45s and LPs -- or worse case scenario, the cassette. I
bought the cds because I knew I'd be making the switch, and I also
knew some of the albums I wanted on cd would likely be deleted after a
short time. Like LPs, cds have a short shelf span in the stores, a
couple of years if it's a modest seller. Less than that if it's a poor
seller.
Ron Fowler
converts. Missed out on the Instant Replay and Present cd's. I was able
to get the others second hand, and "Changes" brand new a few years ago.
Hoping they all get the dual disc treatment, although I have no idea
what they could add to "Changes". I still have quite a few cassettes,
but pre-recorded tapes were of inconsistent quality. Some have lasted
many years with little signs of wear and tear. Others barely lasted a
dozen years. One thing I can say about records from the 60's - they were
made to last. If you can find a near mint album from the 60's, it will
play nice for years, as long as you handle it with care. The problem is,
very few people had record players in the 60's that didn't wear down the
grooves - and most music lovers played their records a lot. Later vinyl,
especially from the 80's, was much poorer. Some records started sounding
scratchy after only a few plays. I've always wondered if the American
record companies deliberately made bad pressings to encourage us to buy
cd's. The higher price for cd's initially kept some of us from
switching, but eventually that was the only sensible way to go. Buy the
cd and play it over and over, or buy the cassette and take your chances.
catg...@aol.com
> I wish I had been buying cd's earlier on. I was one of the last
> converts. Missed out on the Instant Replay and Present cd's. I was able
> to get the others second hand, and "Changes" brand new a few years ago.
> Hoping they all get the dual disc treatment, although I have no idea
> what they could add to "Changes".
There were only a couple of unreleased songs recorded for "Changes,"
which were "Ride Baby Ride" and "Which Way Do You Want It," which I
believe were both written by Jeff Barry and Bobby Bloom. I don't know
if Barry ever got a vocal track from Micky or Davy on those songs, but
even with the later in the year "Lady Jane" and "Do It In the Name of
Love," there isn't enough material to put together a second disc,
unless there were mono mixes for all the songs for the purposes of
using the songs in the tv series. Rhino added Davy's "Time and Time
Again" to the original "Changes" reissue, claiming it was sent to Jeff
Barry for his consideration as a possible album track. About the only
thing they could add would be more songs recorded by Micky and Davy
from 1968-69, but those songs would no more belong on "Changes" than
the Don Kirshner-supervised songs that were being worked on for a
third album under his supervision that were included on
"Headquarters." Given that nine of the twelve tracks from "Changes"
were featured in reruns of the tv series, I'd think there's a good
chance mono mixes exist for all of the tracks. Plus, you also had a
mix of the Boyce and Hart song, "I Never Thought It Peculiar" without
the horns which was featured in one episode. But, there's still not
enough tracks for a two disc set and rather than use tv mixes as bonus
tunes, I think Rhino should release a disc collecting all of the tv
mixes. There were enough tunes heard in mixes that were different to
the released versions and I can't believe Rhino hasn't made those
mixes available. They claim that the tv version of "All the King's
Horses" has been released but if you listen to the song in the episode
in which it was featured, it's quite obvious the version used in the
series had some minor differences. (A couple of the differences: the
tv version lacked the backing vocals that followed the lead vocals in
the chorus and some oohs background vocals which can be heard on the
versions released by Rhino are also not heard in the tv version.)
>Later vinyl, especially from the 80's, was much poorer. Some records started sounding
> scratchy after only a few plays. I've always wondered if the American
> record companies deliberately made bad pressings to encourage us to buy
> cd's. The higher price for cd's initially kept some of us from
> switching, but eventually that was the only sensible way to go. Buy the
> cd and play it over and over, or buy the cassette and take your chances.
The record companies didn't intentionally make bad pressings to
encourage us to buy cds. It was just that the material needed to make
records was getting more and more expensive. Up through the mid 70s,
the manufacturing costs were low enough to keep the retail prices down
but when the price of oil started going up, everyone started raising
their prices too to compensate. Oil was one of the ingredients in
making vinyl records, so when the price of barrel of oil went up, the
record companies had to up their manufacturing costs. Also, you had
the distribution costs plus artists and producer royalties increasing,
as well as songwriting and publishing royalties increasing and even
some of the recording engineers were being given royalties. You
couldn't keep the price of a 45 at $1.49 (last price I remember seeing
on a 45) or a single LP at $8.98 or $9.98. The manufacturing and
distribution costs and various royalties added up close to the
suggested retail price, making it hard for a record company to make a
profit without raising the price of an LP even higher. Remember when
people protested the price of a cd being about $15? They would've
howled about the price of an LP being the same price. Of course, one
can still buy vinyl LPs but some vinyl LPs now can cost you $30 or
higher. Some people don't mind paying that but I'd rather have the cd.
I can crank the stereo up as loud as possible and without having to
worry that the loudness will cause the laser to jump. I wish I could
play my vinyl records that loud but the needle still can't handle the
loudness or the rumble.
Ron Fowler
I remember new titles being priced at $10.99. while cd's were $15.99. I
think that was one of the things that convinced a lot of people to make
the jump to cd. For stores, the downside of vinyl was the record labels
establishing a no return policy, so most of them simply stopped ordering
records. The recent return of vinyl is more of a collectors niche - only
selected titles are released as records, mostly reissues of classic
albums, and a few new titles from artists that sell well in that format.
Most of the stuff you see in the top 200 is not available on vinyl. I've
bought a few new records, but in some cases they want $30 or more, and
that's too much when the cd is easy to find for well under $20, but I do
like the format - the packaging, lyric sheets and liner notes that you
don't need a magnifying glass to read, nice artwork, and the warmth of
analog sound - but a crummy pressing makes that all moot! If the surface
noise is louder than the music, forget it! I'll take cold, antiseptic
digital sound over snap, crackle, pop!
catg...@aol.com
Most of what I collected in the 90s, artist and album title wise,
wasn't available in the US on LP, just cd, and that was what I was
buying. I avoided the cassettes for the most part because of the wear
out factor. Also, I tended to like certain songs and playing certain
songs on tape players tended to be rather difficult. I preferred the
LP for the artwork and the lyrics and production notes, who played
what or sang what on the inner sleeve, but sound wise, the cd had it
over the LP most of the time. The cd also could hold more music than
the LP although many artists stuck with a 45 to 50 minute run time,
which was the conventional run time for an LP in the 80s and 90s. I
guess most artists were opposed to songs having too long of a run time
(even though on songwriting royalties, they could've made more money
from a much longer song) or didn't want to spend a lot of time
recording extra songs or both.
Ron Fowler
the right word? ...when cd became the dominant format. In some cases,
this allowed them to stretch out a bit more, but for many of them it was
just a chance to air their throwaways. Lately it seems cd length haas
gone down, and that's fine with me. I'd rather have 40 minutes of good
stuff, than 70 minutes of mediocrity.
TonyP
"Ron Fowler" <lonely...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4406-4B2B...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
My opinion is quite the opposite. I would rather have the same 40 minutes of
good stuff, PLUS the 30 minutes of mediocrity, than miss out on the "filler"
altogether. In these days of programmable CD players, programmable MP3
players, and simply ripping what you want to hear, I sure as hell can't see
why I'd want less on a CD, just because some of it is not up to your
standards. Especially when you consider some of the "bonus tracks" are often
better than the ones they originally chose, or at least *I* think they are,
and so am very glad to have them.
Everyone is welcome to their opinion, I just hope too many artists don't
listen to yours!! :-)
Do you really believe Rhino should not have added bonus tracks to the
Monkees albums? Would you be happier if they were never made available? If
so why? I'd be happy if they were made available on a Missing Links vol.4 as
well perhaps, but I just can't see any harm in having the extra tracks when
I do buy the CD.
The simple fact is in the old days they'd record a bunch of songs, and cull
what they considered a lesser standard or just not a good fit, just to fit
the acceptable maximum record length (30-45 minutes, unless you wanted a
serious loss in quality) Most of the other tracks never saw the light of day
until CD came along and now it is considered good marketing to add the rest
as "bonus tracks". You are one of the very few I know who is ungrateful
that has happened.
Of course it is even better when they put two good albums on one CD for the
price of one, rather than release all the old albums as 30 minute full price
disks like they do with the Beatles. The recent sales gimmick of course is
to release a new album with 10-12 tracks, wait until sales slow down, then
add the "bonus tracks" as a "special edition" and hope many people will buy
it again to get what they missed the first time. That is something I DO
hate! I've simply learned never to buy an album when it first comes out, and
I hope the marketing bastards all rot in Hell!
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
Artists in the 50s and 60s had the potential on their LPs of having 25
to 30 minutes per side, yet it was radio that dictated the run time of
the songs, the standard three minutes or less on each song. I'm not
sure why that rule should've affected the songs that were on the LP
that were never going to be singles. Maybe the artists and producers
and record companies took the view that every song on every album
should've been considered a potential single. Once the artists finally
started to break free of radio's three minute rule, the album sides
also tended to start having longer total run times of more than 20
minutes.
I don't think any artist considered any of their songs as throwaways
but the advent of the cd to open up the potential for experimentation
with longer run times. Remember, there was also a backlash from the
public over having to pay $15 or more for a cd and getting less than
forty minutes of music total on those cds. The record companies touted
the fact that cds were capable of holding more music than the
conventional LP, but the rock, pop and soul artists were still
releasing albums with total run times equal to LP standards. There
were still some country artists releasing albums in the age of cds
that barely cracked 30 minutes.
I didn't see albums with longer run times as being mediocre offerings,
just that it was the artists working in a slightly different medium
and trying to give their fans value for their money. That's not to say
every album with a long run time was a good album or that it wasn't
mediocre, but I'm sure the idea of recording longer running songs
confounded some of the artists as to how to make sure the quality of
their songs held up in the process. Some of the artists did go back to
recording songs with shorter run times, although many recorded
additional songs for their albums so that the total run time might at
least exceed 50 to 60 minutes or longer.
TonyP
"catgod29@home_on_the_range.com" <catg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:adc7fa57-b399-4ec1...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> There were still some country artists releasing albums in the
> age of cds that barely cracked 30 minutes.
And record companies that flatly refuse to offer any more than 30 minutes
even when transferring the old vinyl albums to CD.
Many of the very latest "remastered" Beatles CD's still have less than 30
minutes run time, no bonus tracks, and no "two for one". Simply because they
want to make as much money as they can, and don't feel the need to provide
anything more. And the number of people buying the same old stuff for the
umpteenth time probably proves them right unfortunately.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> And record companies that flatly refuse to offer any more than 30 minutes
> even when transferring the old vinyl albums to CD.
> Many of the very latest "remastered" Beatles CD's still have less than 30
> minutes run time, no bonus tracks, and no "two for one". Simply because they
> want to make as much money as they can, and don't feel the need to provide
> anything more. And the number of people buying the same old stuff for the
> umpteenth time probably proves them right unfortunately.
The Beatles's catalogue is controlled by Paul and Ringo and by Olivia
and Yoko as executrixes of George's and John's estates. They don't
want the original work tampered with, as far as adding bonus songs are
concerned. The Beatles's contract with EMI specified that the retail
price on their albums was to be bumped up to whatever the highest
prevailing retail price for an album was at that time. That sucks as
all it takes for the price to be bumped up is for one album to be
released with a new, higher retail price. Not many albums but one.
But, the sales don't seem to decrease with the years, so EMI gets away
with it. I don't think the practice applies to the Beatles's solo
albums, although the retail prices are regular retail prices and not
discounted because they're old albums.
To be honest, I'm not sure how many unreleased studio recordings there
are by the Beatles left sitting in the can. People tend to think the
artists record a lot of songs. Sometimes, that is the case, as was
with the Monkees and with Elvis. But, whereas much of the Monkees's
recordings remain unfinished and unreleased, practically all of what
Elvis recorded was released. But, other artists simply may record
enough songs for an album, plus a few songs to use as non-album
singles and a few spares because they may feel a previously recorded
track isn't good enough for release. Unfortunately, I think Paul and
Ringo (plus George and John when they were alive) take the view that
what is left isn't good enough for release. I know Paul has talked
about releasing his "Carnival of Light," his "Revolution 9" before
John got the same idea. But, that's all it has been, just talk. But,
I'm not sure we really need another lengthy sound effects and
electronic noise recording. Unreleased songs, yes, sound effects, no.
TonyP
>
> > And record companies that flatly refuse to offer any more than 30
minutes
> > even when transferring the old vinyl albums to CD.
> > Many of the very latest "remastered" Beatles CD's still have less than
30
> > minutes run time, no bonus tracks, and no "two for one". Simply because
they
> > want to make as much money as they can, and don't feel the need to
provide
> > anything more. And the number of people buying the same old stuff for
the
> > umpteenth time probably proves them right unfortunately.
>
> The Beatles's catalogue is controlled by Paul and Ringo and by Olivia
> and Yoko as executrixes of George's and John's estates. They don't
> want the original work tampered with, as far as adding bonus songs are
> concerned. The Beatles's contract with EMI specified that the retail
> price on their albums was to be bumped up to whatever the highest
> prevailing retail price for an album was at that time. That sucks as
> all it takes for the price to be bumped up is for one album to be
> released with a new, higher retail price. Not many albums but one.
> But, the sales don't seem to decrease with the years, so EMI gets away
> with it.
Exactly, and I am sure they are quite happy with that!
> To be honest, I'm not sure how many unreleased studio recordings there
> are by the Beatles left sitting in the can. People tend to think the
> artists record a lot of songs. Sometimes, that is the case, as was
> with the Monkees and with Elvis. But, whereas much of the Monkees's
> recordings remain unfinished and unreleased, practically all of what
> Elvis recorded was released. But, other artists simply may record
> enough songs for an album, plus a few songs to use as non-album
> singles and a few spares because they may feel a previously recorded
> track isn't good enough for release. Unfortunately, I think Paul and
> Ringo (plus George and John when they were alive) take the view that
> what is left isn't good enough for release. I know Paul has talked
> about releasing his "Carnival of Light," his "Revolution 9" before
> John got the same idea. But, that's all it has been, just talk. But,
> I'm not sure we really need another lengthy sound effects and
> electronic noise recording. Unreleased songs, yes, sound effects, no.
I wasn't necessarily suggesting there is a lot of unreleased stuff, but gee
the latest releases could have been a good chance to put the "past masters"
stuff on the early 30 minute albums where they belong, or how about adding
the Mono & Stereo mixes to the one CD rather than charging twice! I'm sure
whatever original agreement they had would not exclude something as simple
as the latter.
No chance they would do that however when there is more money to be made
fleecing your customers for as long as possible.
And they have the nerve to call some of their customers "pirates"!
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> I wasn't necessarily suggesting there is a lot of unreleased stuff, but gee
> the latest releases could have been a good chance to put the "past masters"
> stuff on the early 30 minute albums where they belong, or how about adding
> the Mono & Stereo mixes to the one CD rather than charging twice! I'm sure
> whatever original agreement they had would not exclude something as simple
> as the latter.
I agree with everything you have to say, especially about combining
the mono and stereo mixes onto one cd. I don't think anyone should pay
a premium retail price for albums that are 39 to 46 years old. Of
course, certain Beatle fanatics may cheer the fact Capitol/EMI/Apple
is charging the highest possible retail price for the albums, but are
they buying the albums or are they content with the original LPs or
the first CD reissues?
Then again, look at some of the Elvis fanatics who have complained
about RCA/BMG recycling Elvis's back catalogue into new albums,
complaining that the record label should stick to the way the albums
were released originally. Some of Elvis's albums in the 60s were
woefully short on total run time. One Elvis soundtrack album, "Double
Trouble," I think, had seven or eight tunes (out of twelve total) that
were under two minutes and think the total run time didn't even crack
25 minutes! Another Elvis album, "Elvis For Everyone" had six songs
under two minutes and six songs running longer than two minutes, but
still an incredibly short run time. Would those Elvis fans be happy
paying $22.98 for an exact reissued CD replica of the original LP? I
doubt it.
Those fans in both camps operate on the belief that's the way the
artists intended those albums to be released, but the Beatles never
approved the Captiol US versions of their albums (up through
"Revolver") and don't think they were happy with Capitol issuing the
songs from "Magical Mystery Tour" as an album with the MMT songs on
side one and then collecting all of the songs they had released on
singles in 1967 on side two. When their catalogue was originally
reissued to CD in the US, the albums were the versions available
everywhere else in the world, though they kept MMT exactly as it was.
Capitol did release two box sets in the US a few years ago collecting
eight (I think) of the mono and stereo versions of the albums as
released on that label. Certain fans preferred those albums and were
willing to pay the big bucks to have those box sets. I thought about
getting the box sets for my brother for his birthday but was put off
by the high price of the box sets. If the price had been about a
quarter or a half of what was being charged, I would've bought them.
But, paying a premium price for the Capitol versions of the Beatles's
albums? That wasn't for me.
> No chance they would do that however when there is more money to be made
> fleecing your customers for as long as possible.
> And they have the nerve to call some of their customers "pirates"!
New and improved (remastered and remixed) has always been a big draw
with the fans though I don't know if many fans know what they are
getting.
Ron Fowler
the Beatles cd's should've included stereo/mono mixes (I liked the
Capitol Albums series for that reason, plus those were the albums I grew
up with). Please Please Me should've included From Me to You, Thank You
Girl, and the 4 tracks from the Long Tall Sally EP. With the Beatles
should've included I Want to Hold Your Hand, This Boy; I Feel Fine and
She's a Woman would belong on Beatles for Sale, etc. The albums are
short enough to include both stereo and mono versions PLUS bonus tracks.
I was similarly disappointed with the George Harrison Dark Horse box.
There were 4 songs from the original Somewhere in England album that
weren't on the released album because the record company told George
they didn't like them. Two of them are on the box, two are not.
TonyP
> Tony P, I wasn't talking about reissues, just original albums.
But even then the current rechnique is to put out a new album with 10-12
songs, then re-release it later with 3 or 4 bonus tracks and hope the fans
will buy again. So tell me would you *really* prefer the original CD or the
"bonus" version?
I'll take the bonus version everytime, and have simply learned to wait.
Maybe it's not as common a practice in the US, but the question still
remains, what is wrong with having extra material?
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> remains, what is wrong with having extra material?
The practice is very common in the US although in the case of artists
like the Monkees and the Bee Gees, you've got the record company
(Rhino on both the Monkees and the Bee Gees) taking their sweet time
in reissuing their remastered and remixed deluxe editions with bonus
material. There shouldn't be a two to three year wait between the
remastered and remixed deluxe editions. That's an excessively long and
intolerable wait that tests the patience and good will of the fans.
The fans are the ones who are going to buy the reissues and you don't
take that market for granted. Some are already of the opinion that the
rest of the catalogues aren't going to be released, so they've lost
interest. I'm not sure they will buy the reissues once they are
released. The two or three year wait between reissues is a sore point
here with many fans and it's a sore point the record company seems to
be ignoring.
Ron Fowler
recently that BB&M was on the way. i'll still be surprised if they do
the others. The market for this stuff is slowly dying off. At the rate
they're going, we'll get a Changes cd sometime in 2025.
catg...@aol.com
With the Bee Gees, at the rate Rhino is going, the last remastered,
remixed deluxe edition Bee Gees CD with bonus tracks won't be released
until 2066. I don't think the market for older albums is dying off
quite so bad, as with current artists no longer really needing a
record label to get their recordings out, older recordings is about
all the record companie have left going for them. The nostalgia market
isn't quite dying off so much as it's more the record companies are
reissuing almost everything they released in the past. In short, the
market is glutted with albums that were successful and even albums
that bombed. What do we buy? The albums we may already own in CD form
or the CDs of albums we may have wanted originally when they were
first available but passed on at the time for the ones we added to our
collection? Just like in the past, the older albums aren't on the
shelves forever. The record companies delete the titles if they don't
sell and are returned or the stores have sold all of the copies that
were pressed. I definitely buy my favorites but I also like to buy
others that I missed and check them out. I sometimes find I missed out
on some good stuff originally, though sometimes I didn't miss out on
anything at all.
Ron Fowler
to catch up on stuff I missed first time around.
catg...@aol.com
> I still buy a lot of used records. A few new cd's, but mostly I'm trying
> to catch up on stuff I missed first time around.
Most of the records I get these days are through ebay. There's a
couple of old record shops close but they're pretty high on their
prices. It says something when I can get an album I want cheaper from
ebay than from the local shops. The last time I was in either shop,
they still had about 99% of the stuff they had from the last time I
was there. How they're still in business is beyond me; their albums
were $20 and up. There was another record dealer in the 80s who was
only selling most of the albums in her inventory for a dollar. And she
wasn't able to stay in business, even with prices that low.
TonyP
> Most of the records I get these days are through ebay. There's a
> couple of old record shops close but they're pretty high on their
> prices. It says something when I can get an album I want cheaper from
> ebay than from the local shops. The last time I was in either shop,
> they still had about 99% of the stuff they had from the last time I
> was there. How they're still in business is beyond me; their albums
> were $20 and up. There was another record dealer in the 80s who was
> only selling most of the albums in her inventory for a dollar. And she
> wasn't able to stay in business, even with prices that low.
That's the problem with those stores. If the price is too low you sell heaps
but don't make enough profit. If the price is too high you sell few and
don't make much either. And often there is NO price at all on which you can
balance sales, income and costs to make enough money to stay in business.
Many such businesses are stated as a hobby with more hope than business
sense. The ones that do last surprise me more than the ones that don't.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> but don't make enough profit. If the price is too high you sell few and
> don't make much either. And often there is NO price at all on which you can
> balance sales, income and costs to make enough money to stay in business.
> Many such businesses are stated as a hobby with more hope than business
> sense. The ones that do last surprise me more than the ones that don't.
A big part of the problem here are the dealers who sell their albums
through auctions. They've gotten some pretty big bucks on some of them
and fair to moderate prices on others. In the days before ebay, they'd
set minimum bids and if you wanted a certain 45 or LP, you had to
place your bid and hope you win. Now, with ebay, you can make your bid
and if you're outbid, you can bid again and hope the other person
loses interest in the record. But, there are still some dealers on
ebay who sell the records rather than having them bid upon. Some are
reasonable, others continue to price their albums and singles too
high. I guess they think that's their ticket to a fortune.
The lady with the record shop in the 80s got most of her records from
garage sales and at least one small warehouse that housed someone's
collection. She was in business for over two years but the rent on the
building was something around $800 a month! Pretty high for a hole in
the wall building. And pretty high rent for the time. What a pity she
wasn't able to make a go of it. Her next door business neighbor was a
used bookstore that's still in business. Their prices are half the
retail price of the book and they keep up their inventory by buying
books people no longer want. But, they only give a quarter for a
paperback and fifty cents to a dollar for a hardback, and I guess
that's a better business to be into than selling used records. The
other used bookstores I've shopped at have likewise been in the same
locations for decades and have had the same book buying policies.
.
TonyP
> The lady with the record shop in the 80s got most of her records from
> garage sales
And there were no shortage of stuff you could get cheap then when everyone
was throwing out their records and record players. I even heard of a person
who bought a transcriptor turntable at an estate sale for $50, then sold it
for $4,000. Money to be made there at the time!
More difficult now to run such a business when most of the good cheap
records have gone. A few estate sales are the about the only remaining
chance for those sellers. And in the days of cheap (and even free)
downloads, used CD's don't usually sell for the prices they want to cover
their costs.
The biggest source of used CD's here are pawn shops, the majority are
probably stolen so the seller doesn't care what he gets for them, and the
pawn shops make their big money from loans with rip off interest rates.
>She was in business for over two years but the rent on the
> building was something around $800 a month! Pretty high for a hole in
> the wall building. And pretty high rent for the time. What a pity she
> wasn't able to make a go of it. Her next door business neighbor was a
> used bookstore that's still in business. Their prices are half the
> retail price of the book and they keep up their inventory by buying
> books people no longer want. But, they only give a quarter for a
> paperback and fifty cents to a dollar for a hardback, and I guess
> that's a better business to be into than selling used records. The
> other used bookstores I've shopped at have likewise been in the same
> locations for decades and have had the same book buying policies.
Yeah very few books are considered valuable by their owners, and very few
are unreadable like many records are. People sell them at any price, and if
you really want it, 1/2 price doesn't seem so unreasonable. But the mark-up
there is great for the seller! Obviously enough for him to pay the same rent
the record seller couldn't manage anyway.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> was throwing out their records and record players.
And no shortage of buyers who snapped up those records in hopes of
finding a few rare records worth a lot of money. But, that market
again depended on how much the consumer was willing to spend to have
the records. I heard of dealers who sold certain 45s and LPs at
auction for thousands of dollars, only for the buyers not to follow
through with the purchases. I couldn't see myself spending anything
more than $50 on an LP or $25 on a 45 I wanted to have, but I can't
imagine anyone spending $5000 or more for either an LP or 45. Of
course, when someone does, it's always for investment purposes and
never to play on a turntable.
>I even heard of a person who bought a transcriptor turntable at an estate sale for $50, then >sold it for $4,000. Money to be made there at the time!
My brother found an old cynlinder recording device from the 1920s at a
garage sale. Think it was used for dictating. He sold it to one of his
friends for about $10 at the flea market. I told him its value was
much more than that but couldn't get him to get an estimate on the
value of the device. His friend sold it afterwards for $1500. I
remember my brother grumbling about what his friend got for it. But,
he can't say he wasn't told not to sell it cheap!
> More difficult now to run such a business when most of the good cheap
> records have gone. A few estate sales are the about the only remaining
> chance for those sellers. And in the days of cheap (and even free)
> downloads, used CD's don't usually sell for the prices they want to cover
> their costs.
Most of the estate sales here don't have any super rarities, as far as
pop music is concerned. My brother picked up a load of old 45s a few
months back and while there might have been a rarity or two in the
bunch, the records were in such bad shape (water damaged, out in the
summer sun and melted or warped, dirty), they weren't much good for
anything other than as substitute Frisbees. A sad fate for almost any
45.
> The biggest source of used CD's here are pawn shops, the majority are
> probably stolen so the seller doesn't care what he gets for them, and the
> pawn shops make their big money from loans with rip off interest rates.
My brother was in the pawn shop business for five years and people
used to bring in their CDs, videotapes and DVDs in all the time,
mostly just to scrape up enough money for drugs, cigarettes or booze.
Some needed the money to pay the bills but they weren't going to get
much money from the CDs, videotapes or DVDs. My brother gave more
money for that stuff than did most of the other pawn shops but he had
some customers who thought they should get the same amount of money
they spent on the discs or tapes. He also had a few customers who
thought he had to take whatever they brought him and that he had no
right to turn them down. His shop could be scary at times with
customers like that. As far as stolen merchandise was concerned, that
did happen sometimes but he didn't know the merchandise was stolen
until after the daily police reports were filed and the police placed
a hold on the merchandise. If the person who stole the merchandise was
caught, he or she was also charged with making a false declaration on
a pawn and obtaining money under false pretenses. Those charges added
to the fines they had to pay and/or prison time they were given.
> Yeah very few books are considered valuable by their owners, and very few
> are unreadable like many records are. People sell them at any price, and if
> you really want it, 1/2 price doesn't seem so unreasonable. But the mark-up
> there is great for the seller! Obviously enough for him to pay the same rent
> the record seller couldn't manage anyway.
Actually, the better bargain is getting them at garage sales and flea
markets. People sell their books for fifty cents or less. They may
have hundreds of books they'll let go for $20 but the books may not be
the genres you're interested in having. I like science fiction but I
never see that genre at garage sales or flea markets. Just the hack
romance books and religious oriented books for some reason.
TonyP
> My brother was in the pawn shop business for five years and people
> used to bring in their CDs, videotapes and DVDs in all the time,
> mostly just to scrape up enough money for drugs, cigarettes or booze.
> Some needed the money to pay the bills but they weren't going to get
> much money from the CDs, videotapes or DVDs. My brother gave more
> money for that stuff than did most of the other pawn shops but he had
> some customers who thought they should get the same amount of money
> they spent on the discs or tapes. He also had a few customers who
> thought he had to take whatever they brought him and that he had no
> right to turn them down. His shop could be scary at times with
> customers like that. As far as stolen merchandise was concerned, that
> did happen sometimes but he didn't know the merchandise was stolen
> until after the daily police reports were filed and the police placed
> a hold on the merchandise. If the person who stole the merchandise was
> caught, he or she was also charged with making a false declaration on
> a pawn and obtaining money under false pretenses. Those charges added
> to the fines they had to pay and/or prison time they were given.
Well that's the theory, but it doesn't work with items that cannot be
identified, which is why CD's DVD's etc with such low value are even taken.
Simply because there are no serial numbers to worry about. And like most, I
don't want to write my name on all my CD's either.
> Actually, the better bargain is getting them at garage sales and flea
> markets. People sell their books for fifty cents or less. They may
> have hundreds of books they'll let go for $20 but the books may not be
> the genres you're interested in having. I like science fiction but I
> never see that genre at garage sales or flea markets. Just the hack
> romance books and religious oriented books for some reason.
Because people like me keep all their old Sci-Fi books. The people who buy
romance novels aren't likely to want to hang on to them. What amazes me is
why people ever buy them at all when you can simply borrow them from your
local library for nothing.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> identified, which is why CD's DVD's etc with such low value are even taken.
> Simply because there are no serial numbers to worry about. And like most, I
> don't want to write my name on all my CD's either.
I had a break-in this past summer and about half of my DVD collection
was among the items stolen. The theives took some rare titles. I guess
they figured that would get them more money at the pawn shops. I
contacted the pawn shops to see if they had any of the DVDs by chance.
If they had the DVDs, there was a good chance they'd have some of the
other stuff that was stolen from me. But, they all argued the same
line of b.s.: that privacy laws prohibited them from disclosing
whether or not they had the items and identifying the people who
pawned them. Well, the privacy laws do prohibit disclosing who pawned
or sold the items to the pawn shops but the privacy laws DON'T
prohibit pawn shops from disclosing if they have certain merchandise.
The rare stuff I had was obtained through mail order and wasn't
available locally, so if they had it, there was a chance it came from
me. (Funny thing, they didn't touch the CDs. Maybe they didn't like my
taste in music?)
> Because people like me keep all their old Sci-Fi books. The people who buy
> romance novels aren't likely to want to hang on to them. What amazes me is
> why people ever buy them at all when you can simply borrow them from your
> local library for nothing.
What's mind boggling to me is that so many of the new romance titles
in the stores look as though they came direct from a garage sale. And
there are more of those books per month than any other genre. You've
got it right about borrowing the books from the library. One with a
severe addiction to the romance novels could save hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars each year borrowing them from the library
instead. Most of the non-sci fi books I read come from the library,
and if I happen to like the book, then I will acquire a copy for
myself. But, most of what I've read from the library are books I have
no further interest in re-reading but at least that option saves me a
lot of money. As expensive as the books can be, if I bought every book
I ever read, I would've spent more money on the collecting of those
books than what I spent combined on CDs, videotapes and DVDs. So, the
library has always been a must for me.
TonyP
> I had a break-in this past summer and about half of my DVD collection
> was among the items stolen. The theives took some rare titles. I guess
> they figured that would get them more money at the pawn shops. I
> contacted the pawn shops to see if they had any of the DVDs by chance.
> If they had the DVDs, there was a good chance they'd have some of the
> other stuff that was stolen from me. But, they all argued the same
> line of b.s.: that privacy laws prohibited them from disclosing
> whether or not they had the items and identifying the people who
> pawned them. Well, the privacy laws do prohibit disclosing who pawned
> or sold the items to the pawn shops but the privacy laws DON'T
> prohibit pawn shops from disclosing if they have certain merchandise.
Exactly, I got no help when it happened to me either, the pawn shops KNOW a
lot of their items are stolen, and they don't want any hassles if they can
avoid it. And I got NO help from the police either. If someone steals a
million dollar painting from a billionaire, they'll be out looking for it,
even though it's probably insured and a pittance to the billionare. If
you're poor and a thief cleans you out, it's just too bad though. Nothing in
it for them like there is catching drivers doing 5kph over the speed limit
:-(
> The rare stuff I had was obtained through mail order and wasn't
> available locally, so if they had it, there was a chance it came from
> me. (Funny thing, they didn't touch the CDs. Maybe they didn't like my
> taste in music?)
You were lucky then. I keep mine in a locked filing cabinet because I'm too
scared to lose them.
> Most of the non-sci fi books I read come from the library,
Me too, pity their Sci-Fi collection is practically non existant though.
> and if I happen to like the book, then I will acquire a copy for
> myself. But, most of what I've read from the library are books I have
> no further interest in re-reading but at least that option saves me a
> lot of money. As expensive as the books can be, if I bought every book
> I ever read, I would've spent more money on the collecting of those
> books than what I spent combined on CDs, videotapes and DVDs. So, the
> library has always been a must for me.
I only tend to buy reference books these days, can't remember the last time
I bought a novel. Even magazines I borrow as much as possible now. I used to
buy a few every month, but it sure adds up, and you only end up throwing
them away. DVD's I borrow as much as possible and only buy the ones I really
want to keep (mostly music ones)
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> lot of their items are stolen, and they don't want any hassles if they can
> avoid it. And I got NO help from the police either. If someone steals a
> million dollar painting from a billionaire, they'll be out looking for it,
> even though it's probably insured and a pittance to the billionare. If
> you're poor and a thief cleans you out, it's just too bad though. Nothing in
> it for them like there is catching drivers doing 5kph over the speed limit
> :-(
The pawn shops here can lose their licenses and be shut down if they
are caught knowingly taking in stolen merchandise. I was working with
my brother in the pawen shop when the police conducted a sting of the
pawn shops. They had three college students take recovered stolen
merchandise into the pawn shops in an effort to get the shops to take
the merchandise. The students claimed to be from another town and told
the people working at the pawn shops that the merchandise was stolen
and that they needed the money to get back home. Only one shop took
the merchandise and the employees in that shop were arrested for
knowingly taking in stolen property. I think their attorneys argued in
court that they were entrapped and that because the merchandise was
recovered merchandise, it no longer qualified as stolen. The police
created a crime where none existed. Still, there was no excuse for the
pawn shop employees taking in merchandise they knew or believed to be
stolen.
> You were lucky then. I keep mine in a locked filing cabinet because I'm too
> scared to lose them.
I plan on obtaining a heavy filing cabinet that can be locked to store
all of my recordings, whether those recordings are 45s, LPs, CDs,
DVDs, videotapes. But, I want something that can hold them in place
should someone break in and spill the recordings while trying to move
them. Actually, I'd like something that would be so heavy that even
two people couldn't move it.
> Me too, pity their Sci-Fi collection is practically non existant though.
The library here has a big lot of science fiction books. Mostly
paperbacks and many several years old. But, better to have them than
have nothing.
> I only tend to buy reference books these days, can't remember the last time
> I bought a novel. Even magazines I borrow as much as possible now. I used to
> buy a few every month, but it sure adds up, and you only end up throwing
> them away. DVD's I borrow as much as possible and only buy the ones I really
> want to keep (mostly music ones)
The library doesn't have the kind of magazines I read, so I have to go
to the bookstore to find any of the magazines I do read. The magazines
I read are short story sci fi and mystery magazines, and the library
only has the kind of magazines one finds in the grocery and department
stores: stuff not worth reading!
TonyP
> The pawn shops here can lose their licenses and be shut down if they
> are caught knowingly taking in stolen merchandise.
Of course they can, which as I already said is why thieves often prefer
items that cannot be identified, like CD's and DVD's, even though they have
low value. I doubt any thief with a positive IQ would even bother with a DVD
player these days for example, since they are cheap, and have serial
numbers. A couple of DVD's are worth as much, and cannot be traced (unless
marked). What's more NO police officer will waste his time checking a list
for such items, hell they wouldn't even take a list from me when my car was
stolen, and this prevented me from making a full insurance claim. (I did get
the car back and cost of damages on insurance) And when the theives rang me
trying to get information, (to use the credit cards I assume, pretending to
look for a cousin) the police would not even check phone company records to
see if they could get an address, (phone company would not give details to
me of course)
Fact is, IF I was rich, they would have done something, but the value was
too low it seems for them to even lift a finger! And I'm sure the thieves
know that better than I do!
> I plan on obtaining a heavy filing cabinet that can be locked to store
> all of my recordings, whether those recordings are 45s, LPs, CDs,
> DVDs, videotapes. But, I want something that can hold them in place
> should someone break in and spill the recordings while trying to move
> them. Actually, I'd like something that would be so heavy that even
> two people couldn't move it.
I have a normal metal filing cabinet, and when full it certainly takes two
people to lift it. I seriously doubt any theirf would bother without knowing
what was in it. Far more likely to get tools and try to bust it open if they
had time. You simply cannot stop all eventualities, just make it more
difficult for them.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> items that cannot be identified, like CD's and DVD's, even though they have
> low value.
Most people, when bringing in CDs and/or DVDs to pawn, usually bring
along something else because they know they are not going to get a lot
of money for a CD or DVD. There are two methods for identifying one's
CDs and DVDs. One is the deplorable writing of your name on the case,
the paper or the disc. Not that that would ever stop a thief. He or
she could always claimed to have bought your stuff at a garage sale,
at the flea market or even at another pawn shop, so while that may
offer some protection, it's not really foolproof. The other method is
to write down everything you own on DVD and CD, and put it where you
can find it if you are the victim of a break in. It might be time
consuming to write down everything but such a list can help the police
and the pawn shops be on the look out for your merchandise.
>I doubt any thief with a positive IQ would even bother with a DVD player these days for example, since they are cheap, and have serial numbers.
Serial numbers don't bother the thieves here. They will go into the
pawn shops, provide the clerk with their driver's license or state ID,
phone number and hock their stolen merchandise, but by the time the
police have crosschecked the serial numbers or product description
with their reports of stolen merchandise, the thief has slinked back
into hiding. The police can place a hold on the merchandise he or she
did steal but catching the thief is sometimes next to impossible or
just by pure dumb luck.
>What's more NO police officer will waste his time checking a list
> for such items, hell they wouldn't even take a list from me when my car was
> stolen, and this prevented me from making a full insurance claim. (I did get
> the car back and cost of damages on insurance) And when the theives rang me
> trying to get information, (to use the credit cards I assume, pretending to
> look for a cousin) the police would not even check phone company records to
> see if they could get an address, (phone company would not give details to
> me of course)
The police officer who handled my case told me that the pawn shops
won't cooperate with them, but people I know who have worked at pawn
shops tell me the police are the ones who are indifferent and won't
investigate. The truth is likely somewhere inbetween. When I checked
with the pawn shops here, I got the runaround of "we can't tell you if
we have any of that merchandise and we couldn't tell you who pawned it
even if we did." That wasn't being cooperative and as I told the
people I checked with, I knew the law as well regarding pawns and what
they could or couldn't tell. As for the police, well, most small town
police departments here don't have the budget to conduct an extensive
investigation. That's why catching the thief is either next to
impossible or pure dumb luck when it does happen. The pawn shops are
supposed to file police reports on computer, at least two or three
times a week, although there is no reason why they couldn't file the
reports on a daily basis. But, that also requires the police checking
those reports on a daily basis and I know from one case that involved
my brother's shop that that didn't happen. My brother filed the police
reports on a daily basis, usually the same day the pawn was made, but
no later than the next morning. In this particular case, the police
called requesting a hold be placed on the item but this was three
months after the item in question had moved over to the store's
inventory and had sold a short time later. The police told the actual
owner that they had notified my brother's business the day after the
police report was filed but that never happened. The police department
in question was covering up their own gross incompetence and
negligence, because had they notified him the day after it was on
file, he would've put an immediate hold on the item for them. You
don't request a hold six months after the fact, if you're checking
daily the pawn reports for the police.
> Fact is, IF I was rich, they would have done something, but the value was
> too low it seems for them to even lift a finger! And I'm sure the thieves
> know that better than I do!
Doing something because one is rich might be the case in the larger
cities here, but I live in a small town that only has like three or
four detectives. The financial resources aren't there for a prolonged
Sgt. Joe Friday investigation. I'm not even sure why we have
detectives here, as usually, it's an officer who's patrolling the
streets who makes the break in a case.
> I have a normal metal filing cabinet, and when full it certainly takes two
> people to lift it. I seriously doubt any theirf would bother without knowing
> what was in it. Far more likely to get tools and try to bust it open if they
> had time. You simply cannot stop all eventualities, just make it more
> difficult for them.
Until I can get a cabinet that meets my needs, I'm making things as
difficult as can be for any possible thieves when I'm away from the
house. My schedule has changed so now I'm now more likely to be home
during the time a thief might think about breaking and entering. And,
I'm quite prepared to defend myself and my property but hopefully,
that's something I won't have to worry about happening.
TonyP
> Most people, when bringing in CDs and/or DVDs to pawn, usually bring
> along something else because they know they are not going to get a lot
> of money for a CD or DVD.
But only IF the CD's are theirs rather than stolen. Otherwise they pawn the
unidentifiable stuff, and sell the rest as best they can.
> There are two methods for identifying one's
> CDs and DVDs. One is the deplorable writing of your name on the case,
> the paper or the disc. Not that that would ever stop a thief. He or
> she could always claimed to have bought your stuff at a garage sale,
> at the flea market or even at another pawn shop, so while that may
> offer some protection, it's not really foolproof.
Actually that does deter a smart theif who will not want to have his name
connected to something that will easily be identified as stolen, regardless
of what he claims.
>The other method is
> to write down everything you own on DVD and CD, and put it where you
> can find it if you are the victim of a break in. It might be time
> consuming to write down everything but such a list can help the police
> and the pawn shops be on the look out for your merchandise.
Which is only effective if you can actually identify those items. Simply
providing a list that says your Monkees CD's have been stolen does not prove
the ones in the pawn shop are yours. Since many thousands have been sold, no
police would ever prosecute on that evidence alone.
> Serial numbers don't bother the thieves here. They will go into the
> pawn shops, provide the clerk with their driver's license or state ID,
> phone number and hock their stolen merchandise, but by the time the
> police have crosschecked the serial numbers or product description
> with their reports of stolen merchandise, the thief has slinked back
> into hiding. The police can place a hold on the merchandise he or she
> did steal but catching the thief is sometimes next to impossible or
> just by pure dumb luck.
They may not go looking for them, but IF they are stupid enough to give
their drivers license (and I assume proper ID is required there, as it is
here) then next time they are pulled over for a license check, they will be
flagged as wanted for robbery or B&E.
> The police officer who handled my case told me that the pawn shops
> won't cooperate with them, but people I know who have worked at pawn
> shops tell me the police are the ones who are indifferent and won't
> investigate.
Exactly, the police here certainly have powers to prosecute pawn shops who
don't co-operate or fail to keep proper records and ID checks. The fact that
they rarely bother is simply because they are not interested.
> Doing something because one is rich might be the case in the larger
> cities here, but I live in a small town that only has like three or
> four detectives. The financial resources aren't there for a prolonged
> Sgt. Joe Friday investigation. I'm not even sure why we have
> detectives here, as usually, it's an officer who's patrolling the
> streets who makes the break in a case.
Exactly my point. When a $10million dollar painting is stolen the detectives
are out looking for it though! Even if that's a pittance to a billionaire
compared to what they might steal from you or I.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> But only IF the CD's are theirs rather than stolen. Otherwise they pawn the
> unidentifiable stuff, and sell the rest as best they can.
Almost every product these days has a serial number and the number of
products (outside of CDs and DVDs) that can't be identified is a very
short list. As for CDs and DVDs, the pawn shops here aren't going to
give anyone a lot of money for them. Most require that a certain
number of CDs or DVDs be brought in before they will even make a loan.
Any person expecting a small fortune walks away disappointed over the
very little they will get for their collection, whether it's actually
theirs or someone else's.
> Actually that does deter a smart theif who will not want to have his name
> connected to something that will easily be identified as stolen, regardless
> of what he claims.
As I said, it offers some protection but it's not foolproof. And I've
seen my share of garage sales where a person has a lot of CDs, DVDs,
LPs, 45s, videotapes, etc. for sale, all with their name written
somewhere on those items. But, unless I really want the item, I'll
take a pass on it because if there's writing on it in any way, there's
also a good chance an item is in poor shape. People here don't take
good care of their possessions.
> Which is only effective if you can actually identify those items. Simply
> providing a list that says your Monkees CD's have been stolen does not prove
> the ones in the pawn shop are yours. Since many thousands have been sold, no
> police would ever prosecute on that evidence alone.
Actually, the opposite might be true here as from what I saw in my
brother's shop and in other pawn shops, the shops don't have an entire
collection by the same artist. Just one or two titles or maybe three.
A lot of people here are only fans for the moment the artist is at the
top of their game. But the moment the artist's popularity has dropped,
the fair weather fan has moved on to the next hot artist, doing the
same thing all over again. But, I actually collect or try to collect
every release by every artist I like. They stay with me for life. I'll
admit I don't know what the odds could be of someone else in the same
town sharing that passion but I also think that if they're anything
like me, they'd never pawn their collection no matter how bad things
got.
> They may not go looking for them, but IF they are stupid enough to give
> their drivers license (and I assume proper ID is required there, as it is
> here) then next time they are pulled over for a license check, they will be
> flagged as wanted for robbery or B&E.
Proper ID is required but in a lot of instances, people have moved
from the location listed on their IDs. Most will tell you straight up
that they have moved and give you the new address. As for thieves
being pulled over for a license check and being flagged as wanted for
robbery and/or B&E, that does happen but there are so many police
authorities (city, county, state patrol, tribal) running around that
it's possible someone could slip through the cracks. It's happened
here with others wanted on far more serious crimes (such as murder),
so a person wanted on a low level crime might go uncaught for several
months because he or she might not be flagged if stopped.
> Exactly, the police here certainly have powers to prosecute pawn shops who
> don't co-operate or fail to keep proper records and ID checks. The fact that
> they rarely bother is simply because they are not interested.
The police here still have to obtain a search warrant if the pawn shop
won't cooperate with them. It's pretty hard to deny you don't have an
item when you entered the product description and serial number and
they matched what was reported stolen. Some pawn shops might claim
privacy laws prevent them from disclosing who pawned the merchandise
but they should realize that what they do makes them look guilty by
association. And people here have a view that the pawn shops work side
by side with thieves even though that's not the case at all. The
privacy issue here is because a person is presumed to be innocent but
the shops don't get any back up from the authorities if they do
disclose private information. The person whose name they disclosed can
come back and sue the shop or worse, commit an act of violence against
that person if they're more interested in seeking revenge.
TonyP
> Almost every product these days has a serial number and the number of
> products (outside of CDs and DVDs) that can't be identified is a very
> short list. As for CDs and DVDs, the pawn shops here aren't going to
> give anyone a lot of money for them. Most require that a certain
> number of CDs or DVDs be brought in before they will even make a loan.
> Any person expecting a small fortune walks away disappointed over the
> very little they will get for their collection, whether it's actually
> theirs or someone else's.
As I already said. The difference is that if you didn't pay for them,
anything is better than nothing. Simple fact is that many *are* stolen.
> As I said, it offers some protection but it's not foolproof.
Of course not, nothing ever is.
>And I've
> seen my share of garage sales where a person has a lot of CDs, DVDs,
> LPs, 45s, videotapes, etc. for sale, all with their name written
> somewhere on those items. But, unless I really want the item, I'll
> take a pass on it because if there's writing on it in any way, there's
> also a good chance an item is in poor shape. People here don't take
> good care of their possessions.
Writing on them or not!
However If I'm desperate for that disk, I'd buy one written on in goood
condition over one not written on in poor condition. Both things are easy to
check. But I would not pay as much for one that is written on, if both were
in similar condition otherwise.
> > Which is only effective if you can actually identify those items. Simply
> > providing a list that says your Monkees CD's have been stolen does not
prove
> > the ones in the pawn shop are yours. Since many thousands have been
sold, no
> > police would ever prosecute on that evidence alone.
>
> Actually, the opposite might be true here as from what I saw in my
> brother's shop and in other pawn shops, the shops don't have an entire
> collection by the same artist. Just one or two titles or maybe three.
> A lot of people here are only fans for the moment the artist is at the
> top of their game. But the moment the artist's popularity has dropped,
> the fair weather fan has moved on to the next hot artist, doing the
> same thing all over again. But, I actually collect or try to collect
> every release by every artist I like. They stay with me for life. I'll
> admit I don't know what the odds could be of someone else in the same
> town sharing that passion but I also think that if they're anything
> like me, they'd never pawn their collection no matter how bad things
> got.
Sure but that does not contradict what I said. YOU will know they are yours
if the whole collection is pawned in one shop and you manage to track them
down. You still have to PROVE they are yours for the police to do anything
about it. A list AND marked items will provide such proof. A list alone is
not considered sufficient proof.
> Proper ID is required but in a lot of instances, people have moved
> from the location listed on their IDs. Most will tell you straight up
> that they have moved and give you the new address. As for thieves
> being pulled over for a license check and being flagged as wanted for
> robbery and/or B&E, that does happen but there are so many police
> authorities (city, county, state patrol, tribal) running around that
> it's possible someone could slip through the cracks. It's happened
> here with others wanted on far more serious crimes (such as murder),
> so a person wanted on a low level crime might go uncaught for several
> months because he or she might not be flagged if stopped.
Sure maybe years, but as I said the smart thief doesn't want to take that
chance. As for the dumb theives, well nothing going to stop them.
> The police here still have to obtain a search warrant if the pawn shop
> won't cooperate with them. It's pretty hard to deny you don't have an
> item when you entered the product description and serial number and
> they matched what was reported stolen. Some pawn shops might claim
> privacy laws prevent them from disclosing who pawned the merchandise
> but they should realize that what they do makes them look guilty by
> association. And people here have a view that the pawn shops work side
> by side with thieves even though that's not the case at all.
Of course not, they simply do nothing to discourage them by their
indifference.
>The
> privacy issue here is because a person is presumed to be innocent but
> the shops don't get any back up from the authorities if they do
> disclose private information. The person whose name they disclosed can
> come back and sue the shop or worse, commit an act of violence against
> that person if they're more interested in seeking revenge.
Nobody ever suggested they give the sellers name to you, no one is likely to
do that. Weren't you complaining they wouldn't even tell you if they had
certain items?
TonyP.
Jan
"TonyP" <To...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4b3d81b2$0$3075$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Sure but that does not contradict what I said. YOU will know they are
> yours
> if the whole collection is pawned in one shop and you manage to track them
> down. You still have to PROVE they are yours for the police to do anything
> about it. A list AND marked items will provide such proof. A list alone is
> not considered sufficient proof.
>> The police here still have to obtain a search warrant if the pawn shop
>> won't cooperate with them. It's pretty hard to deny you don't have an
>> item when you entered the product description and serial number and
>> they matched what was reported stolen. Some pawn shops might claim
>> privacy laws prevent them from disclosing who pawned the merchandise
>> but they should realize that what they do makes them look guilty by
>> association. And people here have a view that the pawn shops work side
>> by side with thieves even though that's not the case at all.
>
>>The
>> privacy issue here is because a person is presumed to be innocent but
>> the shops don't get any back up from the authorities if they do
>> disclose private information. The person whose name they disclosed can
>> come back and sue the shop or worse, commit an act of violence against
>> that person if they're more interested in seeking revenge.
>
>
> Nobody ever suggested they give the sellers name to you, no one is likely
> to
> do that. Weren't you complaining they wouldn't even tell you if they had
> certain items?
>
As one who worked at a big pawn shop for nearly 15 years, let me enlighten
you on a few things about how they work. Of course they are pretty much
ruled by the state, so our rules in South Carolina might be a bit different.
As for the name thing, pawn shops are listed in the same category as a bank.
If a bank tells someone that Tony has an account with them, he can sue them.
Same thing with the pawn shop. If (when I was still working there) I told
anyone that anybody had brought in anything, then I'm risking the pawn
shop's license and myself.
All pawn shops are required to print out a daily list of all items brought
in...Any serial numbers have to be recorded, and nobody can pawn or sell an
item without a drivers license or state ID, period. If you deal with a pawn
shop, you will be identified. The first time you ever deal with the pawn
shop, they get your fingerprint as well. Those reports they have to make
include all the info on the customer as well as the details and numbers on
the items. The cops come by at their convenience and pick up these reports,
which are pages and pages. They scan them for big items or something that
jumps out at them, and that's about it.
That being said, CD's and DVD's are different. They don't have to be listed
one by one, just a total number. So if you're looking for stolen cds or
dvds, you would have to go into the pawn shop and FIND them. The cops are
not interested in anything that small.
Now if there was a huge robbery or murder involved and they knew some rare
movie titles, they might be inclined to go through them, but that seldom
happens.
Pawn shops go out of their way to give the police anything they ask for.
It's more like the police abuse this privilege than the other way around.
If we refused and required them to get a search warrant, then guess what?
They will post guards at the door, shut the store down with customers INSIDE
and allow nobody else to enter...for as long as they want to, as they search
EVERYTHING in the store and do anything they want. No pawn shop owner is
stupid enough to go through that. The cops find what they want on the
reports, or in the case of a computerized inventory system like we have, we
used a search function to try and look up the item, and/or printed out
everything a certain person had ever brought in.
Last but not least, there are two different types of transactions. If a
customer PAWNS the items they bring in, then they get a 90-plus day loan on
them, and the items are put on a shelf in the back where they sit with a
number for a minimum of 90 days. That is often the safest way for a thief
to do it, because the owner will be looking for their stuff right after the
robbery and probably have given up after 3 months.
If the person SELLS the item, then it is held 10 days for the police to
claim it, and then put out for sale...or in this day and time, likely listed
on Ebay, which is safer for the pawn shop than having an item displayed in
the store for sale. Diamonds are popped out and reset into other rings or
jewelry items...or even sold loose. Most jewelry is sold as scrap gold
unless it's in really excellent condition and pretty enough to put in the
case with the new jewelry. No, they don't mix the two, but you usually
can't tell the difference.
If you find something yourself in the pawn shop, keep your mouth shut and
call the police dept that you made the police report to. And if you didn't
call the cops when you were robbed or whatever, don't bother doing it now.
It doesn't work that way. If you did, they will meet you there, either take
the item or have the pawn shop put it on hold, and then you will get it back
when the courts give it back to you. We tried to insist that we hold the
item, and since we had a very good relationship with our city police, it
worked pretty well most of the time.
So now you know how a pawn shop works! :-)
Jan
catg...@aol.com
> anything is better than nothing. Simple fact is that many *are* stolen.
Thieves here don't really want chump change unless they're just
stealing for kicks. There are some who are like that but most have
problems such as gambling or a drug and/or alcoholic addictions or are
strapped for money and can't pay their bills. Even so, that's still no
excuse to take the property of others.
> Writing on them or not!
> However If I'm desperate for that disk, I'd buy one written on in goood
> condition over one not written on in poor condition. Both things are easy to
> check. But I would not pay as much for one that is written on, if both were
> in similar condition otherwise.
The number of CDs or DVDs I've seen at garage sales that were in good
condition, I'd have to say was less than 5%. But, the ridiculous thing
about the ones in good condition is it's stuff no one else wants. Like
the romance books, people at garage sales put out their crappy CDs and
DVDs.
> Sure but that does not contradict what I said. YOU will know they are yours
> if the whole collection is pawned in one shop and you manage to track them
> down. You still have to PROVE they are yours for the police to do anything
> about it. A list AND marked items will provide such proof. A list alone is
> not considered sufficient proof.
That's true but say you had 200 titles stolen and you wrote down all
of the titles, and a pawn shop actually has all of those titles
occupying the same shelf space, what are the chances another person
would have the exact same tastes in music or movies as you? The
personnel in a pawn shop should be concerned when someone brings in an
exact list of stolen discs and that list is matching disc for disc
what someone else brought in just recently. Proving a few discs are
yours or were yours is difficult but here again, if a pawn shop has a
pawn that's matching title for title on your list, the chances are
good it is your stuff. The pawn shops don't have to list the titles on
the tickets BUT if someone brings in a list of stolen CDs and/or DVDs
and the pawn shop took in a lot of discs from one customer recently,
the pawn shop personnel should start cross checking that list against
those titles that were brought in that customer. Most won't do that,
of course, but they should.
> Nobody ever suggested they give the sellers name to you, no one is likely to
> do that. Weren't you complaining they wouldn't even tell you if they had
> certain items?
There's a difference between telling you the name of a person who made
a pawn and telling you if they took in certain items. The privacy laws
protect the individuals, not the merchandise.
catg...@aol.com
That's about the way it works here in this state's pawn shops, Jan,
except the state doesn't require fingerprints (which I think is a good
idea, actually) and the pawn shop is responsible for the filing of the
reports for the police. A few years ago, the pawn shops had to drop
off copies of the pawn tickets to the police station but then the
police made the pawn shops responsible for the filing (online) of the
pawn reports. But, the people who pawn their merchandise have 60 days
to reclaim the merchandise or renew the loan. Everything else is
pretty much the same as to how the pawn shops work in this state.
Could be better. :/
Jan
I've been gone a couple of years now. They could very well have to send
those reports to the cops online...which would be a big help. That was an
enormous waste of paper.
catg...@aol.com
> those reports to the cops online...which would be a big help. �That was an
> enormous waste of paper.
I agree, plus the police had some trouble reading some of the paper
copies given to them by the pawn shops, making it possible the police
clerical workers might key in the wrong information. And some help
that was in tracking stolen merchandise or the people wanted for
stealing the merchandise.
Jan
> I've been gone a couple of years now. ?They could very well have to send
> those reports to the cops online...which would be a big help. ?That was an
> enormous waste of paper.
>I agree, plus the police had some trouble reading some of the paper
>copies given to them by the pawn shops, making it possible the police
>clerical workers might key in the wrong information. And some help
>that was in tracking stolen merchandise or the people wanted for
>stealing the merchandise.
The last I knew, the pawn shops were all still using a version of a program
called "Pawndex" that was incompatible with the internet. It may be that
the company that made that program upgraded it and implemented that
function.
2 years ago we still had a few smaller shops that were keeping hand done
records, though. They had to give the cops a copy of all the cards instead
of a report. They would have had to make them get computerized, too. That
Pawndex program costs $10's of thousands of dollars, I think. And there
were only 2 choices of programs when I was still there. Pawndex was the
most popular.
Jan
catg...@aol.com
> called "Pawndex" that was incompatible with the internet. It may be that
> the company that made that program upgraded it and implemented that
> function.
>
I don't remember what pawn program my brother's shop was using but for
the online reports, we had to manually enter in all pawns. A pawn shop
was supposed to be able to download directly to the online website the
police used but my brother's system was incompatible. From what we
knew of the other pawn shops in town, their systems were incompatible
as well, so everyone had to manually enter their pawns into the
system. Pity there wasn't a better way but even more of a pity that's
what the police used to check for thefts showing up in the pawn shops,
but as much as the shops were hounded by the police into filing their
reports online, the police sometimes took their time checking the site
for stolen merchandise. How else could one explain a police department
using that system calling six months after an item was pawned and
requesting a hold, even though the item was already three months gone
from the shop?
> 2 years ago we still had a few smaller shops that were keeping hand done
> records, though. They had to give the cops a copy of all the cards instead
> of a report. They would have had to make them get computerized, too. That
> Pawndex program costs $10's of thousands of dollars, I think. And there
> were only 2 choices of programs when I was still there. Pawndex was the
> most popular.
I think my state now requires all pawn shops to use computers for
their transactions, although if a shop's printer is down, the employee
can write out the pawn. That was a pain in the neck though as it
usually happened when someone brought in a lot of items and the amount
of space you had on the cards to describe the product and provide the
serial number wasn't very much space. The few times I did it, I had a
bad case of writer's cramp from having to write as small as possible.
It was an interesting business but we closed because more people were
pawning their stuff and not picking them up. We gave people an extra
month or so to pick their stuff up before we finally put it on the
sales floor, but then we'd have customers wanting something they saw
asking us to deep cut the price we had on the item. My brother would
do that most of the time but I felt it was something we shouldn't have
done. The prices we had on the things in the store were already lower
than the prices for the same item in other pawn shops. But, people
treated the shop as though it was a flea market or an indoor garage
sale and that was no way to run a business.
TonyP
"Jan" <luv...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:DoWdnYy04th...@comporium.net...
> As for the name thing, pawn shops are listed in the same category as a
bank.
> If a bank tells someone that Tony has an account with them, he can sue
them.
> Same thing with the pawn shop. If (when I was still working there) I told
> anyone that anybody had brought in anything, then I'm risking the pawn
> shop's license and myself.
What the hell are you talking about? A bank can tell you whether they have
any $10 notes available, just as a pawn shop can tell you if they have any
Monkees CD's in stock, WITHOUT violating any privacy laws. What I said was
even IF you find them you still have to prove they are yours to a totally
uninterested police force. Don't expect any help whatsover unless they are
clearly marked.
> All pawn shops are required to print out a daily list of all items brought
> in...Any serial numbers have to be recorded, and nobody can pawn or sell
an
> item without a drivers license or state ID, period. If you deal with a
pawn
> shop, you will be identified. The first time you ever deal with the pawn
> shop, they get your fingerprint as well. Those reports they have to make
> include all the info on the customer as well as the details and numbers on
> the items. The cops come by at their convenience and pick up these
reports,
> which are pages and pages. They scan them for big items or something that
> jumps out at them, and that's about it.
Which is why I said the smart crooks like unidentifiable items like CD's and
DVD's even though they have low value. You are writing a lot, but don't seem
to be disagreeing with what I already wrote.
> That being said, CD's and DVD's are different. They don't have to be
listed
> one by one, just a total number. So if you're looking for stolen cds or
> dvds, you would have to go into the pawn shop and FIND them. The cops are
> not interested in anything that small.
Exactly as I said already. Must be time to end the discussion if we are in
total agreement surely?
> Now if there was a huge robbery or murder involved and they knew some rare
> movie titles, they might be inclined to go through them, but that seldom
> happens.
Yep, murder does tend to change their attitude.
> If you find something yourself in the pawn shop, keep your mouth shut and
> call the police dept that you made the police report to.
Not that it will do you any good of course, unless they are totally bored
with nothing else to do.
> So now you know how a pawn shop works! :-)
And what do you think you have said that was different to what I said
exactly?
So yes I now know how a pawn shop works over there is pretty much the way it
works here, as I already said.
But thanks anyway.
TonyP.
TonyP
> Thieves here don't really want chump change unless they're just
> stealing for kicks. There are some who are like that but most have
> problems such as gambling or a drug and/or alcoholic addictions or are
> strapped for money and can't pay their bills.
Yep they're the ones who steal the small items for "chump change". The big
crims rob banks or start up their own! :-)
>Even so, that's still no excuse to take the property of others.
Of course not, but you won't convince a drug addict that.
> The number of CDs or DVDs I've seen at garage sales that were in good
> condition, I'd have to say was less than 5%. But, the ridiculous thing
> about the ones in good condition is it's stuff no one else wants. Like
> the romance books, people at garage sales put out their crappy CDs and
> DVDs.
What would you expect? There was a time when everyone threw out their vinyl
though (not me!) and some of it had been looked after. The good stuff is
pretty much in the hands of collectors now. You will see a lot coming back
onto he market as those collectors die however, and their heirs may not
value it as highly.
> That's true but say you had 200 titles stolen and you wrote down all
> of the titles, and a pawn shop actually has all of those titles
> occupying the same shelf space, what are the chances another person
> would have the exact same tastes in music or movies as you?
None, but it's still not sufficient proof for police or judges.
> personnel in a pawn shop should be concerned when someone brings in an
> exact list of stolen discs and that list is matching disc for disc
> what someone else brought in just recently.
Nope they are unconcerned if the disks are not marked.
>Proving a few discs are
> yours or were yours is difficult but here again, if a pawn shop has a
> pawn that's matching title for title on your list, the chances are
> good it is your stuff.
Chance plays no part when it comes to proving they are yours.
>The pawn shops don't have to list the titles on
> the tickets BUT if someone brings in a list of stolen CDs and/or DVDs
> and the pawn shop took in a lot of discs from one customer recently,
> the pawn shop personnel should start cross checking that list against
> those titles that were brought in that customer. Most won't do that,
> of course, but they should.
Don't hold your breathe!
> There's a difference between telling you the name of a person who made
> a pawn and telling you if they took in certain items. The privacy laws
> protect the individuals, not the merchandise.
Isn't that what I already said, many times!
TonyP.
TonyP
>It was an interesting business but we closed because more people were
pawning their stuff and not picking them up. We gave people an extra
month or so to pick their stuff up before we finally put it on the
sales floor, but then we'd have customers wanting something they saw
asking us to deep cut the price we had on the item. My brother would
do that most of the time but I felt it was something we shouldn't have
done. The prices we had on the things in the store were already lower
than the prices for the same item in other pawn shops. But, people
treated the shop as though it was a flea market or an indoor garage
>sale and that was no way to run a business.
Well nearly every pawn shop here marks the items at close to NEW retail, so
only a complete moron would buy a second hand item, often in poor condition,
for new price. IF you don't bargain with them, then you are better off not
walking in the shop in the first place.
From what I see, they make an absolute killing on the interest charged to
people who do reclaim their goods (up to 30% a MONTH!) and so have little
interest in any other part of the business. When they run out of shop space
they are a little more likely to accept what the older items are really
worth.
TonyP.
Jan
>It was an interesting business but we closed because more people were
>pawning their >stuff and not picking them up. We gave people an extra month
>or so to pick their stuff >up before we finally put it on the sales floor,
>but then we'd have customers wanting >something they saw asking us to deep
>cut the price we had on the item. My brother >would do that most of the
>time but I felt it was something we shouldn't have done. >The prices we had
>on the things in the store were already lower than the prices for the >same
>item in other pawn shops. But, people treated the shop as though it was a
>flea >market or an indoor garage sale and that was no way to run a
>business.
Yeah, the people tried that a lot at Dickie's stores (he had 3) but other
than maybe a 10% discount, they didn't come down. He didn't price according
to the loan amount either...he priced about 1/2 of new...or more. As
employees we got to buy new stuff at wholesale. We only got a 30% discount
on used stuff, and usually that was not enough to get that much of a good
buy...unless the item was in perfect condition.
I set them up to start selling on Ebay, and within about a year, they were
running a million dollars in merchandise through there. They made even more
that way. It's amazing how much people will pay for something that live out
on farms in Idaho or somewhere. I guess not everyone has a Walmart.
The only thing that didn't really sell was jewelry. They had a big swanky
jewelry dept in each store anyway, so they seldom put that on Ebay. He has
3 huge stores and about 75 employees. There was one or two employees that
did nothing but list cds and dvds. They did a huge business. On dvds,
they'd buy at about $2 each and sell for $5 to $10. They only put special
cds on Ebay...box sets and such.
Dickie is about 48 now, and hasn't personally worked himself in 20 years.
He drops in each store about an hour each week if he's not in the islands
somewhere. Lucky man. Or smart as hell, one.
Jan
Jan
>
> "catgod29@home_on_the_range.com" <catg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5b353b49-b0d8-4f18...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> From what I see, they make an absolute killing on the interest charged to
> people who do reclaim their goods (up to 30% a MONTH!) and so have little
> interest in any other part of the business. When they run out of shop
> space
> they are a little more likely to accept what the older items are really
> worth.
You are 100% correct. Each store they had made enough just on interest to
pay all the bills and the payroll. Everything they sold was pure profit.
Plus they did check cashing, UPS, title loans, tax refund loans and Western
Union. And we didn't even mention guns! They had the biggest gun selection
in the state, probably. Couldn't keep new ones in stock they sold so many.
And paint guns, knives, swords, ninja stuff, handcuffs, pepper spray...it
goes on and on.
Video games and consoles like Playstation etc...computers...musical
equipment...
Jan
Jan
>
> "Jan" <luv...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:DoWdnYy04th...@comporium.net...
>> As for the name thing, pawn shops are listed in the same category as a
> bank.
>> If a bank tells someone that Tony has an account with them, he can sue
> them.
>> Same thing with the pawn shop. If (when I was still working there) I
>> told
>> anyone that anybody had brought in anything, then I'm risking the pawn
>> shop's license and myself.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? A bank can tell you whether they have
> any $10 notes available, just as a pawn shop can tell you if they have any
> Monkees CD's in stock, WITHOUT violating any privacy laws. What I said was
> even IF you find them you still have to prove they are yours to a totally
> uninterested police force. Don't expect any help whatsover unless they are
> clearly marked.
>Exactly as I said already. Must be time to end the discussion if we are in
total agreement surely?
No, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. Just elaborating. Excuse the
hell out of me.
Our stores had hundreds and hundreds of cds and dvds. No employee was going
to stand there and look through them for anything. A customer can spend an
hour or two doing that if they choose. And lots of them did just that.
Jan
TonyP
> No, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. Just elaborating. Excuse the
> hell out of me.
OK, sorry for jumping on you then.
> Our stores had hundreds and hundreds of cds and dvds. No employee was
going
> to stand there and look through them for anything. A customer can spend
an
> hour or two doing that if they choose. And lots of them did just that.
Yes well that's a fair point if they don't have them on a database. Nobody
is going to waste their time on CD's/DVD's as you say. But the mention of
privacy issues had me puzzled since I doubt anyone would expect to get a
sellers name from a pawn shop without police intervention, and that's not
likely IME!
MrT.
Jan
DEMANDING to know "who brought that surfboard in here???" Of course we
didn't tell them...we would tell the cops, but not the person. They might
go out and murder somebody for stealing from them, too. :-)
Often people brought in boxes of cds or dvds. No way could they all be
listed. They were just listed as "24 dvds" or whatever. Now I have been
gone for more than 2 years. They very well may have to type the names in
now. I will try to remember to ask the next time I stop by there. I don't
think they even buy cds anymore. They were down to like 50 cents each when
I was there. Box sets, maybe.
Jan