• Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago

    I for one think these shouldn't be grounds for a new record as the stock copy version is usually the exact same pressing as the picture sleeve version. Except less sleeves where made than records for economical reasons.

    Opinions?

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1204204
    vs
    http://www.discogs.com/release/624581
  • makbo over 10 years ago

    I agree completely. In fact, when someone submits a release, since images are not mandatory, you don't know what they had -- generic or picture sleeve. Numerous times, I've submitted my release which I purchased originally with generic sleeve, then someone else comes along and loads an image of picture sleeve I never knew existed.

    It's occasionally a problem for sellers, who list the item without the sleeve and then someone else loads it up, but if they indicated "generic" for the sleeve condition, and/or keep an eye on their notifications, shouldn't be a big deal.

    (I assume this is primarily involving 7-inch singles, as in your example).
  • SeRKeT over 10 years ago

    for subs like this images are very important, i have added a few 7'' with generic company label sleeves that earlier came as picture sleeves but i always provide images as it is the only way of telling the differences sometimes, i do think they warrant separate entries though due to the collectable nature of picture sleeves editions :)
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    If there's a version with a generic/generic company sleeve and a version with a picture sleeve, they are of course each one a unique release.

    We just have to make sure that the generic sleeve version was really sold like this and not a second hand copy where the picture sleeve was lost and replaced by a generic one.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago

    rassel
    picture sleeve was lost and replaced by a generic one.


    There's no way to tell. It's pretty much that way from the start though. X Copies are made and significantly less Y picture sleeves are made to go with it. The record that's in the jacket is exactly the same. I think the generic field in the sleeve condition collection/selling field should cover this.

    However, if it where two varying picturesleeves, those should have seperate releases and note should be taken to what exact records went with those exact sleeves.
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    The record that's in the jacket is exactly the same. I think the generic field in the sleeve condition collection/selling field should cover this.


    No, if a record was produced and sold in two different jackets it's worth two different releases here.
  • SeRKeT over 10 years ago

    Generic label sleeve and picture sleeve both are unique and quite common practice for ex :
    http://www.discogs.com/Gladys-Knight-And-The-Pips-Baby-Dont-Change-Your-Mind-I-Love-To-Feel-That-Feeling/release/691080
    vs
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1556478

    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=23285
    vs the copy i have
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1515703
    the two above examples are easy to separate
    but the picture sleeve vs plain generic black/white cardboard sleeve is a whole different issue as it's so much harder to prove as them type of sleeves are so commonly used as pointed out above
  • makbo over 10 years ago

    makbo edited over 10 years ago
    rassel
    No, if a record was produced and sold in two different jackets it's worth two different releases here.

    Can you point that out in the RSG, please? We're not talking two different picture sleeves, but rather one picture sleeve for x% of the items manufactured, and generic paper sleeve for the remaining (100-x)%.

    Especially concerning 7-inch vinyl singles, where what Diognes_The_Fox says is true -- the company printed 100K disks, but only 10K picture sleeves, for example. Very common.

    Back to practicality -- what if I have the picture sleeve version, submit it, but don't upload the image because I don't feel like taking the time? What justifies you entering a duplicate submission?

    [edit - fixed typo, added clarification]
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    makbo
    Can you point that out in the RSG, please? We're not talking two different picture sleeves, but rather one picture sleeve for x% of the items manufactured, and generic paper sleeve for the remaining (100-x)%.

    The RSG says about unique releases:
    1.4.1. Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different country pressings etc. In order for these to be accepted, you must provide enough information to distinguish the different versions of a release.

    There's a quite huge difference in the artwork, if one has a picture sleeve and one a generic / company sleeve.
    We treat every tiny difference in the artwork as a unique release, different positions of the barcode, different font size, whatever. I would fail to see the logic if we would look at a copy without any artwork and a copy with picture sleeve as the same release.

    And about the x% of manufactured items: The same logic applies to different picture sleeves, x% were produced with picture sleeve A and 100-x% with picutre sleeve B, there's no reason to put both copies in the same release.

    And please read also the discussions about generic sleeves here:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/172784
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/172373
  • loukash over 10 years ago

    rassel
    I would fail to see the logic if we would look at a copy without any artwork and a copy with picture sleeve as the same release.

    That depends on the label's practice. If it's somewhat provable that a label is clearly distinguishing between a PS and a GS release, then it's likely OK to submit both versions separately.

    On the other hand, knowing for instance the practice of Supraphon and their completely arbitrary usage of sleeves (see my note in the label profile), the inclusion of GS in addition to PS submissions doesn't make sense there, because there is zero guarantee that a Supraphon record was released with a particular generic sleeve in the first place (that even applies to many 1950s-1960s LPs!). In fact, having already bought hundreds of 2nd hand Supraphon 7"s myself, often I'm simply putting the records I intend to buy into less damaged sleeves while digging in the crates, as long as they roughly match the manufacturing period. And speaking of Supraphon, there were possibly hunderts of different generic sleeve designs in the 1950s-1980s, and some 2nd hand dealers in Prague have crates with thousands of 7"s which possibly went through the hands of thousands of diggers already…
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    SeRKeT
    Generic label sleeve and picture sleeve both are unique and quite common practice for ex :
    http://www.discogs.com/Gladys-...eling/release/691080
    vs
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1556478


    I think a distinction should be made between "generic" sleeve and company sleeve. Releases with company sleeves (especially 7-inch company sleeves, which can be just as hard to come by as picture sleeves) seem acceptable; but those with generic, plain white/brown/black sleeves aren't worth separate submissions.

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I for one think these shouldn't be grounds for a new record as the stock copy version is usually the exact same pressing as the picture sleeve version. Except less sleeves where made than records for economical reasons.

    Opinions?

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1204204
    vs
    http://www.discogs.com/release/624581


    Diognes_The_Fox's example seems reflective of the "generic" sleeve argument -- the duplicate submission (Booker T. & The M.G.'s* - Time Is Tight) doesn't even have images, and the submitter admitted his copy doesn't have a sleeve at all.
  • SeRKeT over 10 years ago


    infamous31
    but those with generic, plain white/brown/black sleeves aren't worth separate submissions.

    yes it's too hard to prove, in situations like that i think the notes can suffice for ex:
    ''initial copies came in picture sleeve (amount if known), the rest came in plain generic paper/cardboard sleeves''
    here's the point
    http://www.discogs.com/Rockers-Revenge-Featuring-Donnie-Calvin-Walking-On-Sunshine-Rockin-On-Sunshine/release/362819
    years ago i bought this new in HMV in a plain white paper sleeve, i remember the day well as i saw a girl i went to school with who had bought it too :) but i woudn't add it separately as i say , notes i think are fine for those situations
  • makbo over 10 years ago

    rassel
    There's a quite huge difference in the artwork, if one has a picture sleeve and one a generic / company sleeve.

    A generic or company sleeve is not "artwork", therefore the clause in the RSG does not apply.
    infamous31
    Releases with company sleeves (especially 7-inch company sleeves, which can be just as hard to come by as picture sleeves) seem acceptable

    I'm surprised by that statement - does not match my experience at all, I've got about 1,000 US 7-inch singles. A company sleeve (one with the company's logo printed on it) is nothing special, they came with every disc that wasn't a picture sleeve. I threw most of mine away upon purchase and replaced them with heavy duty plain-paper 3rd-party sleeves.
    SeRKeT
    Generic label sleeve and picture sleeve both are unique and quite common practice

    I say just the opposite -- it's quite uncommon practice. Neither of us has the statistics to back it up.
    makbo
    Back to practicality -- what if I have the picture sleeve version, submit it, but don't upload the image because I don't feel like taking the time? What justifies you entering a duplicate submission?

    I've mentioned the above twice, but no one has an answer. At the very least, before creating a new release, the second submitter better check with the OP to determine what the situation is with the first release. Otherwise, you risk creating an entry in the database representing a generic sleeve when in fact no such release may have ever existed. The only solution would be to created a mandatory field for type of sleeve.

    I don't see any hope that any of the respondents in this thread so far are going to change their interpretation of the RSG. The RSG, as in other cases (such as "compilation") were not generally written with the peculiar issues of 7-inch singles in mind.
  • zevulon over 10 years ago

    Still - buying a sealed absolutely unplayed copy in a generic sleeve when you expected a full artwork cover is still annoying as H* as well as misleading IMO (talking about 12"s)

    I added this separately, out of anger and warning to others

    Florian Meindl - 8 Bit Romance

    some people reacted with "this is not a unique entry", but I still maintained my submission.
  • SeRKeT over 10 years ago


    zevulon
    Still - buying a sealed absolutely unplayed copy in a generic sleeve when you expected a full artwork cover is still annoying as H* as well as misleading

    with any item if you expect the picture sleeve then that is what you should get, i quite agree about your comment and can see some reason why plain sleeve issues can cause this to happen sadly but that is another thread about people selling items not as described , it's not hard to put in comments of sale items about the fact it has a plain sleeve and not the picture sleeve
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    makbo
    A generic or company sleeve is not "artwork", therefore the clause in the RSG does not apply.

    I leave it up to you what you call artwork and what not, but the plain fact that on one copy there IS artwork (picture sleeve) and on one there's none (generic sleeve) is a change in the artwork, not on the content of the record.
    If you don't call the sleeves artwork, then it's still part of the packaging, and still different packaging would be good enough to have two unique relases here.
    makbo
    Back to practicality -- what if I have the picture sleeve version, submit it, but don't upload the image because I don't feel like taking the time? What justifies you entering a duplicate submission?

    There's not many things we can do against this, as long as it's still ok to submit releases without pictures.
    I usually suppose that the release in the database looks the same as mine.
  • loukash over 10 years ago

    makbo
    A generic or company sleeve is not "artwork", therefore the clause in the RSG does not apply.

    A company sleeve is artwork. As long as something is printed on it, somebody had to lay it out, at the very least. Only that for most parts the designer/layouter remains uncredited.
    makbo
    I threw most of mine away upon purchase and replaced them with heavy duty plain-paper 3rd-party sleeves.

    That, on the other hand, is a serious argument why such submissions should be handled with caution.
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    makbo
    I threw most of mine away upon purchase and replaced them with heavy duty plain-paper 3rd-party sleeves.


    This is why many older company sleeves are hard to find now. Though not necessarily collectible on their own, they can add some value to a 7-inch. Some collectors like "the complete release," similar to old-school albums with original company promo inner sleeves.

    I'm referring to the sleeves of the 50s-early 70s, not so much late 70s-80s.

    Company sleeves, in my opinion, qualify as unique artwork. They are obviously not as aesthetically pleasing as picture sleeves, though I've seen websites dedicated to 7-inch company sleeves.
  • SeRKeT over 10 years ago

    one fact here, paper sleeves deteriorate rather quickly and due to this fact can be very valuable (without the record even), for this reason old comics books and documents fetch such huge sums sometimes
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    So you think a release that was available in a
    - Picture sleeve
    - Company sleeve
    - Generic sleeve

    should be lumped together in one release? This is what the Master Release was created for.
    No way.
    loukash
    On the other hand, knowing for instance the practice of Supraphon and their completely arbitrary usage of sleeves (see my note in the label profile), the inclusion of GS in addition to PS submissions doesn't make sense there, because there is zero guarantee that a Supraphon record was released with a particular generic sleeve in the first place (that even applies to many 1950s-1960s LPs!).

    The example with Supraphon reminds me more to some handcrafted sleeves and I would apply the rule for these handmade covers for such things.
  • loukash over 10 years ago

    rassel
    - Generic sleeve
    should be lumped together in one release?

    Generic sleeve: yes. Many 7"s were purchased for the use in jukeboxes, and the original buyers probably lost the original sleeves, regardless if PS or CS. These are those 7"s in plain sleeves which were available very cheap in on flea markets in the 1990s, often with traces of jukebox usage.

    In other words: when I have such 7" for sale, I'm attaching it to the closest matching release on Discogs, regardless of its cover artwork, and I add a Sell-item-note: "No picture sleeve"
    rassel
    I would apply the rule for these handmade covers for such things

    What was that rule again?
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    loukash
    Generic sleeve: yes. Many 7"s were purchased for the use in jukeboxes, and the original buyers probably lost the original sleeves, regardless if PS or CS. These are those 7"s in plain sleeves which were available very cheap in on flea markets in the 1990s, often with traces of jukebox usage.

    Don't get me wrong, it's probably ok to have all copies with generic sleeves in one release, but generic sleeve AND label specific sleeve AND picture sleeve in one release is not ok.
    loukash
    What was that rule again?

    1.4.3. Items such as cut outs (where a normal release has a section of the sleeve cut, denoting a price cut item), items that have otherwise been marked or altered after release, differences in releases with hand-made artwork that are part of the same edition, and individually numbered items on otherwise identical copies will not be allowed as unique releases.

    :)
  • zevulon over 10 years ago


    SeRKeT
    with any item if you expect the picture sleeve then that is what you should get, i quite agree about your comment and can see some reason why plain sleeve issues can cause this to happen sadly but that is another thread about people selling items not as described , it's not hard to put in comments of sale items about the fact it has a plain sleeve and not the picture sleeve

    I bought it from juno, and they have no obligation to abide discogs - they still had a pic of the cover and they were willing to retrieve my copy and refund, but as I wasn't sure to find the full artwork edition elsewhere in Mint condition (not Discogs definition of Mint e.g. vg+) I kept my generic copy.
  • makbo over 10 years ago

    rassel
    If you don't call the sleeves artwork, then it's still part of the packaging, and still different packaging would be good enough to have two unique relases here.

    I can't outright dispute that, so I won't try. ;-)

    Just one more thing that I'm not going to cast any votes regarding, when it comes to 7-inch. Haven't heard from Diognes_The_Fox who started this discussion, it would be nice to get a wrap-up on the original case and see if this thread made any difference.
    loukash
    A company sleeve is artwork. As long as something is printed on it, somebody had to lay it out, at the very least. Only that for most parts the designer/layouter remains uncredited.

    That's like saying the front page of the New York Times newspaper is artwork.

    That's like saying what you see when you point your browser to Discogs is artwork.

    That's like saying that yellow police-scene tape is artwork.
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    makbo
    That's like saying the front page of the New York Times newspaper is artwork.

    That's like saying what you see when you point your browser to Discogs is artwork.

    That's like saying that yellow police-scene tape is artwork.


    Those are three fairly nonsensical examples. The front page of the New York Times is comparable to the actual record -- it's the content, not the packaging.

    Besides, the question isn't whether the company sleeves are "artwork," or have some aesthetic value. It's whether the packaging is distinctive enough from a picture-sleeve version to warrant a separate submission.

    To that question, I would answer yes.

    makbo
    Just one more thing that I'm not going to cast any votes regarding, when it comes to 7-inch.


    Even though we might disagree, I still enjoy these discussions.

    I saw the other thread about "Why should we even vote," and I feel it's starting to become a problem on Discogs -- voters not bothering to vote, or put up items for removal, because they don't want to deal with the ensuing arguments, or generally don't like a particular aspect of the database. It seems rather nihilist to me.

    Call me corny, but I still think Discogs is a good, if not perfect, database worth working on.
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    infamous31
    I saw the other thread about "Why should we even vote," and I feel it's starting to become a problem on Discogs -- voters not bothering to vote, or put up items for removal, because they don't want to deal with the ensuing arguments, or generally don't like a particular aspect of the database.


    And I'm not referring to you, makbo, as I'm definitely guilty of this as well.
  • makbo over 10 years ago

    infamous31
    similar to old-school albums with original company promo inner sleeves.

    Just for the record, I didn't throw any of those away. ;-)
  • Gabbahead over 10 years ago

    What's the rule now with company sleeves and plain sleeve?

    Should/must this 12" be updated (only the pics of the company sleeve must then be removed) http://www.discogs.com/Terror-Squad-Presents-DJ-Khaled-We-Takin-Over/release/1420444
    ?

    I bought it new in a plain black sleeve, but saw it also with the black/white/grey Koch Rec. sleeve in a German online shop. One of the 'ogs sellers also mentions this sleeve. Justifies TWO entries, or not (if I would own the last-mentioned sleeve, I don't got it yet)?

    Thanks.
  • consort over 10 years ago

    makbo
    That's like saying that yellow police-scene tape is artwork.

    If a cassette comes wrapped in it for example, it most definitely is the artwork for the release ;-)
  • Gabbahead over 10 years ago

    Can anyone answer my question, please? ;-)
  • Gabbahead over 10 years ago

    C'mon.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago

    infamous31

    Company sleeves, in my opinion, qualify as unique artwork

    I generally deal primarily in 45's from 1950-1990. For the most part I'd say company sleeves should be more documented on the label page more than the individual release page as usually one company sleeve would be used for 5+ year stretches and over a span of hundreds if not thousands of releases. On the other hand in the late 60's motown had an ad sleeve they changed up just about once a month, if I recall, which would be better suited for the individual release page.

    makbo
    it would be nice to get a wrap-up on the original case and see if this thread made any difference.

    The guy I buy records from by default dumps all picture sleeves and company sleeves before putting them in his collection. When I buy 45's it's in whatever company sleeves are just laying around. 99.9% of the time, it is not matched up. At least for pop 7"s, the record isn't really tied to the sleeve unless it's a picture sleeve.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago


    Gabbahead

    I bought it new in a plain black sleeve, but saw it also with the black/white/grey Koch Rec. sleeve in a German online shop. One of the 'ogs sellers also mentions this sleeve. Justifies TWO entries, or not (if I would own the last-mentioned sleeve, I don't got it yet)?

    We need company sleeve on the jacket dropdown
  • Gabbahead over 10 years ago

    Sounds good, but doesn't answer my question. ;)
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    Again, there are three different kind of sleeves:

    - Picture sleeves -> every difference in the artwork deserves a different release
    - Company sleeves -> I look at different company sleeves of the same label as manufacturing variations and therefore lump them together as one release
    - Generic sleeves -> I look at generic sleeves as manufacturing variations and therefore lump them together as one release
  • Gabbahead over 10 years ago

    I would do the same, it makes sense, but is this official?
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago


    Gabbahead
    Sounds good, but doesn't answer my question. ;)

    Suppose the original jacket gets damaged and it's put in a generic jacket. Does this deserve a unique release?
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Suppose the original jacket gets damaged and it's put in a generic jacket. Does this deserve a unique release?

    We always talk about releases wrapped in the original packaging, replacing a lost jacket or jewelcase with something different NEVER deserves a release of its own.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago


    rassel

    We always talk about releases wrapped in the original packaging, replacing a lost jacket or jewelcase with something different NEVER deserves a release of its own.

    This is the exact reasoning behind my argument. Recent releases are a different argument, but with what I deal in, it is pretty well simply impossible to be able to determine these things. Heck. One of the dealers I know buys used company sleeves just to put them with the right label.
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    This is the exact reasoning behind my argument. Recent releases are a different argument, but with what I deal in, it is pretty well simply impossible to be able to determine these things. Heck. One of the dealers I know buys used company sleeves just to put them with the right label.

    Sure, but I don't really see a problem in this. The only thing you can trust then is the item itself without the jacket, and that's what I'd describe in the submission, not the jacket as you can't be sure if it has been sold in this.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago

    rassel
    not the jacket as you can't be sure if it has been sold in this.

    The only thing that can really be proven is that n% of that release WAS issued with a unique picture sleeve which, ihmo, should be associated with that release. I don't really seeing this applying outside of pop 45's though.
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    The only thing that can really be proven is that n% of that release WAS issued with a unique picture sleeve which, ihmo, should be associated with that release. I don't really seeing this applying outside of pop 45's though.

    Ok, but as I unserstood your posting you don't have the original picture sleeves no more. So leave it up to another user to sub the correct pics of the picture sleeves.
    But I fail to see your problem a little bit :)
  • Kergillian over 10 years ago

    Very simply: if a release is RELEASED in a generic sleeve (you bought it new and sealed in one) and also in a picture sleeve then they can be considered unique.

    If you buy a used release or an opened one in a generic sleeve, there is no way to know whether or not it came in it, and it should not be treated as unique if a picture version exists...

    EDIT: Of course, a 'generic' sleeve with a release sticker on it, is not really a 'generic' sleeve ;)
  • mawiles over 10 years ago

    rassel
    - Picture sleeves
    - Company sleeves
    - Generic sleeves


    This is not a proper distinction.

    - Picture sleeves = release-specific printing onto the cardboard (not sticker)
    - Generic label sleeves = release-unspecific, but label-specific printing onto the cardboard (not sticker)
    - Plain sleeves = no printing onto the cardboard (but maybe on a sticker)
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    mawiles
    - Picture sleeves = release-specific printing onto the cardboard (not sticker)
    - Generic label sleeves = release-unspecific, but label-specific printing onto the cardboard (not sticker)
    - Plain sleeves = no printing onto the cardboard (but maybe on a sticker)

    Ok, I'm fine with this, besides the sticker.
    A sticker (a release specific sticker of course) makes a sleeve unique and not generic anymore, you can't replace it with any other sleeve from the same label or with a plain sleeve.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 10 years ago


    rassel
    So leave it up to another user to sub the correct pics of the picture sleeves.

    I'm not even sure what my problem is anymore. Honestly I think we're in agreement here. ;)
    mawiles
    maybe on a sticker

    In this situation I post the a scan of the sticker and ignore the generic company jacket. ;)
  • rassel over 10 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Honestly I think we're in agreement here. ;)

    That's what I call a perfect day :)
  • All-Vinyl-Experience over 10 years ago

    rassel
    Picture sleeve
    - Company sleeve
    - Generic sleeve


    infamous31
    I think a distinction should be made between "generic" sleeve and company sleeve. Releases with company sleeves (especially 7-inch company sleeves, which can be just as hard to come by as picture sleeves) seem acceptable; but those with generic, plain white/brown/black sleeves aren't worth separate submissions.


    Agree with the above.
    Company Sleeve - Generic Sleeve. Big difference. A generic sleeve is usually plain colour and has no relation to the issuing company. Some CS are like needles or hens teeth to find, most are just haystacks. I spent an age matching my 7's with the right CS - (age/print related),those I couldn't find went in to generic sleeves. A generic sleeve offers no distinct difference, whereas a picture vs. c/s does.
  • Kergillian over 10 years ago


    Diognes_The_Fox
    In this situation I post the a scan of the sticker and ignore the generic company jacket. ;)


    I tend to use a close-up of the sticker as the primary, and a full image of the jacket with sticker as a secondary image...
  • mawiles over 10 years ago

    rassel
    Ok, I'm fine with this, besides the sticker.


    We have to split up cardboard and sticker, it's two instances. They can put a sticker on a plain sleeve as well as on a generic label sleeve.

    All-Vinyl-Experience
    Company Sleeve - Generic Sleeve. Big difference.


    Nope. Generic just means it can be used for another release as well. So company sleeves are also generic sleeves.
  • ahlbomper over 10 years ago

    Kergillian
    If you buy a used release or an opened one in a generic sleeve, there is no way to know whether or not it came in it, and it should not be treated as unique if a picture version exists...

    unless you happen to know it was released in that generic sleeve (maybe seen it several times in that sleeve)

    rassel
    A sticker (a release specific sticker of course) makes a sleeve unique and not generic anymore, you can't replace it with any other sleeve from the same label or with a plain sleeve.

    yes you can, but then it don't have the sticker :)
    (there are also often stickers on pic sleeve releases. they will still be the same release if sticker is removed)
    rassel
    Diognes_The_Fox
    Honestly I think we're in agreement here. ;)

    That's what I call a perfect day :)

    waaaaar (said with a friendly growl:)
  • data_boy over 10 years ago

    mawiles

    rassel
    - Picture sleeves
    - Company sleeves
    - Generic sleeves

    This is not a proper distinction.

    - Picture sleeves = release-specific printing onto the cardboard (not sticker)
    - Generic label sleeves = release-unspecific, but label-specific printing onto the cardboard (not sticker)
    - Plain sleeves = no printing onto the cardboard (but maybe on a sticker)


    I do not completely agree with your Generic label sleeve definition. imo it cannot be Generic AND be label specific, since as I understand the word Generic to mean "Not having a brand name". Clearing a label IS a brand name, therefore imo it cannot be Generic but should be considered a Company Sleeve.

    I am more in agreement with rassel but would add:

    - Picture sleeves
    - Company sleeves
    - Generic sleeves/Plain Sleeves

    I usually use the word Generic when referring to a Plain sleeve, esp with my 12" black or white die-cut sleeves & rarely if ever have I used the words Plain sleeve.
  • djindio over 10 years ago

    mawiles
    Generic label sleeves = release-unspecific, but label-specific printing onto the cardboard (not sticker)

    Some company/label specific sleeves have release specific cover stickers too. :-)
  • Kergillian over 10 years ago


    ahlbomper
    unless you happen to know it was released in that generic sleeve (maybe seen it several times in that sleeve)


    Sure, if you have that knowledge :)

    I was referring purely to purchasing, though.
  • mawiles over 10 years ago

    djindio
    Some company/label specific sleeves have release specific cover stickers too. :-)


    ->

    mawiles
    We have to split up cardboard and sticker, it's two instances. They can put a sticker on a plain sleeve as well as on a generic label sleeve.


    data_boy
    I usually use the word Generic when referring to a Plain sleeve


    There we got the problem. At discogs, we're interested in the distinction between unique picture sleeves and non-unique sleeves. So it makes more sense to use "Generic" to refer to the unique release.
    A company sleeve is generic, since it does not refer to the unique release.
    A plain sleeve is also generic for the same reason. Since it doesn't even refer to the company, it is sufficient to just call it "plain sleeve" instead of "plain generic sleeve".
    Note that the image guidelines explicitely prohibit to add "plain sleeves" (because of the redundancy), they do not say "generic sleeves".
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    Gabbahead

    Should/must this 12" be updated (only the pics of the company sleeve must then be removed) http://www.discogs.com/Terror-...Over/release/1420444
    ?

    I bought it new in a plain black sleeve, but saw it also with the black/white/grey Koch Rec. sleeve in a German online shop. One of the 'ogs sellers also mentions this sleeve. Justifies TWO entries, or not (if I would own the last-mentioned sleeve, I don't got it yet)?


    Generic/plain sleeves are definitely not unique releases. So I would argue, no, this isn't a unique release.

    Having said that, there's no other edition of "We Takin' Over" in the database, so this isn't really an issue until another one is added, and only if it has the same cat # as the one with the generic sleeve. In that case, this version would take precedence, but it might need to be changed.

    Again, generic sleeves are plain black/white sleeves. Company sleeves are sleeves with some kind of company logo or artwork on them.

    If any record with a plain sleeve was added to the database, then it could lead to dozens of meaningless duplicates.

    As for the above arguments about company sleeves versus sleeves w/artwork, that's a different story.
  • Gabbahead over 10 years ago

    Hm, during the last years, several represses of Traxtorm Rec. e.g. have been accepted (only difference a plain sleeve instead of picture sleeve). That's how it should be. We must differ between pic sleeve, plain sleeve and label sleeve, imo.

    I dunno yet what to do with plain sleeves with STICKER (http://www.discogs.com/50-Cent-21-Questions-Many-Men-Wish-Death/release/375804) and company sleeves with touchable PRINT. Last-mentioned should probaly kept together with "standard" label sleeves.
  • Staff 3.2k

    nik over 10 years ago

    Plain sleeves versus full artwork sleeves are valid Unique Releases for the database.

    Being sure that an item was released both ways is harder, but IMHO we are better to allow the variation in than get too strict about that - if facts arise later on we can adjust as appropriate.

    Variations in company sleeves I'd say are not worthy of a Unique Release is that is the only thing that changed, unless there was some important significance in the change.
  • gboe over 10 years ago

    nik
    Variations in company sleeves I'd say are not worthy of a Unique Release is that is the only thing that changed, unless there was some important significance in the change.


    Agreed, overkill for most releases but definately of importance to collectors in some cases - as shown on this terrific site:

    http://www.searchingforagem.com/1960s/MonoLPs001.htm
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    nik
    Plain sleeves versus full artwork sleeves are valid Unique Releases for the database.

    Being sure that an item was released both ways is harder, but IMHO we are better to allow the variation in than get too strict about that - if facts arise later on we can adjust as appropriate.


    Hmm...doesn't that contradict this:

    "1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color etc, would not constitute a unique release."

    Please clarify.
  • Kergillian over 10 years ago


    infamous31
    Hmm...doesn't that contradict this:

    "1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color etc, would not constitute a unique release."

    Please clarify.


    Not at all. 1.4.4 refers to an identical item being manufactured with only slight variations due to the actual manufacturing process (ie: not intentionally different), whereas if there are different jackets then the items are no longer identical ;)
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    Kergillian
    1.4.4 refers to an identical item being manufactured with only slight variations due to the actual manufacturing process (ie: not intentionally different), whereas if there are different jackets then the items are no longer identical ;)


    But couldn't anyone just stick a vinyl in a plain black or white sleeve and call it a unique release?
  • Staff 3.2k

    nik over 10 years ago

    infamous31
    couldn't anyone just stick a vinyl in a plain black or white sleeve and call it a unique release?


    Sure, but we have to assume that the majority of users are doing things in 'good faith'. There has to be some room to manoeuvre for sure, and some things may need to get looked into in more detail.
  • Kergillian over 10 years ago


    nik
    Sure, but we have to assume that the majority of users are doing things in 'good faith'. There has to be some room to manoeuvre for sure, and some things may need to get looked into in more detail.


    I think that we should hold people accountable for subs in generic sleeves. If they got it used and are not sure whether or not it was originally from a picture sleeve, they should NOT submit it.

    Perhaps a brief guideline:

    Records that come in generic sleeves (company or otherwise) are acceptable as unique releases, providing the record was purchased in shrinkwrap/new, or there is evidence that it was originally sold in the generic sleeve. If a picture sleeve version exists and you do not know whether the record can be purchased in a generic sleeve as well, then you should not submit the generic sleeve version as unique.
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    nik
    We have to assume that the majority of users are doing things in 'good faith'.


    I'm not only referring to Discogs users, but vendors and sellers as well. There is already controversy about bootleggers who shrinkwrap albums and try to sell them as "sealed" releases. This rule seems to lend itself to the same kind of bait-and-switch behavior.

    Kergillian
    Records that come in generic sleeves (company or otherwise) are acceptable as unique releases, providing the record was purchased in shrinkwrap/new, or there is evidence that it was originally sold in the generic sleeve.


    That's a nice start. But what suffices as evidence? A web site? A receipt from the record store? I see this as being particularly problematic for 80s and 90s releases, where conventional wisdom and myth often substitutes for actual research and facts (i.e. "I remember buying this the day it came out!" nonsense).
  • Kergillian over 10 years ago


    infamous31
    That's a nice start. But what suffices as evidence? A web site? A receipt from the record store? I see this as being particularly problematic for 80s and 90s releases, where conventional wisdom and myth often substitutes for actual research and facts (i.e. "I remember buying this the day it came out!" nonsense).


    Well, I don't think it's such a huge deal that we have to be hardcore about it. I think that a 'how do you know?' 'because I bought it this way brand-new' would be okay, and a 'how do you know?' 'because I do', would not ;)
    And yes, a receipt or web site would both be fine - assuming that it was not a 2nd hand store and the web site was a trustworthy site ;)
  • infamous31 over 10 years ago

    Kergillian
    Well, I don't think it's such a huge deal that we have to be hardcore about it. I think that a 'how do you know?' 'because I bought it this way brand-new' would be okay, and a 'how do you know?' 'because I do', would not ;)
    And yes, a receipt or web site would both be fine - assuming that it was not a 2nd hand store and the web site was a trustworthy site ;)


    Why not be "hardcore"? If you're going to be "hardcore" about the difference between "LP" and "12-inch" cuts on vinyl, then why not about whether something is even a legitimate release?

    There needs to be clear proof that someone didn't just pick up a piece of vinyl without any cover, put it in a plain black sleeve, then try to list it as a unique release. Especially if a version with a company sleeve and/or artwork exists. Web sites? Maybe, if it's the label site or a trusted source (i.e. a database that posts its methods of research, etc.). Someone's claim that "I bought it this way brand new?" That seems specious to me. Particularly when record stores and third-party sellers are also liable to use the aforementioned methods for repackaging vinyl.

    I know people like to make fun of Wikipedia on Discogs, but it often seems like Discogs is heading in the same direction....
  • Kergillian over 10 years ago


    infamous31
    Why not be "hardcore"? If you're going to be "hardcore" about the difference between "LP" and "12-inch" cuts on vinyl, then why not about whether something is even a legitimate release?

    There needs to be clear proof that someone didn't just pick up a piece of vinyl without any cover, put it in a plain black sleeve, then try to list it as a unique release. Especially if a version with a company sleeve and/or artwork exists.


    I'm not saying I disagree with you - I tend to think that being a hardliner for these sorts of things is a good idea - but it is very difficult to 'prove'. And as we already tend to be hyper-lenient towards websubbers these days (and don't even get me started on that!), it's difficult to justify being harder on these.

    Besides, why would people want to list random releases in generic covers they put them in as unique...? Maybe for the marketplace, but that seems counter-productive...

    infamous31
    Web sites? Maybe, if it's the label site or a trusted source (i.e. a database that posts its methods of research, etc.).


    As I said above - it would definitely have to be trustworthy.

    infamous31
    Someone's claim that "I bought it this way brand new?" That seems specious to me. Particularly when record stores and third-party sellers are also liable to use the aforementioned methods for repackaging vinyl.


    Sure, but Discogs has always run on a policy of honour - even when it comes to suspicious submission that is likely websubbing. We cannot be a police state and have to give people the benefit of the doubt.

    Even during V2 and V3 with the mod system, we still had a fairly loose policy of 'belief' towards submitters.

    Because if we do not try to believe that submitters are submitting honestly then it defeats the entire purpose of the db.

    infamous31

    I know people like to make fun of Wikipedia on Discogs, but it often seems like Discogs is heading in the same direction....


    Well, we're pretty much already there. But Wikipedia has increased its level of validity/trustworthiness by a large margin over the past several years, and they take their moderation far more seriously now than they used to.

    I still think that we need a tougher mod system, but I certainly don't 'make fun' of Wikipedia as *I* used to ;)
  • ahlbomper over 10 years ago

    Kergillian
    even when it comes to suspicious submission that is likely websubbing. We cannot be a police state and have to give people the benefit of the doubt.

    i agree some benefit of the doubt is important.
    & if more established (& seemingly trustworthy) submitters, maybe even more benefit of the doubt
    (but still asking questions if that feels right since established & trustworthy submitters also make mistakes sometimes)

Log In You must be logged in to post.