I've been seeing a LOT of new entries being added based on what color the can see when the (black) vinyl is held up to a very strong light. In my opinion, a record that appears black in normal light, is not marketed as colored vinyl, and matches another "regular" entry, it should not be called out as a unique release. If you want to leave a note i think that's fair, but unique release? No way. I don't recall a guideline on this, maybe we should add one? It's really getting out of hand!
for example I've found two recently and placed two up for merge:
eri9
and theres still two more with false claims of colored vinyl in this MR alone.
not so sure if they are false, actually
I have a copy of Reckoning that is translucent: I can see my own fingers on the other side when holding it in normal light. If it were black that would not be possible, so it's translucent grey, like the submission of R.E.M. - Reckoning says. If all are like that (I have no way of knowing), then they should all be merged with a corresponding release note. If there are 'real' black copies around, I think they should stay separate.
marcelrecords
I have a copy of Reckoning that is translucent: I can see my own fingers on the other side when holding it in normal light. If it were black that would not be possible, so it's translucent grey, like the submission of R.E.M. - Reckoning says. If all are like that (I have no way of knowing), then they should all be merged with a corresponding release note. If there are 'real' black copies around, I think they should stay separate.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. I feel that if it isn't specifically marketed that way, it's just the formulation of the vinyl, and not an intentional decision. Whether it is gray, somewhat translucent, etc., that just a natural occurrence depending on what vinyl formulation was used. If the color wasn't intentional, it's not unique.
anyway, how do you feel about a guideline to give some direction to this?
calling nik if he's around).
As a side note, we definitely should add the (B), (C), or (R) to the free field text, depending on the version, as this is a helpful distinguishing feature to include.
thanks joejags2000 for the other forum link, I hadn't seen that one. i've been trying to add pressing plan ID letters when i can as well.
for consideration., i propose an update to RSG 1.4.4 (in bold):
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, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
It is often hard to say what is an intentional vinyl coloration, and what is as a result of different materials or manufacturing processes. In the early 70's during the global oil crisis, vinyl was scarce and record companies often resorted to reusing ground vinyl, as opposed to virgin vinyl resulting in coloring variations, swirls, marbling etc., Certain companies also experimented with different pressing techniques trying to reduce costs and amount of vinyl used. These often resulted in very thin often flexible vinyl releases such as dynaflex pressings, and often these were translucent due to being so thin.
In these cases it is not an unintentional vinyl coloration as it is deliberate choice made at the pressing plant. Yes a manufacturing variant but a deliberate variant, which is different to there being a different matrix number or shading of ink on label.
steve.fletcher
It is often hard to say what is an intentional vinyl coloration,
No, it's not. Intentionally colored vinyl is very obvious. That's the selling point. If you have to hold it up to a strong light to determine if it has a color, that's not legitimately "colored" vinyl. Choices made at the plant have nothing to do with this. All this is just another case of people looking for another way to sell something by saying it's "special" somehow.
Want to determine color? Shine a light ON it, not through it. Black is black.
As I said [url="https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/2924570-Reckoning/history"]here[/url], it was not the INTENT of the company to produce a colored vinyl version. It is just by chance and vinyl stock selection. For the purposes of THIS database, it is what's called a "manufacturing variation" and is not considered a unique release. Feel free to add a note for this type of observation.
Diognes_The_Fox
It might be worthwhile to add a note to the notes, but it shouldn't be part of the format.
eri9
For consideration., I propose an update to RSG 1.4.4 (changes in bold):
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, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
eri9
Intentionally colored vinyl is very obvious. That's the selling point. If you have to hold it up to a strong light to determine if it has a color, that's not legitimately "colored" vinyl.
Absolutely.
Certain vinyl formulations (such as Quiex II and whatever Pye was using in the 70s) are ever-so-slightly translucent, but this is a side-effect of the specific vinyl formulation, and not a deliberate decision about vinyl colour. For all intents and purposes, they are standard black.
Diognes_The_Fox
It might be worthwhile to add a note to the notes,
I've used this set-phrase in Release Notes on some items I own:
"Black vinyl only release. However looking at the disc through a strong light, a dark [red] translucent color appears due to the composition of the material".
How best to approach these? I've explained that unintentional vinyl coloration is not appropriate for the FTF.
It seems the OS is adamant about keeping the color claims, even though I suggested it best be explained in the release notes.
In my opinion, its just a regular manufacturing variation, in which the appearance of could vary from owner to owner.
Also it is not an intentional act made by the manufacturer to make a legitimate feature.
I'd like to put this up for discussion again. I feel we really need a guideline addition for this issue as it will happen over and over until we do. Managements decisions seem to be selectively ignored by some submitters.
For consideration., I propose an update to RSG 1.4.4 (changes in bold):
"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, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release."
we could add a following item:
1.4.4.1 For noticeable manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item. The FTF should not be used for this purpose.
I would really like to get everyone's opinion, and especially Diognes_The_Fox's opinion/, and get this proposal included if all agree.
wolf_star
chauncy
1.4.4.1 For noticeable manufacturing variations
I can already foresee endless discussions about what constitutes noticeable variations...
Oh man you're right! OK let's drop "noticeable":
1.4.4.1 For manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item. The FTF should not be used for this purpose.
eri9
It seems the OS is adamant about keeping the color claims, even though I suggested it best be explained in the release notes.
Actually OS has modified sub (Go-Go's - Talk Show) per discussion with chancy last night. I agree with leaving "color" variation in the notes, but are you indicating that "Translucent" is an unintentional manufacturing variation?
Chapp33.3, It's vey clear. The translucency of the vinyl used is not an intentional feature choice. It is merely a byproduct of the vinyl stock which can vary a great deal, even within a single press run. The problem comes when you place these details in as true for ALL copies. Also in my opinion the whole practice of looking for "features" to exotify a record and then claim it's something special when its clearly not intended to be is misleading.
Look, do yourself a favor and re-read the decisions made by management in the two links posted on that sub. The decision was very clear. You can mention it in the notes if you want, but don't make it out to be something special or a conscious choice when it isn't.
wolf_star
about what constitutes noticeable variations
I'd say it's noticeable if it's d that way.
If there's a hype sticker that says "limited edition splatter vinyl" then that's gets the appropriate colored vinyl flag and its own release.
If it's a release that mentions "produced on Quiex II vinyl" on the back of the jacket, then it does *not* get the colored vinyl flag, but does get is own release (assuming the other releases aren't on Quiex II).
If it's a release that makes no mention of color, and has no obvious color other than blank unless held up to a bright light, then that would simply be a variation and should be in the notes saying "may appear a different color when held up to bright light"
eri9
Oh man you're right! OK let's drop "noticeable":
1.4.4.1 For manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item. The FTF should not be used for this purpose.
Seem better?
It's less ambiguous, yes. I don't know if you need to make a new guideline number for it though (1.4.4.1). Couldn't it just be a second paragraph to 1.4.4? Something like 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, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
A description of the manufacturing variations can be entered in the release notes. The format free text field should not be used for this purpose.
Example(s): link to one (or more) releases featuring manufacturing variations covered by this guideline.
---
wolf_star
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, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
A description of the manufacturing variations can be entered in the release notes. The format free text field should not be used for this purpose.
Example(s): link to one (or more) releases featuring manufacturing variations covered by this guideline.
You're right. I think this looks and functions best with this structure.
Guess I missed the initial thread. I have to disagree, but I tend to think it must fall in line similar to tags like "Single, Ltd Ed, etc". There must be verifiable proof that an item is intended to be such. Here's a perfect example:
When looking at the record, it is black, but holding it to the light yields a green swirl. This was intentionally done by the band, explained on the website, and marketed/sold as the "Obelisk Black" variant.
OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
plain black not translucent
and a little bit (or dark brown, translucent) translucent
are significant differences - not?
this version of Purple Rain. The latter unmistakably intended to be a colored vinyl pressing. It doesn't require holding it to the light or interpreting a shade a brown to see that (plus it's the same color as the album title). Conversely, if there was evidence that it was a 'clear brown' colored vinyl pressing (e.g., sticker, ment, etc.), then that would of course be ok. However, I can think of no reason why anyone would ever think that would be a good idea to mass produce (hopefully I don't have to spell this out....).
Black should almost never be added to the FTF as per RSG §6.1.5 because it's the standard 'color'. The only exception I can think of would be if it's marketed as something like 'Obsidian Colored Vinyl' or something ridiculous like that.
a) that's a factual mistake... reading my profile page reveal why i'm here
b) i know for Prince apply different rules - a true miracle... however, soon i don't care anymore :-)
c) and: for the record, i would ask the same questions, and enter same accurate the data if i would have a [name any artist] collection (some s know that already, but many still think i'm a blind fanboy . . .
OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
so this two records are the "same" and not produced intentionally?
Likely not unique as able for a varying mixture of the ingredients used in a vinyl record, unless there's something else there that would warrant that being a unique release such as a different pressing plant, etc.
Also, styrene is a completely different type of plastic and not a manufacturing tolerance issue.
OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
how is that to explain that a casual collector understand why they pay 25++ bucks more for this "side-effect"
I'd think about it as unique copies vs unique releases - the number 1 of a numbered release, a splatter disc which by chance looks like a face... a lot of copies could end up being worth more than usual for their release without being a distinct release
It needs to be noted that different light sources have different color temperatures, which will yield different perceived colors to different sets of eyes, and this is especially important now that different light bulbs have been introduced for general use.
This is just a general comment, but everyone needs to consider the light source they're using before deciding that their copy has a certain color when held up to their light source.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm interested to hear what everyone has to say about: Afrika Bambaataa & The Soul Sonic Force* Music By Planet Patrol - Planet Rock (normal)
I've had a couple of copies of the 'purple', a couple of the normal one, and a few that I wasn't really sure because it was either super dark purple or a purplish black. I thought about initiating a merge, but 25 people have it in their 'collection' (whether that's accurate, IDK). I can post images if it helps, but basically, it really just looks like a manufacturing variation to me regardless of the light source (although brighter light does make it appear more purple...)
er, what? Are you confused? Where are you getting that idea from what I wrote?
Let's back up here:
Someone said that "intentionally colored vinyl is very obvious."
I responded that I've seen intentionally colored vinyl that was so dark that I assumed the records were black at first glance.
Now I don't know how you would come to the conclusion that I might see a shaped record unless the company or artist clarifies otherwise especially given that I've initially assumed some records were standard black that intentionally weren't black. If anything, that might mean I'm less likely to see a shape.
I would like to suggest everyone go back and read: https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/366314 with a focus on what mightyvinyl reported in that thread noting specific record companies using translucent vinyl in the 80s. The assertion that this was simply a "manufacturing" quirk or defect makes no sense with the evidence presented, and the notion that standard black vinyl can be pressed thin enough to be translucent is absurd. Can anyone produce an example of a translucent dynaflex LP? I think not.
On the topic of color. ALL color is in light. The light source used will impact the specific color seen. Incandescent light will produce a different color than fluorescent light or LED light. Generally not a radical change, but my A&M releases that have a brown or dark amber look in incandescent light, have a greenish tinge when viewed using fluorescent light.
Some of these releases did make note of their use of translucent vinyl and some trade names used were Quiex II and AMEX (used by A&M / A&M family releases). Most of these were also noted as "virgin vinyl" or "audiophile vinyl". Do they actually sound better? Thats another discussion. One may also ask why was this done. Much of this escalated in the 1980s when LPs needed to compete with CDs. Just my 2¢ worth.
Chapp33.3
The assertion that this was simply a "manufacturing" quirk or defect makes no sense with the evidence presented
Any promotion on the vinyl formulation used for a release would concentrate on the vinyl branding (Quiex II, etc.) not on the apparent colour of the vinyl when held up to a bright light. I think that is the consideration to be focussed on.
Chapp33.3
the notion that standard black vinyl can be pressed thin enough to be translucent is absurd.
