When Held To The Light It's Dark Brown Transparent Vinyl....

Recently I see a lot of such submissions.

Is it a valid unique release or only a different pressing quality.

example: Feelin Kinda High

Best thing to do is get a couple of different releases on normal plain black vinyl of similar thickness of pressing, preferably from the same country-type pressings (eg. US and UK vinyl 12"s are often quite different), and compare it in open daylight.

Note the 'open daylight' part, as using un-natural light gives much more subjective results, whereas daylight is much more easy to spot if any true differences are really apparent.

However, it's still going to be a very subjective opinion in many cases, as to whether it's really a plain black pressing on a shit piece of vinyl (thus giving the effect of a brown-y colour type), or actually IS a dark brown/dark brown transparent vinyl.

Just tried it with a few records, including a couple of albeit later 90's Chicago 12". All these black records were totally opaque, even when a very bright torch was held behind them in a darkened room.

What I would be interested to know is that the submitter of these records also has versions that are fully black opaque - IOW to confirm that not *all* of these releases were dark brown transparent. It may also be interesting to know if the colour variation was intentional by the record company, or the result of a variation in the vinyl stock.

Several more of these "unique releases" being added it seems:

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1567717
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1567738
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1567742

no evidence supplied for any of them.

Loads here
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/submissions?=plattenleger

I have posted the following on some of these submissions, please feel free to use this text on other submissions if this ilk, hopefully we can get some reasonable outcome:

Do you alsu have a version of this release that is fully black opaque. Please confirm that not *all* of these releases were dark brown transparent.

It is also be important to know if the colour variation was intentional by the record company, or the result of a variation in the vinyl stock.

Please note that 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. http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unique_Releases

There is a thread discussing this at http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/forums/topic/175973

Take a look: http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1567742

Yes, we are a group of djs and collectors for now 20 years. we are collecting records from the beginning of house music

some of us have copies in black, some of us have copies in blue, some of us have copies in green translucent or brown translucent. It depends on the label.

We dont know why, but there are different colors for one release.

The earlier we have bought this records, the chance to get an colored one growth up.

We dont think that this is "a shit piece of vinyl"

avalanche :

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1564012
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1564687
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1567678
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1564690

The Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab LP's were made in Japan by JVC using so-called "Super Vinyl" which appears slightly transparent brown when help up to light.

loads more

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/submissions?=alexblex
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/submissions?label=Prescription

So what's the conclusion with this. How do we know that the "Brown Dark Translucent" is intentional and not a manufacturing defect?

This one has been resubmitted, after being removed a few days ago: Drexciya - The Quest

I'm pretty familiar with this release, AKAIK it was only repressed in 2002 with colored blue vinyl. If it was on any other color, I'm sure it would have been submitted already, as there is a big fan base here. The submitter seems not to have ed the other owners to find out if theirs is "Brown Dark Translucent"

Red text on labels
Green text on labels
Blue text on labels

Repress on Blue Vinyl

*edited typo and more descriptive on the blue vinyl repress

^ that Drexciya release got 4 YES votes and now on it's second time around it's got 3 NO votes. No further proof has been provided, and no discussion.

Yes well, this is what happens when you give voting powers to people who vote on the basis of personal preference.

I was thinking that.

Personal preference always comes into edge cases.

However, what I would really like to know, is what proof is there that these releases are intentional by the record company / artist, as opposed to manufacturing variations.

Once we know that, it may be easier to move forward with it.

Yes, I did ask the submitter to provide this during it's first removal process. But he resubmitted it again without suppling any.

There's another one here: http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/Robert-Hood-Minimal-Nation/release/1606576

Same .

Just an idea:
Couldn't we check the run-out grooves of Minimal Nation?
If both records have the same run-out etchings, then it is probably a manufacturing variation, if not, then those are different pressings using different vinyl.

Okay. I think this is absolutely wack. But I'm guessing Discogs may need to make call on this one. I have held up my copy of this vinyl record to the light and can see how one might think this is translucent Brown and not black. Although if you were to look at the record you would think it was black.

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/1574152

I tested another completely unrelated record for comparision and note that it is black and I can't see through it like I can the "translucent" one.

I, myself, think this is absolutely ridiculous and will continue to add records as if they are black. But again, who am I. For one thing, I am not going to go back through all my records to see if they are translucent or not :)

Josh

I'd be surprised if records were pressed just to be translucent when held up to the light. May as well just color it. And with the Drexciya example, they did color it blue on the repressed version.

If a submitter thinks the discoloration is intentional, then they need to prove it.

Further, my suspicions would be that the vinyl supplier or record plant created the translucent vinyl stock as either a cost cutting measure, or an experiment, or simply an error. AFAIAA, normal black vinyl is created by adding carbon to clear vinyl. This makes the vinyl tougher and reduces friction. If not enough carbon was added, then the vinyl may well be, to an extent, translucent. It strikes me as odd that a number of labels would create these very dark brown releases on purpose, if to all intents and purposes, they appear to be black vinyl unless closely examined.

The Discogs guidelines http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unique_Releases state that "Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release." This seems fairly clear to me.

I think we should require, at the very least, discussion and investigation as to the nature of these releases BEFORE they are entered into the database. There will surely be evidence of the releases being marketed as dark brown translucent somewhere, and if not, surely an artist or label can be asked about it?

If it turns out that the label(s) DID release very dark brown translucent vinyl on purpose, fair enough, they can go in.

If it turns out that it is a manufacturing variation, I think at the very least we would need to have a discussion as to the importance of this particular variation for collectors, and require some fairly strong arguments for including them.

nik
f it turns out that the label(s) DID release very dark brown translucent vinyl on purpose, fair enough, they can go in.

I highly doubt any were intentional

Agreed. When a label releases a coloured wax edition you can see it at a first glance that it's supposed to be coloured at normal daylight and you don't have to hold in front of a 500 watts light bulb first.

nik
I think we should require, at the very least, discussion and investigation as to the nature of these releases BEFORE they are entered into the database.

ah ah - i'm sure the irony of this isn't lost on you either.

for anyone careing to investigate,

many were changed here:

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/label/Reflective

thx.

nik
Further, my suspicions would be that the vinyl supplier or record plant created the translucent vinyl stock as either a cost cutting measure, or an experiment, or simply an error. AFAIAA, normal black vinyl is created by adding carbon to clear vinyl. This makes the vinyl tougher and reduces friction. If not enough carbon was added, then the vinyl may well be, to an extent, translucent. It strikes me as odd that a number of labels would create these very dark brown releases on purpose, if to all intents and purposes, they appear to be black vinyl unless closely examined.

Yes, I also think this is the case here.

So, unless we have proof it was intentional, those should be removed/reverted?

8m2stereo
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/label/Reflective

what a mess :(

disruptive-influence
what a mess :(

Yes, I'd clean it up but the guy that changed them all would probably vote EI.

Dawai
So, unless we have proof it was intentional, those should be removed/reverted?

The submitter will need to do this, or the subs can be removed/reverted where appropriate. :)

Dawai
unless we have proof it was intentional, those should be removed/reverted?

I think so. It strikes me that a manufacturing variation is the cause of this, they are not slightly opaque on purpose.

If we can find out one way or another, that's a start. I don't think we should accept these items being added to the database under the impression that they are intended variations by the label or artist.

After that, we can discuss if we should still have them entered, and what percentage of the pressings come on this type of vinyl... but I think we would have to prove there was a genuine need to do it this way, as opposed to simply stating on the affected releases "Some of this release may have been made on Dark Brown Transparent Vinyl- this was a manufacturing variation" or something like that.

Post a link to this thread on any of the affected submissions.

I have reverted the ones on Reflective, would appreciate some votes on these:

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=22059#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=72540#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=33577#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=64720#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=97597#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=125510#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=48017#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=60240#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=129430#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=1591743#latest (removal)
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=60877#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=183903#latest

Thanks.

done.

Thanks!

common sense prevails, there is hope yet!

More removals to vote on here:

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/submissions?=plattenleger

Agreed with josh46 viewpoint and all, to me most of these must be manufacturing variations and 'voted no' due to not been considered unique by guidelines, unless transparently;) proven it was intentional (by the label/artist not pressing plants).
I it i was just at first confused and then suggested to enter such as a seperate entry after refusing an edit on a Reflective cake i own which is black as black can be when i last checked, maybe they found back the carbon at the plant later on so…

The argument for me is, that a unique entry helps me keeping track of the translucent vinyl I won, buy them when I have it in my wantlist or able to sell them to persons who are interested only in the translucent version easier ...

[quote=EliasRafael][/quote]
right, that's what i'm thinking about.
some of us are collectors and always looking for the "real" rarely version, colors, WL's and so on.
so, if we have a regular release in regular black vinyl, and the music is interesting enough to collect it, then i'm pretty happy, if there is a special version,(yeah, great, colored vinyl =)).
and...this "dark brown translusent" thing comes almost to 100% from northern america. i can't to know a release from europe. and, it's not the question of the thickness of a vinyl.
all i wanna have it to see the different against the regular version in this db.
sorry, but some of the vinyls i'm collect are still "dark brown".
over & out

Some of the early R.E.M. releases had this translucent brown issue. Never sure why?

Just a variation in the manufacturing process.

EDIT:
...finally a second use for that 1000 watt halogen bulb in your nightclub / dancefloor lighting equipment...

nonsequiturmusic
Some of the early R.E.M. releases had this translucent brown issue. Never sure why?

Heh heh. I will refrain here from making the obvious joke. (Or maybe I just did anyway....)

From a collectors point of view, I really think they *should* be included in the database (thought it is not always easy to determine if the whole batch – or not – got pressed like this, thus allowing potential duplicates).

The fact that the majority of these pressings emerged exclusively around 1992 - 1995 (+/- 4 years) from north america, mostly for chicago/detroit area labels, makes me think it *may* indeed have been offered intentionnaly by some involved pressing plant.

EliasRafael
The argument for me is, that a unique entry helps me keeping track of the translucent vinyl I won, buy them when I have it in my wantlist or able to sell them to persons who are interested only in the translucent version easier ...

I understand these points.

What I am primarily worried about is representing a unique edition on the artist / label profile as fact, when it may well have been a manufacturing variation, and one that may have been widespread as well. Due to the nature of the variation, it is also hard for most people to know what version they have unless they know to look for that specific variation.

What I would like now is to see more facts emerge about these variations. moodytrax has started filling in some possible dates and locations, but we need more. For example, is there any citable evidence that a label or artist releases one of these dark brown records intentionally? Surely with so many artists and labels involved, it is possible to find some shred of proof. Also, can we unearth anyone who was involved in the releases around these times from affected labels etc, can we ask them about it?

For sure, if there is proof that a dark brown record was releases intentionally, then it is valid to go in now.

* To keep track of the dark brown translucent vinyl - you can make a folder in your collection called 'dark brown translucent vinyl' and keep them in there

* Buy them when I have it in my wantlist - I am fairly sure 99% of sellers will not see the difference, and be selling them as normal copies. You probably need to ask each seller about each item individually.

* Able to sell them - Going by the current guidelines, these are not eligible for inclusion, so you should note the variation in the sales notes. There are other examples of manufacturing variations, for example, different shades of label paper, that are also not eligible for inclusion at this time.

ismistik
From a collectors point of view, I really think they *should* be included in the database (thought it is not always easy to determine if the whole batch – or not – got pressed like this, thus allowing potential duplicates).

I think this is open to discussion, I am not ruling out that they may not be eligible for inclusion in the future, but I think we need to know the nature of the releases first, then possibly discuss changes to the guidelines that allow variations such as this in if they are of interest to collectors.

nik
I am fairly sure 99% of sellers will not see the difference, and be selling them as normal copies. You probably need to ask each seller about each item individually.

Some sellers on here aren't even smart enough to differentiate blue and white labels from red and orange labels, and both are valid entries in the DB.

Funny little thing: I have 3 pressings of a certain 12" record, each with the same vinyl thickness, the same matrix stampers (A-1), the same run-offs (I would say they are identical - apart from the covers). So far, no vinyl variations have been reported.
I held them all up against a) bright daylight and b) a bright artificial light source. Guess what happened: One had dark brown translucent vinyl against daylight but clearly red translucent vinyl against artificial light. One wasn't translucent against artificial light but blue translucent against daylight. The 3rd one wasn't translucent at all. Huh?

ismistik
The fact that the majority of these pressings emerged exclusively around 1992 - 1995 (+/- 4 years) from north america, mostly for chicago/detroit area labels, makes me think it *may* indeed have been offered intentionnaly by some involved pressing plant.

It makes me think some pressing plant was using lower quality vinyl. If it was intentionally, the intention was probably to save cost, not to manufacture brown vinyl.

Who do you all think you are? Nothing else to do but making trouble because some guys have some rare copies of vinyl???

Who knows but maybe this kind of pressing was intention?

Maybe after a colored release the next pressing was the brown one, after this the pure black one come. So, as a collector its quite interesting that there exist some different copies. When we dont put them to status of unique release maybe we can find a way for collectors heart, displaying the vinyl in any way?

Please dont think that a few guys can change the world, lets be democratic with all s, not only with a few here in this forum-tree.

mezzo

mezzo_templer
So, as a collector its quite interesting that there exist some different copies.

I understand what your saying but where do we draw the line?

Do we allow a unique entry for a Trax pressing that has pot marks or a bit of paper stuck in the vinyl in a different place to another version?

I know that sounds a bit stupid but its about distinguishing between pressings that were intentionally different and not ones that just happen to be different due to an issue at the pressing plant.

mezzo_templer
Who knows but maybe this kind of pressing was intention?

We have been looking for proof of this since this issue started.

disruptive-influence
its about distinguishing between pressings that were intentionally different and not ones that just happen to be different due to an issue at the pressing plant.

I think that's important, and it is in the guidelines for a reason.

mezzo_templer
Who do you all think you are? Nothing else to do but making trouble because some guys have some rare copies of vinyl?

Not at all. We are firstly trying to ascertain the nature of these releases. Were they released as dark brown versions, or were they a variation in vinyl stock? If we can't get to the bottom of that, it seems that we are not doing justice to the discographies, because we are potentially representing a manufacturing variation as a unique release. After we get to the bottom of that, we can see what we need to do to list these releases (or not, as the case may be), including looking at the guidelines and discussing the issues.

mezzo_templer
Please dont think that a few guys can change the world, lets be democratic with all s, not only with a few here in this forum-tree.

teo
Discogs is not a democracy and I have never purported it to be one.

In fact only two guys change the world.

wow, what a can of worms you've opened.

Nik, how can one be sure that any colored vinyl releases in the database were/were not intentional (especially in the case of Archer)?
what about the Classic EP on Serious Grooves, where the label color varies by a shade; was this slight variation intentional?
how many different colored pressings are there for Paperclip People's Throw? did Carl give the OK on all of these, or just some? or maybe Carl said 'yeah do 2 colors' and Archer just made a few more....would that make them 'unintentional'?
how is this proven, and where does it end?

another question is whether we want to track down all these artists, label owners, and pressing plant workers (past & present) to find this information.
we simply will never have all the answers, and besides it just doesn't matter; our job is to document what we have in front of us without discrimination.

additionally, to ask for proof only in the case of dark brown colored vinyl only is a bit silly.
if Discogs requires proof, then it should be required for ANY unique release....white label, different label, or whatever.
this would apply to accidental mispresses, correct?

in any case, such a stink was made to incorporate every variation of a release as a separate submission, i'm just not sure why we are now stopping to review it....either we need to have every unique release entered, or just list them all as small variations of the same record (a la Master Release, which was dumped in favor of the current format).....can we just stick to one system here?

ismistik

The fact that the majority of these pressings emerged exclusively around 1992 - 1995 (+/- 4 years) from north america, mostly for chicago/detroit area labels, makes me think it *may* indeed have been offered intentionnaly by some involved pressing plant.

exactly. not all Detroit releases from this era had translucent vinyl, it was obviously a choice. add to that the fact that some Chicago guys (especially Chez & Ron) used Detroit facilities for recording/mastering/pressing or what not, and this seems to be more than just a coincidence....or can you see Chez & Ron saying "look, all of our Prescription first pressings keep turning out translucent....oops!"?

It doesnt matter WHY there are this kind of brown vinyls because THEY ARE, so let them be part of DISCOGS. This should NOT be worth to discuss. Why do you want a prohibition???
Peace to all.

Even it its only a machined or techical crossing, fact is that the brown ones are NOT bad in quality because these records are the crossing of vinyl-pressings, coming from color-pressing ones to standard black pressing. Compare the different forms of brown exisiting in one release.

Why do you show the attitude "immer correct ordnung" here inside discogs???

mezzo_templer
Why do you show the attitude "immer correct ordnung" here inside discogs???

=> always correct order

It's not an attitude. It's how databases work. It keeps the data accurate. :)

Here's a release where it is known and somewhat confirmed that colour variations exist (however, it's not clear if the colours were used on purpose):
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/Joy-Division-Closer/release/1453325

Another release with variations but - correctly - not leading to separate entries is
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/Joy-Division-Closer/release/239034

Colour variations - in general - are accidental and the colours used are random. They are part of the manufacturing process.

I am fairly sure that none of the Chi-Town/Detroit labels deliberately decided, "Hey, let's have some colour variations in our vinyl" to watch collector's frenzy being created before their very eyes. Especially not Trax, where I still have the impression that they either did cut the records out of the tarmac in front of their offices or misunderstood the concept of flexi discs...
And I can from a conversation I had with Rock Jones in 1989 about a DJ Int. release being in (what I think) translucent purple, that he was quite surprised (and then amused). Later on, the artist was surprised, too when I showed him the record...

I understand that, from a die-hard collector's POV, it is convenient to have all variations in the DB. But, to me, that would lead too far (given that brown translucent can also be red or blue or green or purple, clearly depending on the light source) but bringing us nowhere. And if a specifically coloured record is to be sold via the market place, it can still be mentioned during the selling process.

Therefore, IMO, if the vinyl colour variations aren't a known marketing plot or a (confirmed) special way of releasing records, theses variations should only be mentioned in the Notes. They should not constitute unique entries.

I agree with all you wrote sebfact, with the addition that I would not completely count out the changing of the rules to allow some manufacturing variations IF such a variation was significantly important to collectors AND we could do so in an organized way, without misrepresenting the label / artists output AND the guidelines for doing this could be unambiguous.

mezzo_templer
It doesnt matter WHY there are this kind of brown vinyls because THEY ARE, so let them be part of DISCOGS. This should NOT be worth to discuss. Why do you want a prohibition?

We need guidelines to define what we enter to the database, how we enter the data. The guidelines as they stand expressly state what type of variations can be entered, and the very issue we are dealing with here is quite well defined at http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unique_Releases :

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.

mezzo_templer
Even it its only a machined or techical crossing, fact is that the brown ones are NOT bad in quality because these records are the crossing of vinyl-pressings, coming from color-pressing ones to standard black pressing. Compare the different forms of brown exisiting in one release.

I don't think anyone is arguing they are of lesser quality, that is a separate subject.

What is being discussed is the nature of the variation. The above quoted part of the guidelines was written with the express intent of avoiding multiple different releases being entered to the database due to manufacturing. The example given is one of the paper color on labels, which can vary. The same example holds for vinyl color variations.

What myself and others have put forward is it is most likely a manufacturing variation. The vinyl for making a record may not be uniform... for example, sometimes older records, mispressings etc get melted down to make new pressings. I believe there was an issue in the US (not sure when) where the vinyl had to be sourced from overseas due to pollution laws. We can imagine an almost infinite number of situations that could cause a manufacturing variation. Other posts in this thread also point to variations withing the variation, different colors. When we start looking at this level of detail, it becomes apparent to me that we are onto a looser if we try to catalog each manufacturing variation as a unique release, because the variation may not be consistent. For example, there may be dark brown releases, dark blue releases, dark red releases.. and there may be releases that are very slightly translucent, others that are more translucent, others that have marbled translucency etc. Should each of these variations be a unique release in the database? What would be the requirements as to the separation?

Obviously, if these releases were bright red (for example), there would be no discussion. Bright red could not be argued to be a variation of black. Part of this argument hinges on the fact that these releases are easily ed off as black vinyl releases, unless one knows to check the 'black' release against the light. Further, there has been no evidence of these releases being made on purpose.

mezzo_templer
Why do you show the attitude "immer correct ordnung" here inside discogs?

Because we are trying to catalog potentially tens of millions of releases, in a way that is consistant and workable for the majority of s and uses of the data. All guidelines are there for a specific purpose, and have evolved over the years to try to help everyone use the database and catalog things.

There is no reason why you cannot question the current guidelines and put forward alternative proposals for new one, that would fit your purposes better. The guidelines may or may not change, depending on the perceived workability and usefulness of your proposals.

In the meantime, I would like to suggest that the current guidelines are followed. I don't think there would be a problem with mentioning in the notes the nature of the variations noticed, and would recommend this course of action for the moment. I think that it would also be interesting to try to investigate the nature of these manufacturing variations, and see what the cause was.

It reallya doesnt matter what you mean wit "IMO" and "my impression". Please let your imperssion and opinion at home.

Database can work in different ways, and if you are not able to collect these pieces of vinyl, please let others do like they want.

mezzo_templer
Please let your imperssion and opinion at home.

Then what are you doing then? Are you motivated by a need for accuracy? If you were, maybe youd have done a bit more on this site in the last 5 years.

mezzo_templer
please let others do like they want.

Oh you mean like let them submit anything any old way?...yeah, THATS a good idea.

Maybe you all will blanketing your bad quality collection?
Jealous becaus you dont have these first pressing copies?
I only have to take a look to the prices of this vinyl and then its clear that you all are only jealous. But this is not an argue here inside discogs.

I have no other impression and opinion for argumentation like you do.

I more think that YOU are jealous!!! We have this kind of Pressings, not YOU. Thats your problem.

Ask NSC like we DID.

What the hell are you on about? Jealous?

This isnt about bragging rights in your collection or prices in the marketplace. Its about catag items properly in this database.

If you dont want to sensibly discuss the subject in of that and that alone, then please go away and let the rest of us get on with it.

Jealousy card is always the last card to pull when one runs out of valid arguments.