I normally go with that, but was also hoping the person who added all the artwork for the booklet would appear and add their CD image to those scans. The Discogs links are as random as much else about that release. There is a fairly “Interesting” editing history on that one. Including some unique pirate CD images and artwork (I am deleting those as this release is so old I didn’t want the pirate version to hijack it)
Also it does have a rather unique spine with 492 on it. Maybe that is actually genuine?
The one with the more black centre now has a bit of extra Discogs art added to show it more different to the silver ring version I have.
Yes, in case of images or elements worth keeping, it should be kept as is. (then I would remove the wrong Discogs link instead)
Mould SID and no mould SID → merge!
These are represses of the same release. In most cases there’s no known release date for the repress. I add an annotation explaining things.
For example - a release that stretches over 15 years (–> see Annotation):
EDIT: so as not to force anyone to read the edit history: I added this release with the date of the similar release with discs MADE IN GERMANY (the attached Discogs link was the 1986 first US release, so I changed it to this year). It’s not known if it was released in 1987 as the documented MADE IN USA version is a possible repress from early-1990s.
Yeah, agree with that. When I see a mess like that one I try and focus on “which is the best part” and clean them up. That’s why I just annotated the oddities on there initially before starting tweaking it at the weekend.
I found my post further up this thread where I was also saying the same thing. Seems sensible to me to focus on the factory. That is what causes a difference in manufacturing. Change of artwork, or how a CD is painted, is clearly in the guidelines as to separating editions.
Your Made in USA\Germany CD is not surprising. Looks like they used booklets from Europe and shipped them across the pond. (That is assuming this isn’t second hand)
A release like that one I always want to fill in all the relationships on the Release page. Factories, copyrights, etc. A good chunk of that annotation have proper relationships that can be used.
It is those relationships that make me keep factory changes as different Releases. A PDO Germany and PMDC Germany get split. I used to keep these on the same page, but find this is a very common split for many editors even though technically it is the same pressing plant.
It is second hand, bought from Germany, but I assume it was originally released in the US. I mentioned it because of the extended annotation, explaining how the same release was repressed through decades. (The main reason I bought this CD was to verify the disc ID, but I also bought a second-hand CD that actually traveled around the world - in 1985, JP>US>EU: Sportin’ Life)
No other plant has such beautifully presented company credits … but on the matrix side. So I consider them one release unless there are artwork differences, which mostly don’t exist. Although this makes it impossible to credit the company at all (“made/pressed by”). But I’ll leave that to Discogs.
I’ve seen so many of these split up that I have always followed that pattern. I do own two CDs of one artist with the only difference being the change from PDO to PMDC and had originally put them as a single combined release, but credited both labels in the “pressed by” relationships. Some point in the last few years I split them after a forum discussion. (I wonder if I can find it?)
Ah - the fun of multiple opinions…
Edit: Not going to feel guilty about that split. Just pulled those CDs off the shelf and spotted a physical manufacturing difference. That PDO CD is old enough to not have the raised ring on the inner to keep it off the desk. i.e. one of those CDs that sticks to the scanner glass due to static and you need a plunger to get off
I didn’t find anything about it either. I wouldn’t do that, although it’s certainly a borderline case. The company credits are clearly readable and understandable. But in principle, a “pressed by” credit does not have to be exclusive to one company. There could be multiple pressed by credits for one release, for the companies which repressed it too.
they don’t even detach from the glass when the scanner is tilted 90°. That never happens with newer CDs - that’s progress
This may well be a PDO only thing then. I had a couple of 1980s EMI Swindon disks in hand yesterday - and they have ridges. Nimbus and other older CDs all have ridges.
I’ve just pulled a random half dozen PDO Germany CDs from my shelf - all flat. Once they change to PMDC the ridge appears. PDO UK doing the same flat thing
Edit: Got me looking… I don’t own it, but the earliest Japanese CD I know of is this Dark Side of the Moon from 1983. You can see the ring is present. I think PDO Germany & UK just missed this feature off. Probably trying to save money (and there are many other not
I figure this thread would be as good a place to ask as any…
if a release has IFPI codes, does that automatically mean it was released after 1994 or whenever those became the standard, or were they around before then?
the release in question, has a release date on Discogs of 1991, which is the later (℗) copyright date
IFPI was introduced in 1994, therefore a disc with SID codes was not manufactured until 1994.
However, sometimes CDs that were pressed later can also be considered as belonging to an older release. It requires that artwork is completely unchanged and the content is exactly the same. This is usually the case if there is an earlier version without SID codes from the same manufacturer.
In the example, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Glass mastering in Uden started mid-1990s and even if there were no artwork changes, the content will be changed a bit anyway. It’s not a simple repress, even if the re-release date was kept in the copyright notice. 1991 was probably the copyright date of the first CD release.
Unfortunately the Discogs version doesn’t offer much information.
I would focus on the His Masters Voice DRM logo - when did CDs first appear like this? How old is that series? Similar with the CDs - did the red logo appear on EMI Classics CDs in 1991?
What I do notice on an initial glance is this look like an Alsdorf CD from 1991. The “Made in Germany” stamp on the front. Which could imply your CD is based on those, but swapped manufacture to Holland.
Notice how the one CD disc image in there has the DRM logo on. Your CD is an EMI Classic logo.
Maybe 1991 isn’t far off. UDEN was starting pressing that year, and this feels like it may be a CD taken from Alsdorf to be printed there with minimal changes in the artwork. Yet still printing with Made in Germany on it three years later is oddly lazy for a Dutch pressing. Usually that would change to Made in Holland. A puzzle
Uden has no glass mastering in 1991. Their first LBR was installed in 1996.¹ But the design of the mastering SID indicates it was not glass mastered until 2000 and it was pressed even later by Mediamotion Uden (mother/father/son stamp and ifpi AAH**)
And it was not “Made in Germany” - and this fact indicates that there was a German 1991 release and this release has probably unchanged artwork.
But probably the release date should be removed. It was definitely not made by the same manufacturer.
The printing on the front of the disk made me think this was a glass master sent from Germany for pressing at UDEN. And they used the same artwork on the front of it. Forgetting to change the Made in Germany printed text. Similar barcodes also appear on Sonopress CDs in the early 1990s. And I have dozens of Alsdorf CDs that look exactly like this with the layout of the boxes.
This clearly points to German manufactured copies of this Release being out there somewhere.
The comment about maybe getting away with a 1990s date is based on that “Made in Germany” artwork still being intact late in the 90s here. It is hard to know when the first CD came out of UDEN like this. If now we are being blind to the SID code, we have no way of setting any dates here.
I would have added this with no date on it if I had it in hand, too much doubt to give me a date.
I disagree. Look at the U in Uden. And of course L046 was definitely an Uden LBR.
An early German glass master may have been pressed in Uden, but this release has not yet been documented. And even if the CD design is unchanged, it is not certain whether this also applies to the booklet.
I added the date from Discogs before looking at the matrix, so I agree with you here
hard to say after the bit of research I did adding it, I didn’t find a matching label with a search on Discogs or MusicBrainz. there is a similar label His Master’s Voice Digital
My whole point of “this came from Germany and pressed in UDEN” is due to the artwork. Why else have the Made in Germany on the paintwork on the CD?
I get a feeling this is a few masters down the road, many years later so all the Matrix detail is now Dutch. Yet it still has paintwork pointing to an original source. I understand all those SIDs are showing a much later release.
Lack of an example of a German pressed CD does not mean there are none out there. The barcode fit neatly in with a couple of German Sonopress releases
Is His Masters Voice Digital the same as His Masters Voice DRM? What does DRM mean in this context? I could not find many examples. (And this is where FUNKEY ILLUSTRATED RECORDS userscript can help a lot search for a logo)
Factories, copyrights, etc. A good chunk of that annotation have proper relationships that can be used.
)
