• PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2838406

    this japanese release has a sticker covering the barcode on the obi strip, the submitter doesnt clearly state whats on the sticker, only " [barcode] Covered by a promo sticker with Japanese text and a 7 digit number"
    the cd face has had "sample loaned" printed (or stamped?) on the inner rim of the CD.

    would this be the equivalent of a full retail release stamped with a gold promo stamp? should ti not be submitted as a separate promo release than the regular non-stamped retail version?

  • mjb over 7 years ago

    Guideline 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.

    Guideline 6.12.2. Promo - Any item labeled as being released for promotional purposes, including advance copies sent out to promote a retail release and releases (often compilations) that are made available for free, as found attached to magazines. This tag should only be used where it is clear the item was released as such, for example it is explicitly mentioned on the release, or by the label, artist, or other reliable source. Retail releases with stamped, stickered, or similarly altered covers and / or media are to be considered the same as retail, as should retail releases with cut spines, marked or cut barcodes, or other such defacement. Additionally, retail releases that include 'one-sheet' promotional press-release or feedback type pages are not to be considered different than the retail version.

    The addition of "sample" / "loaned" to the CD hub seems to be an after-the-fact thing like the sticker, just by virtue of the fact that the release is otherwise totally a retail edition. I wouldn't consider it a promo-only edition without any other evidence to the contrary.
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    added for removal as it does indeed look to be a dupe of http://www.discogs.com/Underworld--Gabriel-Yared-Breaking-And-Entering/release/881766

    vote yes for removal on this one --> http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2838406#latest , thanks.
  • my_alter_ego over 7 years ago

    my_alter_ego edited over 7 years ago
    As jweijde already wrote in the submission, there were some discussions about it before, and those Japanese promo releases were decided to be eligible for inclusion as separate entries. ( http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/search/17?s=japanese+promo&btn=Search )

    Nik also responded in one of those topics ( http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/166164#2131756 ).

    nik
    I am for letting them in as well. The submitter has made good submissions that allow these releases to be identified as unique.

    It should be noted the guidelines say "items that have otherwise been marked or altered after release" - not after manufacture. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unique_Releases - this was intended to stop 'cut out' type items from being submitted as unique.

    It is important that the guidelines are seen as a little bit flexible (otherwise, they would be called rules). To a certain extent, they must be driven by peoples use of the database just as much as they drive the use of the database. If someone is making well presented submissions that identify unique releases, the default presumption should be they are valid and should stay in the database, unless there is a very good reason for them to be removed or (at some point) merged.

    Also, the Discogs definition of 'Sampler' - In English, "sampler" has a different meaning from 'Compilation', a sampler is a free or low-priced preview of a larger release(s). Although in other languages the two words may mean the same thing, in Discogs they should not be confused. - maybe this needs better defined?
  • zevulon over 7 years ago


    mjb
    Retail releases with stamped, stickered, or similarly altered covers and / or media are to be considered the same as retail, as should retail releases with cut spines, marked or cut barcodes, or other such defacement.


    my_alter_ego
    It is important that the guidelines are seen as a little bit flexible (otherwise, they would be called rules). To a certain extent, they must be driven by peoples use of the database just as much as they drive the use of the database. If someone is making well presented submissions that identify unique releases, the default presumption should be they are valid and should stay in the database

    This makes no sense at all.

    If a US release has a Golden Stamp (>>promo) it's not to be added separately, explicitly mentioned by the guidelines.
    Then (2 years ago BTW) nik says that "If someone is making well presented submissions that identify unique releases, the default presumption should be they are valid and should stay in the database".

    So if a submitter mention that "it has a Golden Stamp", then the guideline
    "..Retail releases with stamped, stickered, or similarly altered covers .." is no longer a guideline??

    I guess there are no guidelines at all then, as we have to be flexible, and anything goes as long as any info is provided that (arbitrarily) justifies itself (according to any logic your mind will conjure up).
  • psy-mark over 7 years ago

    mjb
    The addition of "sample" / "loaned" to the CD hub seems to be an after-the-fact thing like the sticker


    I'd agree with that, hence my yes to removal.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago

    zevulon
    I guess there are no guidelines at all then, as we have to be flexible, and anything goes as long as any info is provided that (arbitrarily) justifies itself (according to any logic your mind will conjure up).


    The logic is these CDs are manufactured with "Loaned Sample" on them, they are not altered after release.
  • psy-mark over 7 years ago

    It will need to be resubbed then, 'cos it's gone to draft now.

    nik, can you PM bertielego and let them knoe it's OK to do so?
  • LabelCollector over 7 years ago

    nik
    The logic is these CDs are manufactured with "Loaned Sample" on them, they are not altered after release

    Is a release with a large promo stamp on the retail label eligible for a seperate entry in the db? Not according to the current guidelines.
    One of the purposes of the database is to inform the users of Discogs of the different versions that exist of a release. That's why every (tiny) manufacturing variation of the label qualifies for a seperate release. The difference between manufactured and applied later (but before sale/loan) seems arbitrary to me. Is it OK to submit stamped promo copies as a seperate release now?
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago

    LabelCollector
    The difference between manufactured and applied later (but before sale/loan) seems arbitrary to me.


    It is arbitrary. There was a discussion held and a decision made to restrict the submission of releases that were just the full public version of the release with a stamp on it that was probably applied after manufacture. That was the 'line in the sand' that was drawn. Cases like this are edge cases where a call has to be made one way or the other.

    psy-mark
    nik, can you PM bertielego and let them knoe it's OK to do so?


    Yes, but lets let this thread continue for a moment so everyone can have a say before doing that.
  • zevulon over 7 years ago


    nik
    The logic is these CDs are manufactured with "Loaned Sample" on them, they are not altered after release.


    LabelCollector
    Is a release with a large promo stamp on the retail label eligible for a seperate entry in the db? Not according to the current guidelines.
    One of the purposes of the database is to inform the users of Discogs of the different versions that exist of a release. That's why every (tiny) manufacturing variation of the label qualifies for a seperate release. The difference between manufactured and applied later (but before sale/loan) seems arbitrary to me. Is it OK to submit stamped promo copies as a seperate release now?

    You see nik? That's exactly what I meant.
    Your wording opens up for every single alteration of a retail copy, as it's virtually impossible to know who altered it, or when. Or why.

  • zevulon over 7 years ago

    @nik
    (posted my reply without seeing your reply)
  • LabelCollector over 7 years ago

    zevulon
    Your wording opens up for every single alteration of a retail copy, as it's virtually impossible to know who altered it, or when. Or why.

    Agreed. I would like to see a guideline stating that alterations not made by the record company (or the infamous entity) after the retail release to the general public, do not qualify for a seperate entry. In my case, the record company gave out these promo copies. The cheapest wat to do that is to stamp the retail label. This variation was intended by the record company and is of interest to the Discogs user/seller. A stamp by a record pool for instance won't qualify. But how to check intentions?
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    if this was intentionally produced as a promo, then why would it have a bracode? it was covered up by a sticker to make it a promo.

    the european promo was clearly produced as a promo --> http://www.discogs.com/Underworld-And-Gabriel-Yared-Breaking-And-Entering/release/2627446

    this japanese issue appears to be produced concurrently to the retail, they just separated a few and applied promo stickers over the barcode and stamped it with loaned sample - the stamp doesnt even appear to be the same ink as the rest of the cd face print.
  • zevulon over 7 years ago

    LabelCollector
    The cheapest wat to do that is to stamp the retail label. This variation was intended by the record company and is of interest to the Discogs user/seller. A stamp by a record pool for instance won't qualify

    Record pool or gold stamp - an easy and cheap way to convert a retail copy into a promo. If the record pool received the records to distribute them as promos... >>
    Exactly the same procedure, and do not qualify as a unique release by discogs standard as I interpret the guidelines, which might change.

  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    so have we reached a consensus with these? are the japanese "loaned sample" stamped cds to be treated in the same manner as a gold stamped promo - and therefore ineligible for inclusion?
  • cvalda44 over 7 years ago

    cvalda44 edited over 7 years ago
    sure they are eligible. they are manufactured in this way (although, probably not all of them).

    i may also give an example of Argentinian CD of this kind:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2390388

    PabloPlato
    if this was intentionally produced as a promo, then why would it have a bracode? it was covered up by a sticker to make it a promo.

    this is just the way they make this kind of promos in those countries. they take full version and alter only CD artwork adding promo reference to it. but still they are unique factory pressed CDs, not altered after manufacture.

    I assume most of gold stamped promos are actually eligible as well. Have you ever checked the CD faces carefully ? here is the good example:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1914806
    the only difference from retail (except the gold stamp which we do not count) is carefully added "Promotional only" line right after copyright!
    and another one:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1494598
    exactly like retail, just some promo words at the end. It was total surprise for me once to discover all my gold stamped promos are eligible to database! and then there are were at least 4 attempts to remove them :)
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    PabloPlato edited over 7 years ago
    that one would be eligible as it appears to have had the white promo notice screen printed onto the cd face at the same time as the rest of the inks (red volta letters)

    an opaque white is unlikely to have been stamped after the fact, and it doesnt look like the red ink is showing through underneath, hence it would have been manufactured to include the white - unique release eligible for inclusion.

    where as the japanese underworld release has a black that is markedly different from the rest of the inks printed on the cd face - a sign that it was stamped following production, akin to gold promo stamps on record sleeves.
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago


    cvalda44
    this is just the way they make this kind of promos in those countries. they take full version and alter only CD artwork adding promo reference to it. but still they are unique factory pressed CDs, not altered after manufacture.

    I assume most of gold stamped promos are actually eligible as well. Have you ever checked the CD faces carefully ? here is the good example:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1914806
    the only difference from retail (except the gold stamp which we do not count) is carefully added "Promotional only" line right after copyright!
    and another one:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1494598
    exactly like retail, just some promo words at the end. It was total surprise for me once to discover all my gold stamped promos are eligible to database! and then there are were at least 4 attempts to remove them :)


    indeed there are examples that use retail sleeves but have the media clearly manufactured for promo - another example is this one here for 808 state feat. bjork's ooops 12" on tommy boy

    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1902148

    the sleeve is the same as the full retail minus the gold stamp, but the label is markedly different - an intentional promo.

    versus items such as this from my sales list

    http://www.discogs.com/sell/item/36107951?ev=bp_det

    which is the same as the retail and only marked by a gold stamp.

    this underworld disc in question, has no text around the edge of the disc that implies it to be a promo, such as your bjork examples.

    http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-2838406-1303896381.jpeg

    and you should not feel threatened that the removal of this underworld disc will create a precedent to remove your examples above, as they are two very different situations and those bjork examples are valid. i wouldnt hesitate to vote them for inclusion into the database and if someone tries to remove them again, maybe even by using this thread as an example, please message me. i'll vote NO to removal and school the user.
  • cvalda44 over 7 years ago

    cvalda44 edited over 7 years ago
    Thanks :) But what about Japanese promos ?
    Yes, you are right, some of Japanese promos may look like stamped with some cheap promo stamping machine :). Still, many of them (my rough assumption 70-80%) are factory made. See examples:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1320387
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1321039
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1320913
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1321077
    The colour, shadows, quality - everything confirms factory production. And yet such quality promos are not exclusive to this artist, she has some "manually stamped" promos as well. Does that mean part of Japanese promos should be removed and part left ? Sounds like something deeply wrong for me... of course we can discuss each borderline case... imagine the wars.
    Probably it would be better to consider "bad looking" Japanese round promos as borderline case but allow them in.
    (although i have to admit i have Mouse On Mars 'Varcharz' album Japanese promo and still did not add it separately because "quality" of the promo reference scratches my eyes :)
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    cvalda44
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1320387


    valid promo

    cvalda44
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1321039


    dont speak japanese but as it is white ink over black, it seems less likely to have been stamped after the fact, but rather printed onto the disc during manufacturing - they conciously chose a colour that would show up against the colour way of the retail rather than using the standard colour of ink for their promo stamper. black wouldnt show on black. white is not a colour commonly found for stamping purposes.
    in my opinion, it would be a valid appearance altering step in the manufacturing process for intent of defining a separate product from the retail item, not an afterthought.

    cvalda44
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1320913


    tough. assuming the SAMPLE is printed in the same ink as the rest of the cd face printing, it would be valid. if it had been stamped using a different ink/finish/etc, then it may have been added after the fact. to me it does not look like the ink used was different than the rest of the words printed on the cd face, so likely the cds marked as such were printed using only one silk screen that was burned with everything on it. it would not make sense to use two separate screens to print the same colour on the same substrate unless you were aiming for an layered ink look (ie; black on black) which doesnt often happen unless two separate sheens are used (matte vs glossy ink) but normally, only one colour is printed (ie; matte black) and overlaid with a glossy clear ink.

    so i think this would be valid as well.

    cvalda44
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1321077


    i think this would be the same case as the pagan poetry cd promo

    cvalda44
    Does that mean part of Japanese promos should be removed and part left ? Sounds like something deeply wrong for me... of course we can discuss each borderline case... imagine the wars.


    indeed. i think a line should be drawn, and that line should be items that appear to have been removed from the retail production line following production to then create a promo - either through means of a foil stamping machine, an ink stamper, or

    cvalda44
    "manually stamped"


    items.

    the borderline case i think is your pagan poetry example. the colour doesnt appear on the retail so it could be argued as an afterthought, but as you claim the finish and quality of the ink is no different from the rest, it seems unlikely that they finished the production line then chose 100 to add an additional screen to - thus setting them back into the screen printing machine - it'd probably take longer this way than to use a stamper or sticker or offset or more manual method - likely they had them still in the production line and detoured however many they wanted to receive the promo print onto the route leading to the screen with the promo language.

    but its all very tricky.
    what i'd like to point out though is that the ink on the underworld release is markedly different from the rest of the black ink, visible even at 72dpi, and likely was done via a different method than that of the main production line - just like a gold stamp. to me it looks like an offset stamp, which seems an odd manner of printing on a cd face but not so uncommon when having a small run of promo cdr's being done.

    edit: why is it that quoting urls concurrently messes up the quote tags? i needed to enter a space to the begining and end of the quoted url to make the tags work.
  • rassel over 7 years ago

    nik
    There was a discussion held and a decision made to restrict the submission of releases that were just the full public version of the release with a stamp on it that was probably applied after manufacture. That was the 'line in the sand' that was drawn.

    Agreed, this was the way to go for years, probably we should refine the fine line in the sand, maybe you remember the discussions about the jukebox versions?
    IMHO the fine line between promos and retail releases should be adjusted to draw the line between the manufacturer and distributor ¦ retailer and customer (including libraries and other retail distribution channels).

    Items altered by the distributor might be produced as retail releases but were altered before sending / giving them to the retailer or client. This means that they have been altered by the official distribution line. This is important because usually the distributor gets all the copies of a run besides test pressings, including releases already produced as promos. If the distributor or label decides NOT to let produce an extra run for promos but instead altering some retail releases as promos, this is a decision by a company that controls the manufacturing and distribution process, so IMHO these items are really INTENDED as promos by an offical instution in charge.

    But how to distinguish altered retail releases by the distributor from altered retail releases by the retailer or even a library? It's a little bit tricky, but if the distributor alters some retail copies, there will be just one kind of altered retail releases, if the retailer alters them, there will be a bunch of different "retail promos".

    The difference may be subtle sometimes, but this seems to me the way to go.
  • cvalda44 over 7 years ago

    PabloPlato
    i think a line should be drawn, and that line should be items that appear to have been removed from the retail production line following production to then create a promo - either through means of a foil stamping machine, an ink stamper

    but isn't it just a different approach to production ? just a different method with an extra step, but that "stamping machine" is still standing at factory ? so you can't say it was applied after manufacture. why the line should be drawn when they are still at factory just left the main production line ?

    btw, these stamps may be tiny simply because the transparent area at the middle of the disc is tiny. the quality may be not excellent because the surface of the disc near its center is not straight.

    sure, there's a big no-no to usual ink stamps and gold foil stamps, but these japanese promos are not made "manually". probably this should be the criteria when deciding about the stamps. it is impossible to make such a tiny accurate stamp manually.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago

    The problem is we need to make it as easy as we can, and not have users trying to guess exactly when in the manufacturing process the stamp was made.

    TBH if we were going in any direction, it'd be to further open up the guidelines for this and allow more stamped promos, and just disallow things like cutouts. That feeling points us toward tending to allow in borderline cases in any case at the moment, which confirms these releases that started this thread should stay.
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago


    nik
    That feeling points us toward tending to allow in borderline cases in any case at the moment, which confirms these releases that started this thread should stay.


    in that case we should contact the submitter of the underworld disc and let him now we judged too soon and that his edition is now eligible for inclusion.
  • cvalda44 over 7 years ago

    nik
    to further open up the guidelines for this and allow more stamped promos, and just disallow things like cutouts

    there's a big difference between professionally made stamps at the center of the ring on Japanese/Thai promos and classic ink stamps. the problem is: every average person like me can make an ink stamp and claim to own an unique megarare promo:
    http://www.discogs.com/image/R-220808-1276523359.jpeg
    hmm, btw, why we call the Japanese promos "stamped" ? they aren't "stamped" literally or am I wrong ?
  • LabelCollector over 7 years ago

    Is it OK to submit a new promo version of this
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=508311
    image I've just added to the commercial release?
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    ^^^i would say no, it is a stamped promo. same as a gold stamped promo lp.
  • LabelCollector over 7 years ago

    PabloPlato
    ^^^i would say no, it is a stamped promo. same as a gold stamped promo lp.

    nik
    TBH if we were going in any direction, it'd be to further open up the guidelines for this and allow more stamped promos

    That's why I would like to know!

Log In You must be logged in to post.