• timetogo over 6 years ago

  • djindio over 6 years ago

    djindio edited over 6 years ago
    I believe that if there is no visible difference between that one and the original CD release AND if the album was never deleted from the labels catalog, then they are allowed to use the release date of the original. (I am currently looking for the thread where nik had said this ...and from what I can't remember at the moment: it might only apply to repressings sourced from the same master disk?? or may actually include later issues made from a new master disk...???)

    ^In any case that is a 2003 or later pressing, and the company credits are a bit off on that one, they should be:
    Glass Mastered At - WEA Mfg. Olyphant
    Pressed By - Cinram, Olyphant, PA

    The "CI" along with the "IFPI 2U??" mold code in matrix reveals that it was pressed at the Olyphant pressing plant while under Cinram ownership (the same plant formerly owned by Warner: Specialty Records Corporation 1978~1996, WEA Mfg. Olyphant 1997~2003).

    Release notes can still be added to reflect the 'pressing date' or date range (which is ≠ to the 'release date' of the particular 'edition')...
  • djindio over 6 years ago

    djindio edited over 6 years ago
    found it:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/344974#3243662
    nik
    IMHO the release date is the date of that editions release. Whether it is a repress or reissue is probably not important. Is that helpful at all?


    ^but read through the thread there, try to determine if it is a new 'edition' of the release (even though technically it's a 2003 or later repressing of a 1997~2003 WEA Mfg. Olyphant master disk) one would first need to determine if the 1997~2003 WEA Mfg. Olyphant pressing was a separate reissue of the 87 reissue, or just an extension of the 1987? CD Reissue (which was most likely mastered & pressed by Specialty Records Corporation or its sister plant Allied Record Company)...

    Anyone else have an opinion on whether this should be considered a 2000's reissue?

    rdzl
    Release date from contemporary Schwann catalog

    ??!? X^D (I don't know if I'm just tired, or if that one is actually crack-up funny?!)
  • timetogo over 6 years ago

    OK, I understand the credit corrections. What isn't clear to me at this point is whether or not this can still be considered a variant of the 1987 release or a post-2003 release. In other words, the last edit may be correct or may be entirely incorrect.

    Having said that, if in doubt, shouldn't we go back to leaving the date blank? Shouldn't the edit be reverted in addition to making the lccn changes you suggest?
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago


    timetogo
    Having said that, if in doubt, shouldn't we go back to leaving the date blank? Shouldn't the edit be reverted in addition to making the lccn changes you suggest?

    The contrary is the case. In the absense of a difference, we consider it the same edition, but a definite repress of that same edition, so the date should remain unchanged.

    In this particular case, it's been manufactured after 1994, but the glass master seems to be earlier than this. There's no mastering SID code which is not a perfect indicator but does point towards an earlier glass master being used, but the absence may just be an oversight as the Mastering SID code seems buried beneath the manufacturer logo:
    http://screencast.com/t/JNPo4fmaTBjA (I have flipped the image horizontally so I could read the matrix easier). I might be wrong, because I cannot zoom in that close.

    Unless the release when repressed got a new release date, then it would not get a fresh release date for the submission. It's likely to be a repress ordered due to low stocks rather than a reissue for reasons of new promotion, anniversary or a relaunch as you're typically expect a cat# change, alteration to the artwork in some way or something clear to differentiate it.

    This is how I see the situation.
  • timetogo over 6 years ago

    OK, now we have djindio stating it's post-2003 and credits should be changed based on the SID code and Eviltoastman saying it's post-1994 but not necessarily post-2003. We also have djindio disparaging the source of the date while Eviltoastman is saying it should be kept and that catalog is, therefore, I assume to be considered a trusted source.

    Other opinions, please...
  • djindio over 6 years ago

    djindio edited over 6 years ago
    Eviltoastman
    There's no mastering SID code which is not a perfect indicator but does point towards an earlier glass master being used

    There is a mastering CID code, right under the WEA Mfg. Olyphant logo (it has simply been omitted from the matrix data of the discogs entry):
    http://s.discogss.com/image/R-560825-1350876179-5029.jpeg

    timetogo
    OK, now we have  djindio stating it's post-2003 and credits should be changed based on the SID code and  Eviltoastman saying it's post-1994 but not necessarily post-2003.


    1. The glass master is from no earlier than 1996/97 and from no later than 2003 (as indicated by the WEA Mfg. Olyphant logo transferred from the glass master). Before 1997 the plant was still named Specialty Records Corporation and the matrix logo used was the Specialty ''S'' logo, which was only used from 1993 to 1996. Before 1993 the plant simply did not have the technology to add such logos at all and at the end of 1996 is when the plant was renamed to WEA Mfg. Olyphant.

    2. The actual pressing you linked was pressed no earlier than 2003 (as it was pressed by Cinram after they had bought WEA manufacturing and it's 2 U.S. pressing plants in 2003, as indicated by a "CI" in the matrix for Cinram, Olyphant, PA, which would instead be a CI/CA if it was pressed at Cinram, Commerce, CA).

    timetogo
    Having said that, if in doubt, shouldn't we go back to leaving the date blank?

    Apparently many sellers & users didn't like this old method of leaving the release date blank, which pushed many entries to the bottom of the Master Releases, so they changed the rules for them, now we simply add the original release date of the original release 'Edition' (if the (re)pressing/(re)issue is considered to be an extension of that particular 'Edition'), as in:
    Eviltoastman
    In the absense of a difference, we consider it the same edition, but a definite repress of that same edition, so the date should remain unchanged.

    ^right, thems the new rules.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 6 years ago
    Djindio may very well be right. Djindio has a better plant knowledge than myself so my post date is conservative when compared with his, however I am mindful of this decision when offering my opinion:

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/344974?page=1#3243662

    Late in the threads there's a concession based on a private conversation between Nik and Syke. Nik never came back to clarify the situation so whether nik was discussing something specific is not clear, as such until the matter is clarified, the date per edition advice is what I work to. It may be worth inviting Nik to the thread to clarify the matter once and for all as that thread died whilst Discogs were rolling out all these visual changes so it seems they were very distracted for that period.

    What I will say is the date of manufacture should not be used to inform the release date directly. As we know the preparation for a release can be months or sometimes in complicated cases years. We may have a CD sitting for a very long time whilst legal challenges are resolved. Granted these are usually fixed before production begins.

    For example, we have a CD where the manufacturing process begins in November 1993, it goes through manufacturing process and hits the shelves in December 1993, the official release date is the 4th December 1993 (hypothetical), manufacturing continues through this date and may occur sporadically when CD stocks are low. It stays in print through 1994. The glass masters are maintained and the SID implementation is installed so the original glass master is still good so it just gets the mould code until the glass master is no longer viable. Then the glass master is replaced, you'll see a copy with a mastering SID code for the first time. Now we have what I would call three unique CDs. The first without SIDs, the second with just a mould SID and the third with a proper pair of SIDs. The production run has been mopre or less continuous, the changes are not edition changes but changes caused by regulatory changes within the industry - it makes little economic sense pressing all the CDs at once, mainly because marketing types are can never predict the market accurately and the last thing they want are overstocks, manufacturing dates then should therefore not inform the release date.

    Edit Djindio, Opdiner and few others are victims of my ignore list. Seems I hit ignore whilst trying to hit permalink then just tried to clear the screen each time in my usual hair brained way. Apologies to both, I'm not sure quite how long it was active for. As such, I never saw any of Djindio's posts here. I was wondering what Time2go was talking about when quoting him.
  • timetogo over 6 years ago

    Please note that I am not disputing either of you, just trying to understand how it all works and what should and should not be entered :) I'll wait until after the holiday and take your advice, Eviltoastman, and politely ask nik for clarification. I'll also be doing some edits in the next few days and I'll make the changes djindio suggests.
  • hafler3o over 6 years ago

    ..my head hurts.. I used to be able to follow this stuff!
  • timetogo over 6 years ago

    Mine too. It's all way too complex for most 'oggers at this point. In any case, I've made the lccn corrections djindio asked for. I am still very unsure about the date. I'll ping nik immediately after the holidays.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Nice idea.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 6 years ago

    timetogo
    if in doubt, shouldn't we go back to leaving the date blank?


    I agree.

    Eviltoastman
    The contrary is the case. In the absense of a difference, we consider it the same edition, but a definite repress of that same edition, so the date should remain unchanged.


    The cat# is different, and there is a SID code.

    nik
    IMHO the release date is the date of that editions release. Whether it is a repress or reissue is probably not important. Is that helpful at all?


    Eviltoastman
    Nik never came back to clarify the situation so whether nik was discussing something specific is not clear,


    That was a general statement. If the edition (version) can be distinguished from the original such that it gets it's own submission, then all bets are off regarding the release date I think. IOW the release date really shouldn't be the same as the original release.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago


    nik
    The cat# is different, and there is a SID code.

    Consider plant X producing a CD. During the manufacture of this edition, which can span years, SID codes are implimented. It is ackowledged as a repress as the introduction of the SID to the release is self evident, but the edition remains the same. It's the same production order and so the release date should not reasonably be different.

    Another repress scenario. Consider Plant A named X. Plant A is renamed Y. As X it had X stamped in the mould/hub. As Y it had Y stamped in the mould. The release artwork etc remains the same. It's the same edition. The original release date for the edition should stand.
  • timetogo over 6 years ago

    For right now, based on nik's comments, I've removed the date again and referenced this thread. If Eviltoastman or anyone else changes his mind then I will revert my edit.
  • heidelbaer over 6 years ago

    as a collectror i will always deeply reject this "edition release year" concept.
    if sth. can be identified as being a later issue it should not be tagged with the initial release date just because the artwork and (physical) plant haven't changed. that is just giving me headaches.
  • mjb over 6 years ago

    djindio
    I believe that if there is no visible difference between that one and the original CD release AND if the album was never deleted from the labels catalog, then they are allowed to use the release date of the original.


    That is correct, but only to the extent that the "release" in Discogs is not representing a specific pressing or batch of pressings identified by the matrix differences.

    We used to not care about matrix differences, for the most part, and many of us still don't. However, sebfact pointed out to me that this has changed, as per these discussions:

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/339759
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/328708

    Because of this, I had to submit some of my late-'90s/early-'00s WEA Mfg. pressings of New Order CDs separately, rather than just adding scans and matrix data variations to existing releases. I don't particularly agree with it, but I'm not participating much in discussions anymore, and will just go with the flow.

    So for this Iron Butterfly release, normally it wouldn't have been a problem to use the Schwann catalog's Aug. 1987 date for the first pressing, since until very recently, this particular release was representing all pressings with the same "visible" (non-matrix) features.

    But now, because timetogo added matrix details and scans from his mid-'90s-or-later pressing, the release is apparently representing something other than the late '80s first-pressings. Therefore the release date should be blank (unless we can find a specific date) and the Notes field used to clarify that it's from "no earlier than May 1996" or whatever, and in the Submission Notes explaining that this is according to djindio's claims in this thread, or perhaps Lazlo.Nibble's Specialty Records Corporation/WEA Manufacturing matrix codes summary of research from a Steve Hoffman Forums discussion thread.

    I really don't like this because it's not clear anymore what we are going to call a different pressing; is every Mother+Stamper code going to get its own entry in the database? Is every recut master (RE-1, RE-2, etc.) going to be another "release"? Are we looking only at text and logos, or do we count the embedded barcode too? Is vinyl to be handled the same way? Are only verifiable "first pressings" going to have release dates, and everything else be called a "repress", even if they are simply different batches pressed to meet demand?
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    I accept Nik's decision, but feel there are circumstances where the production run is for the same edition but circumstances within the plant/s mean that a new version is required. For example, EMI Swindon glass mastering and pressing themselves but then sending their master to Uden to finish the run resulting in the involvement of a dfferent plant in a different country meaning that 2 plants are involved in one release meaning two subs are required and I also feel that the two examples I supplied immediately after Nik's decision are also valid reasons to retain the date. At discogs, we enter the "release date". If the item is identical in every other way but the inclusion of SID codes or a change in the plant, then it must be the same edition. I agree with Djindio as quoted by MJB.,
  • djindio over 6 years ago

    nik
    If the edition (version) can be distinguished from the original such that it gets it's own submission, then all bets are off regarding the release date I think. IOW the release date really shouldn't be the same as the original release.

    OK, now saving this thread to my saved threads list... :-)
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 6 years ago

    mjb

    I really don't like this because it's not clear anymore what we are going to call a different pressing; is every Mother+Stamper code going to get its own entry in the database? Is every recut master (RE-1, RE-2, etc.) going to be another "release"? Are we looking only at text and logos, or do we count the embedded barcode too? Is vinyl to be handled the same way? Are only verifiable "first pressings" going to have release dates, and everything else be called a "repress", even if they are simply different batches pressed to meet demand?


    My call in this thread was only regarding the date field. Regarding unique releases, we are still trying to catalog 'editions', not every manufacturing variation. Not every run-out variation needs to be, or is, a unique edition. But when a release has moved far enough away from it's original, such as in this case where SID codes have been added, then does it mot make sense to treat that as a unique release?

    Eviltoastman
    Consider plant X producing a CD. During the manufacture of this edition, which can span years, SID codes are implimented. It is ackowledged as a repress as the introduction of the SID to the release is self evident, but the edition remains the same. It's the same production order and so the release date should not reasonably be different.


    But then we have a unique release on Discogs with a release date that pre-dates other aspects of the release. If for some reason the Gutenberg Bible was in continuous production, would we have a glossy modern print version of it with the release date of 1450?

    Eviltoastman
    Another repress scenario. Consider Plant A named X. Plant A is renamed Y. As X it had X stamped in the mould/hub. As Y it had Y stamped in the mould. The release artwork etc remains the same. It's the same edition. The original release date for the edition should stand.


    Possibly, a real world case would be better to discuss :-)
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 6 years ago

    djindio
    OK, now saving this thread to my saved threads list... :-)


    Ok, but please remember I am discussing this with everyone, not every word I speak is gospel :-) There is room for further discussion, and probably a lot of exceptions...
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    nik
    But then we have a unique release on Discogs with a release date that pre-dates other aspects of the release. If for some reason the Gutenberg Bible was in continuous production, would we have a glossy modern print version of it with the release date of 1450?

    In the world of books, a simple reprint is not always noted within. Revisions and amendments to the cover/jacket would usually be a new edition and revisions to content with.without new artwork/cover would normally be considered a new publication. Presumably a modern glossy Gutternberg bible would have new publication dates with each subsequently released "edition" or new published version. A simple reprint would not necessarily contain a new date or be named a new edition. So if a continuous print did exist, unchanged, with books the publication date ie: the release date for books would remain unaltered. I hope I'm making sense. :D

    nik
    Possibly, a real world case would be better to discuss

    I'm having problems isolated exact examples that I'm familiar with, but I know I have several in my collection. I'll dig some up over the weekend.
  • loukash over 6 years ago

    nik
    not every word I speak is gospel :-)

    I'm saving this quote for sure – it will be of good use when arguing with certain Worshippers of the Holy Church of Discogs™. ;)
  • 7jlong over 6 years ago

    nik
    Possibly, a real world case would be better to discuss


    I'd still be interested in a final ruling on this one, which is similar: PolyGram pre-German reunification, PolyGram post-German reunification. CD hub text changes from West Germany to Germany on a long-haul catalog album (The Visitors), all other details remain same. Debate is if post-reunification should be dated later than the widely-cited 1984 for this issue. Expanding a little, does the "West" detail merit a whole new sub, or just a release note - if all other details are identical?

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/356183

    - edited for clarity -
  • brunorepublic over 6 years ago

    Hmm... okay, I don't have any examples in the db, but I'm sure they exist:

    Canadian CD manufacturer Cinram helpfully places the date the glass master was made in the disc matrix. Over the years, Cinram has updated and upgraded their equipment, and the appearance of the inner ring differs depending on era. This has changed twice since they first started producing CDs back in 1987.

    I'm assuming that when they upgrade their equipment, they need to make new glass masters, because I have come across Cinram discs of different eras for the same albums, with different mastering dates in the matrix (and of course later ones have SID codes).

    So, there are potentially three different variations for any album which has been in print since 1987. Do these count as separate releases because of the different matrix designs and dates? Thing is, the artwork, cat #, and basic mastering etc., on the release is usually identical, unless the label has updated their legal/address details (which most have over the years, but these changes are often slow to be applied to artwork).
  • yuhann over 6 years ago

    7jlong
    does the "West" detail merit a whole new sub, or just a release note - if all other details are identical?

    Germany vs. West Germany = difference in "artwork" = separate submission. That's how things are handled AFAIK.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    7jlong
    I'd still be interested in a final ruling on this one, which is similar: PolyGram pre-German reunification, PolyGram post-German reunification. CD hub text changes from West Germany to Germany on a long-haul catalog album (The Visitors), all other details remain same. Debate is if post-reunification should be dated later than the widely-cited 1984 for this issue. Expanding a little, does the "West" detail merit a whole new sub, or just a release note - if all other details are identical?http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/356183- edited for clarity -

    That's a decent (but not exact) example of what I was talking about. I can't believe I forgot that thread. I was helping with it too. Doh!
  • 7jlong over 6 years ago

    yuhann
    Germany vs. West Germany = difference in "artwork" = separate submission. That's how things are handled AFAIK.


    That's the thing, though - if we're calling "artwork" the booklet and rear insert, then all of that is the same. It is only the "Made In [West] Germany" inscription on the disc hub that varies. Which to me sounds more like a matrix/manufacturing variation of some kind, or: not generally worthy of a separate sub.
  • yuhann over 6 years ago


    7jlong
    It is only the "Made In [West] Germany" inscription on the disc hub that varies

    Sorry, I didn't notice you're talking HUB details here. Well, IDK how to consider these.
  • mjb over 6 years ago

    I think as far as this thread goes, we're basically all on the same page, then?

    That is... (maybe the guidelines should be updated to say this?)

    If, for whatever reason, we have created a separate release in the database for something which differs only by "matrix" details, then the release date field should reflect the introduction of that matrix variation.

    By the same token, for a release which represents multiple variations in matrix details, the release date should be the earliest date that applies to all the variations.

    In either situation, if the date is uncertain, it should be left blank, preferably with an explanation given in the Notes field.

    Whether it is appropriate to have separate releases for a given set of matrix/hub/mirror-band features, such as when SID codes are present, "West" precedes "Germany", and so on, is a separate discussion.
  • 7jlong over 6 years ago

    Fair enough. I will put my The Visitors issues to bed with that. I think the release I was debating with a user there is happiest date-less for the time being. I don't have the W Germany version, I'm only told it exists, so whomever comes along and posts it down the road can revisit the issue.

Log In You must be logged in to post.