Songs And Pictures of the Fabulous Beatles
Neil Arsenty
Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong VJ record. The record is "Songs And
Pictures of the Fabulous Beatles". Has the songs I Saw Her Standing
There, Misery, Please Please Me, From Me To You, Chains, Boys, Love Me
Do, P.S. I Love You, Baby It's You, Do You Want To Know A Secret?, A
Taste Of Honey, There's A Place, and Twist & Shout. Any value?
Neil
Metronome Studios
Neil Arsenty (mano...@mc.net) wrote:
: Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong VJ record. The record is "Songs And
Nope. However, if the album was "Songs, Pictures and Stories of the
Fabulous Beatles," then it would be worth something.
JON
Neil Arsenty <mano...@mc.net> wrote:
>Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong VJ record. The record is "Songs And
>Pictures of the Fabulous Beatles". Has the songs I Saw Her Standing
>There, Misery, Please Please Me, From Me To You, Chains, Boys, Love Me
>Do, P.S. I Love You, Baby It's You, Do You Want To Know A Secret?, A
>Taste Of Honey, There's A Place, and Twist & Shout. Any value?
This LP is a 1980's counterfeit (some say it's a reissue) of the
original LP which had a fold-open cover. The original was called
"Songs, Pictures, and Stories of the Fabulous Beatles", the stories
being behind the fold-open flap which was missing from the counterfeit.
Originals in mono are worth $50 to $100. Your counterfeit is worth $10.
Biffyshrew
JON wrote:
> This LP is a 1980's counterfeit (some say it's a reissue) of the
>original LP which had a fold-open cover.
Not '80s..._Songs And Pictures_ was around at least as early as the
mid-'70s. Used to have a copy myself back then.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Visit me at http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
Afghanistan bananastand!
Cathy D888
biffy...@aol.com (Biffyshrew)
>
>JON wrote:
>
>> This LP is a 1980's counterfeit (some say it's a reissue) of the
>>original LP which had a fold-open cover.
>
>Not '80s..._Songs And Pictures_ was around at least as early as the
>mid-'70s. Used to have a copy myself back then.
What makes people believe this is a counterfeit rather than a reissue?
Metronome Studios
Cathy D888 (cath...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Not '80s..._Songs And Pictures_ was around at least as early as the
: >mid-'70s. Used to have a copy myself back then.
:
: What makes people believe this is a counterfeit rather than a reissue?
Look at the title that the original poster was asking about: "Songs and
Pictures..." The original album also had "Stories." The original also had
a 2/3 gatefold cover.
Cathy D888
I have both the original and reissue (counterfeit?) The fact that it doesn't
have the "gatefold" cover and the name was changed doesn't mean that it is not
a re-issue. It simply means that VJ chose not to reissue it in a gatefold cover
(this is not unusual). The name change can be explained by the fact that the
"stories" referred to in the title on the original release are inside the
gatefold cover. Since the reissue doesn't have a gatefold cover it no longer
has the "stories" included. I would think that a counterfeiter would have been
more careful to keep the name the same as on the original. So I'll ask again:
Why this is a counterfeit rather than a reissue?
Bob Stahley
Cathy D888 <cath...@aol.com> wrote:
: So I'll ask again: Why this is a counterfeit rather than a reissue?
Because at the time of its appearance, the mid-seventies, neither Vee-Jay
nor anyone else other than EMI had the rights to commercially release the
songs included on the LP. Hence, a counterfeit.
--
__ __
_) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
__)__) tosa, witzend Walla Walla, Wash., an' Kalamazoo!
David Haber
In article <19971209150...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, cath...@aol.com (Cathy D888) wrote:
>biffy...@aol.com (Biffyshrew)
>>
>>JON wrote:
>>
>>> This LP is a 1980's counterfeit (some say it's a reissue) of the
>>>original LP which had a fold-open cover.
>>
>>mid-'70s. Used to have a copy myself back then.
>
Cause the original would have been called "Songs, Pictures and Stories of the
Fabulous Beatles". The stories were on the inside of the gatefold, which the
counterfeit doesn't have.
-Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dha...@primenet.com (Dave Haber)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet Beatles Album - http://www.liv.ac.uk/ipm/beatles/
The Official Rutles Home Page - http://www.primenet.com/~dhaber/rutles/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be" - John Lennon
"Love is the meaning of life, life is the meaning of love" - Ron Nasty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metronome Studios
Cathy D888 (cath...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: I have both the original and reissue (counterfeit?) The fact that it doesn't
: have the "gatefold" cover and the name was changed doesn't mean that it is not
: a re-issue. It simply means that VJ chose not to reissue it in a gatefold cover
: (this is not unusual). The name change can be explained by the fact that the
: "stories" referred to in the title on the original release are inside the
: gatefold cover. Since the reissue doesn't have a gatefold cover it no longer
: has the "stories" included. I would think that a counterfeiter would have been
: Why this is a counterfeit rather than a reissue?
I had both the reissue, as you call it, and the original. Look at the
"reissue." The colors are washed out and the graphics are not crisp. Now,
look at the reissue "Hear The Beatles Tell All." The colors are nice and
bright (like my original) and the lines are crisp (like my original). Even
the "Songs and Pictures..." vinyl is counterfeit. It compares to the
"Introducing The Beatles" counterfeit vinyl. Those counterfeit labels look
like crap and the runout groove has no machine matrix stamp. If VJ
reissued it, don't you'd think it would have the matrix stamp in the
runout groove instead of it being cheaply scrawled in by hand? If you
don't believe me, just talk to Perry Cox (or whatever that guys name is
who does the price guide). He'll tell you...
CYA!
Cathy D888
>From: Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com>
>
>Cathy D888 <cath...@aol.com> wrote:
>: So I'll ask again: Why this is a counterfeit rather than a reissue?
>Because at the time of its appearance, the mid-seventies, neither Vee-Jay
>nor anyone else other than EMI had the rights to commercially release the
>songs included on the LP. Hence, a counterfeit.
I found my copy in a batch of LP's that I bought. Without checking I can't say
for sure that they were all released in the 60's or earlier, but I'd have to
say that the majority of them were released in the 60's or earlier. That's why
I questioned if all copies of that album are counterfeits.
Cathy D888
>From: usp...@aloha.net (Metronome Studios)
>
>Cathy D888 (cath...@aol.com) wrote:
>:
>: I have both the original and reissue (counterfeit?) The fact that it doesn't
>: have the "gatefold" cover and the name was changed doesn't mean that it is
not
>: a re-issue. It simply means that VJ chose not to reissue it in a gatefold
cover
>: (this is not unusual). The name change can be explained by the fact that the
>: "stories" referred to in the title on the original release are inside the
>: gatefold cover. Since the reissue doesn't have a gatefold cover it no longer
>: has the "stories" included. I would think that a counterfeiter would have
been
again:
>: Why this is a counterfeit rather than a reissue?
>
>"reissue." The colors are washed out and the graphics are not crisp. Now,
>look at the reissue "Hear The Beatles Tell All." The colors are nice and
>bright (like my original) and the lines are crisp (like my original). Even
>the "Songs and Pictures..." vinyl is counterfeit. It compares to the
>"Introducing The Beatles" counterfeit vinyl. Those counterfeit labels look
>like crap and the runout groove has no machine matrix stamp. If VJ
>reissued it, don't you'd think it would have the matrix stamp in the
>runout groove instead of it being cheaply scrawled in by hand? If you
>don't believe me, just talk to Perry Cox (or whatever that guys name is
>who does the price guide). He'll tell you.
The graphics on my copy are no worse than I've seen on other reissue albums.
The original has no machine stamping in the run out groove. The printing on the
label on my album is crisp and sharp, comparable to my other original VJ
albums. Cox is not perfect, his book contains errors. However, for a number of
reasons I have come to the conclusion that this is a counterfeit.
Metronome Studios
Cathy D888 (cath...@aol.com) wrote:
: The original has no machine stamping in the run out groove. The printing
Originals have machine stamping(s) in the runout groove.
: on the label on my album is crisp and sharp, comparable to my other
: original VJ albums. Cox is not perfect, his book contains errors.
Yeah, he's not perfect. But he's pretty close, no? For the amount of
information in his books, it's somewhat expected to have a few errors.
: However, for a number of reasons I have come to the conclusion that this
: is a counterfeit.
What reasons would these be?
Cathy D888
>From: usp...@aloha.net (Metronome Studios)
I bought this album with a lot of other albums that I purchased as a lot. Many
of these albums are from the 60's or earlier. Now, I happened to know that
Jerry Osborne lists this as a reissue in his record collector's price guide, so
I figured I had a legit reissue, and never examined the album very closely.
After everyone in here said it's a counterfeit I doubled checked my album. The
reasons I know it's a counterfeit are: 1) The album includes the songs "Love Me
Do" and "P.S. I Love You." VJ did a lot of repackaging, but they never reissued
an album with those two songs. They lost the rights to those songs early on. 2)
The record number printed on the album. The original "Songs, Pictures and
Stories" used "Introducing...." and that record number is 1062. On the album
included with "Songs and Pictures" the record number is 1092 (same as on the
album cover), but the name of the album is still "Introducing....." 3) I
listened to the album -- it looks mint, but doesn't play any where near as good
as it should for the condition it looks to be in.
David Isbell
Cathy D888 wrote in message
<19971210160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>From: usp...@aloha.net (Metronome Studios)
>>
>>Cathy D888 (cath...@aol.com) wrote:
>>:
>The original has no machine stamping in the run out groove. The printing on
the
>label on my album is crisp and sharp, comparable to my other original VJ
>albums. Cox is not perfect, his book contains errors. However, for a number
of
>reasons I have come to the conclusion that this is a counterfeit.
I don't think Vee Jay would have had the rights to legally reissue the album
anyway. I read that their rights to the EMI recordings ended in either late
1964 or early 1965 so, after that, they could not have legitimately reissued
that album or "Introducing the Beatles". However, the "Hear the Beatles
Tell All" album, not being an EMI product, could be reissued.
Dave