0bleak
Everything seems to be based on conjecture with no facts.
You have less facts on this that I do. I don’t know why you push so hard for two different pressings to become one submission, when they have unique differences.
Those pressing rings indicate different plants as written in the submission notes.
Those include links to pics of pressing rings. newwarsaw
P.S. If this would be a Depeche Mode or Beatles record, it would have unique subs for every tiny difference, yet for UR we merge based on the assumption that they were pressed by the same company … 17y apart (maybe less).
How is that when I haven't tried to present any facts?
On the other hand, what are your facts that that they were pressed at different plants?
You also don't know that this could have been pressed with different pressing rings years before.
cereal
Those pressing rings indicate different plants as written in the submission notes.
No, pressing rings alone don't indicate different plants as has been covered in those threads.
So your conjecture vs mine…. experience with Detroit records shows those are hardly from the same plant as pointed out bynewwarsaw in the submission notes.
Merely speculation, buying a sealed copy in 2014 would only prove it wasn't sealed or pressed after 2014.
My copy has the small rings and it is definitly not a repress, it was bought the very day this record was released.
No, see, I'm not conjecturing. The thing is that we aren't supposed to be submit unique releases based on what could just be manufacturing variations - and not based on conjecture.
cereal
experience with Detroit records shows those are hardly from the same plant as pointed out by newwarsaw in the submission notes.
You're going to have to do better than argument from authority.
dillinger.nl
Merely speculation, buying a sealed copy in 2014 would only prove it wasn't sealed or pressed after 2014.
My copy has the small rings and it is definitly not a repress, it was bought the very day this record was released.
dillinger.nl
Merely speculation, buying a sealed copy in 2014 would only prove it wasn't sealed or pressed after 2014.
My copy has the small rings and it is definitly not a repress, it was bought the very day this record was released.
"Without that info, though, there is always the possibility that they were pressed at the same plant using two different machines, and therefore can be merged as a manufacturing variation of a single pressing."
This is no more of an assumption than stating it is NOT a manufacturing variation.
There is always the possibility that the records pressed approx 17y apart are from two different plants.
There is also always the possibility that it was also pressed with those small pressing rings years before the "17 years apart" and, according to dillinger.nl, they bought it the day it was released and it had the small pressing rings.
The thing is that to prove a separate release, you have to have facts.
0bleak
The thing is that to prove a separate release, you have to have facts.
I do have facts.
Links from shops stating an official repress, different pressing rings, different input on possible pressing plants.
Yet all of that is just speculation and assumptions in your point of view.
I have not seen any fact or linked source proving me wrong.
Which are considered a manufacturing variation without any other facts.
cereal
different input on possible pressing plants.
Yet all of that is just speculation and assumptions in your point of view.
Of course because as you say yourself "_possible_ pressing plants."
cereal
I have not seen any fact or linked source proving me wrong.
I don't know how many different ways I can state this, but it's not up to of Discogs to "prove" what would otherwise be considered a manufacturing variation, but it's up to the submitter of the separate release to prove with facts.
Also, do you no longer believe dillinger.nl? They say their copy has the small rings and was bought the very day the record was released.
0bleak
but it's not up to of Discogs to "prove" what would otherwise be considered a manufacturing variation, but it's up to the submitter of the separate release to prove with facts.
This will get us nowhere as you have nothing that convinces me and obviously my input does not convince you either.
I do believe him, but that only shows that the 1992 issue should have a note stating both pressing rings variations exist for that submission.
I see no reason to merge the version that got pressed at least 1,5y later (see post by Juno linked above) and therefor qualifies for a reissue/repress in discogs logic.
Check the labels from dillingers copy, the margins of the bottom print are different as well.
As I mentioned above ... if this was Depeche Mode or Beatles, we would have a submission for every tiny detail and would spare us this back and forth Cincinnati timewaste.
cereal
This will get us nowhere as you have nothing that convinces me and obviously my input does not convince you either.
You're trying to shift the burden of proof when the burden of proof is on the person making the separate submission.
cereal
I see no reason to merge the version that got pressed at least 1,5y later (see post by Juno linked above)
and as I've stated many times, could have also been pressed like that years before
cereal
Check the labels from dillingers copy, the margins of the bottom print are different as well.
So now you're suggesting two versions because now that an older version also has the small pressing rings, there is a slight difference in the margins of the print - a manufacturing variation.
cereal
experience with Detroit records shows those are hardly from the same plant
This. An indie release like this would hardly have been pressed at a plant that had multiple different types of presses or used different platens.
0bleak
as I've stated many times, could have also been pressed like that years before
And it could also have been pressed by my grandmother using a wringer washing machine out in the barn with the cows. Your conjecture (for that's what it is) is a logical non-sequitur.
Pressing rings are a legitimate difference that may be documented and adds to the identification of a pressing. IMO, the prior merge on the release in question was improper, and the current merge should be rejected.
Showbiz_Kid
And it could also have been pressed by my grandmother using a wringer washing machine out in the barn with the cows. Your conjecture (for that's what it is) is a logical non-sequitur.
Then explain the pressing that dillinger.nl bought the day of the release.
If my "conjecture (for that's what it is) is a logical non-sequitur." then explain past staff statements and posts from s that have said the same.
Showbiz_Kid
Pressing rings are a legitimate difference that may be documented and adds to the identification of a pressing.
Nope. Its a fingerprint of a machine, but not of a plant (Unless proof is given).
Pressing rings are manufacturing variations, just like the immortal "transluscent vinyl when held to a supernova". No releases. Not planned as such from labels, not documented as such on Discogs.
Perfectly fine to document them in notes and picture sections.
I don't have to explain anything. The burden of proof that these were pressed by the same plant is on you to prove, and your "proof" (based only on supposition) is non-existant.
There is empirical evidence, however: Two examples of the release, each with different pressing rings.
According to Guidelines, visual differences are valid grounds for unique submissions to the database.
- - - RSG §1.4.1. Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different manufacturers, etc...
- - - RSG §1.4.2. If the difference is subtle, you must explain the difference in the Release Notes, or with images, or by any other effective means, in order that future s can tell their versions apart by referring to the entry in Discogs. For example, reissues that cannot be told apart from the original issue cannot be entered as a unique release - unique releases must have a means of identifying them as such!
In this case, the difference is subtle, but obvious: the diameter of the label pressing rings. It is easy to tell the two apart just by using your eyes. 1.4.2 allows images as visible proof of differences, which were supplied by the submitters. You, however, are choosing to ignore these demonstrable physical differences in order to... what? force the world into your own little box?
They are two different versions of the release. Both can exist in the database. Get over it.
Showbiz_Kid
Your conjecture (for that's what it is) is a logical non-sequitur.
It's not a non-sequitur when someone is trying to pin dates for pressing rings of a supposed repress to places like Juno when no one can prove that it hasn't been pressed with those rings before and especially now that someone has a copy with those rings bought the day of release.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted by saying that I'm conjecturing by saying that you don't have proof that it wasn't pressed like that before.
And what now? Two versions with the same small pressing rings (one with the original year) and a supposed repress date based on the earliest date that someone can find for a shop on the web? What about during the 90s when these shops didn't exist? Do we know that it wasn't also pressed multiple times with those rings?
Oh, and what about my version where the printing on the label has a tiny shift from either of the versions posted so far?
And then we have two versions with the original year with different pressing rings, and then a version with the small rings based on some online store?
Showbiz_Kid
The burden of proof that these were pressed by the same plant is on you to prove, and your "proof" (based only on supposition) is non-existant.
That's not how it works.
They are assumed to be manufacturing variations until proven different.
Showbiz_Kid
and your "proof" (based only on supposition) is non-existant.
Again trying to shift the burden...
Showbiz_Kid
And it could also have been pressed by my grandmother using a wringer washing machine out in the barn with the cows.
Showbiz_Kid
what? force the world into your own little box?
Imho if we have two different pressing rings both from unknown plants it's not enough to make a new entry. If we knew where one version was pressed I would feel differently, but as it is there's two unknowns which might have come from the same plant (maybe years apart, but again, we're not sure).
Showbiz_Kid
That goes the other way, too. Pressing rings can also be the fingerprint of a plant, to use your words.
They can, when proof is given. Proof means: A certain pressing machine identifies a pressing plant, because no other plant uses this machine (for example).
Unless no such proof is given, a different pressing ring is a variation.
Showbiz_Kid
I don't need to be in a cage match with people who won't listen to reason.
You went into this cage (I'd call it conversation) yourself, when you decided to vote against merge (!) and ed this thread.
Not only that, but are we seriously going to have two entries now based on a slight printing shift on the same small pressing rings?
A 1992 date and then another entry with a date based on the earliest example that can be found online for a repress?
Will we then also separate out that 1992 large and small pressing rings versions and have two 1992 entries?
Should we then also submit another unique version of the small pressing rings based on the small printing shift that I have that's also slightly different from the other two small pressing rings versions?
You bet I did. Because anyone with eyes can see that they are two very different pressing rings. This can't be argued against.
You and0bleak have no proof that they were pressed at the same plant.
No one else has any proof that they were pressed at different plants.
Therefore with lack of proof on any side all is conjecture.
In the absence of such proof, we err on the side of caution and retain two subs to document the visual differences - as is quite clearly permitted in Guidelines.
Shouting loudest and most often doesn't entitle you to have your way.
We don't need proof, nor do we even need conjecture.
As has been said in the forums and by staff, without any FACTS, it is considered a manufacturing variation.
Showbiz_Kid
In the absence of such proof, we err on the side of caution and retain two subs to document the visual differences - as is quite clearly permitted in Guidelines.
The guidelines don't allow for manufacturing variations.
Showbiz_Kid
Shouting loudest and most often doesn't entitle you to have your way.
No one is shouting, but you are just conveniently ignoring staff comments and previous forum precedent.
Can you answer these questions, Showbiz_Kid (and without snark)?
Are we going to have two entries now based on a slight printing shift on the same small pressing rings?
A 1992 date and then another entry with a date based on the earliest example that can be found online for a repress?
Will we then also separate out that 1992 large and small pressing rings versions and have two 1992 entries?
Should we then also submit another unique version of the small pressing rings based on the small printing shift that I have that's also slightly different from the other two small pressing rings versions?
0bleak
Are we going to have two entries now based on a slight printing shift on the same small pressing rings?
No. This is the very definition of a manufacturing variation; RSG §1.4.4.
0bleak
A 1992 date and then another entry with a date based on the earliest example that can be found online for a repress?
Dating can be an inexact science, but if you can positively identify one as an original pressing and the other as a repressing, and you have a date from a "trustworthy source" as set forth in RSG §1.1.2, then yes.
0bleak
Will we then also separate out that 1992 large and small pressing rings versions and have two 1992 entries?
Yes.
0bleak
Should we then also submit another unique version of the small pressing rings based on the small printing shift that I have that's also slightly different from the other two small pressing rings versions?
RSG §1.1.2 in its entirety (not all items applicable to the current discussion, but complete nonetheless): "Sources of information external to the release itself may be added, but the physical release must always be the main source. External sources of the information (for example websites, word of mouth, books, etc.) must be declared in the Submission Notes, explained in the Release Notes, and be verifiable as far as possible. Unsubstantiated information may be removed or rejected. External information should only be entered where it adds to the release information (for example, track names where none are given on the release). This is to ensure that only verified real releases are entered, and the data is as close as possible in relation to the physical release. Please see the credit section for how to enter credits that are sourced externally."
So a standard of proof is set forth by Guidelines, and it does fall upon the submitter of the release in question to provide it.
Showbiz_Kid
No. This is the very definition of a manufacturing variation; RSG §1.4.4.
Do we also ignore previous staff comments and forum consensus that pressing rings are also a manufacturing variation until proven otherwise?
Showbiz_Kid
So a standard of proof is set forth by Guidelines, and it does fall upon the submitter of the release in question to provide it
That's what I'm saying. When I said that we don't need proof (that they were pressed at the same plant) is that it falls on the submitter to provide proof they weren't.
0bleak
When I said that we don't need proof (that they were pressed at the same plant) is that it falls on the submitter to provide proof they weren't.
The question here isn't really about whether or not they were pressed at the same plant - it's about whether there is enough difference to identify them as different pressings. And in this case, the visual difference of large pressing ring vs. small pressing ring is enough for them to qualify as separate subs.
0bleak
Do we also ignore previous staff comments and forum consensus that pressing rings are also a manufacturing variation until proven otherwise?
I believe (and I think you will find that many other do as well) that that particular statement is a very ill-considered and poorly-informed one.
Case in point: a Rainbo pressing from the 1960s has a 2.875" pressing ring. A Rainbo pressing ring from 1975 on has a 1.25" pressing ring. Does that make them "manufacturing variants" in your eyes?
Showbiz_Kid
The question here isn't really about whether or not they were pressed at the same plant - it's about whether there is enough difference to identify them as different pressings. And in this case, the visual difference of large pressing ring vs. small pressing ring is enough for them to qualify as separate subs.
Ok, so if the visual difference is enough to qualify them as different subs even if they could have been pressed at the same plant, and even around the same time, then why isn't a visual difference also enough for other manufacturing variations like the margins in the print?
Showbiz_Kid
I believe (and I think you will find that many other do as well) that that particular statement is a very ill-considered and poorly-informed one.
There many staff statements that people find ill-informed including some that I find ill-informed, but the consensus here is that what they say carries more weight.
Showbiz_Kid
Case in point: a Rainbo pressing from the 1960s has a 2.875" pressing ring. A Rainbo pressing ring from 1975 on has a 1.25" pressing ring. Does that make them "manufacturing variants" in your eyes?
I don't know a lot about that, but I can see the argument for separate submissions in those cases.
Here, we don't have any evidence about where any of these were pressed, much less if they were pressed at different plants or the same plant at different times (although dillinger.nl also got their small pressing rings copy when it was originally released) or if those rings mean anything at all for this particular release.
0bleak
I can see the argument for separate submissions in those cases.
So why can't you see an argument for two visually distinct versions here ?
I can see two different versions. One of them got repressed years (we don't know for sure) later, that makes it a third.
Two of them got released in 1992 (this is based purely on dillinger.nl's statement), another one some time later (earliest record to be found is 2009).
Again ... if this was Depeche Mode or Beatles, we would have another one for the different margins printed.
Why this double standard ? Why forcing those into one submission when they are clearly different ?
cereal
if this was Depeche Mode or Beatles, we would have another one for the different margins printed.
Not true for DM at least. Here's two releases with different pressing rings under the same entry, Leave In Silence. There's probably more, I only checked a few.
Management's ruling on this is clear. If different plants can't be identified then it's considered the same edition until otherwise can be proven.
Bong
Management's ruling on this is clear. If different plants can't be identified then it's considered the same edition until otherwise can be proven.
I disagree with that. There is enough evidence to show those are not the same pressings.
Yet we do not know the exact pressing plant, but asShowbiz_Kid confirmed, it is very unlikely that such a "non major label" release was pressed in a plant that was big enough to have multiple presses.
The reason of doubt is there and in that case this should justify a different sub.
There is nothing to lose for the database by that. There is something to lose (a different version), if this gets merged once again.
So instead of considering this the same, please show some evidence they are indeed the same.
Guess what ... none of that evidence was presented.
This has already been mentioned, but the burden of proof lies on the submitter to show that they indeed are pressed at different plants or that the pressing rings shows that one of them can be identified as a repress. Right now there's nothing telling us where it was pressed and there's conflicting information on at which point in time the pressing rings can be tied to.
At least for RI and GZ it was true for the early nineties as well.
cereal
but back then Detroit labels did not use GZ or RI.
Of course they didn't, they would have used US plants. I was only showing that it's not uncommon for small labels to use bigger plants. Not now, not back then.
Talking of Precision Records, here you have examples of two records pressed at the same small plant (if the info is correct) with different pressing rings: Sounds Of Chicago
cereal
Why this double standard ? Why forcing those into one submission when they are clearly different ?
Did you read the whole paragraph written after the part you quoted?
cereal
There is something to lose (a different version), if this gets merged once again.
No, there isn't. Images of the different pressing rings and adding release notes stating that there are two different pressing rings.
It's certainly better than adding an additional 2 or 3 (?!) versions built on speculation.
would like to invite Diognes_The_Fox to this discussion, since their participation to the forum thread and company’s profile, below.
the reason : 1992 version of ’Archer Record Pressing’s rings which were valid from the begining of the company until circa 1995 (a LENED pressing plant / press equiped with a mould stamping a large bush / circa 70 mm ring + a small 11 mm ring to be confirmed).
as already stated together in the forum thread ’questions about archer record pressing identification’, different SMT press were acquired by the company with different moulds, which are stamping ‘muffin’ rings on the labels since 1995 until today (more than the Lened they have kept as a spare plant, until more SMT plants were acquired at the begining of the 2000’s, imo).
actually, similar Archer Record Pressing specificity, but a third type (a european one imo, as per circa 32 mm single ring on flat labels...).
both versions should stay ! they shouldn’t be merged ! thanks’
dub_e_72
1992 version of ’The Final Frontier’ is reading unique Archer Record Pressing’s rings which were valid from the begining of the company until circa 1995 (a LENED pressing plant / press equiped with a mould stamping a large bush / circa 70 mm ring + a small 11 mm ring to be confirmed).
as already stated together in the forum thread ’questions about archer record pressing identification’, different SMT press were acquired by the company with different moulds, which are stamping ‘muffin’ rings on the labels since 1995 until today
Different pressing rings or grooves should not be considered as a differentiating factor, unless there is some reference in the patterns that refers to a specific LCCN. Many factories had at the same time different models of pressing machines that generated different rings and grooves.
* The Brazilian RCA is an exemplary case. It had been a large scale factory since the 50s, with dozens of pressing machines, and in the early 70s they began to modernize their equipment, without rendering the old presses unusable. Thus, from 1971 to 1973, long-run records were pressed on different machines, with different printing patterns but zero differences in cover artwork, labels printing or even runouts stamping, which at that time were often machine stamped without identification of the different plating used.
A statement that "different stamping causing different rings or grooves should not be submitted as unique releases unless different manufacturers or years of production can be identified in them" should - IMO - be added in the RSG §1.4.4.
The "pressing ring makes a release" fanclub reminds a lot on the "translucent when when held to strong light" fanclub. ("Or the "This is obviously a promo, so lets add the tag".)
Those no votes for merge of the release in question surprise me, but they mean we need a decision of staff and adjustment (or clarification) of guidelines.
Please do not promote resubs until we have things cleared to avoid back and forth work / timewasting.
Just took a look at cereal submissions. They made some more pressing ring subs before, which should be merged IMO - as soon we have confirmation from staff
mrformic
Just took a look at cereal submissions. They made some more pressing ring subs before, which should be merged IMO - as soon we have confirmation from staff
Yes let's go ahead with your merge crusade. All my submissions have unique identifiers, otherwise I would not submit those.
Please do not promote merges until we have things cleared to avoid back and forth work / timewasting.
Pictures and submission history are there for you to check on details of those pressing plants.
Almost all old Detroit Techno records have versions with different pressing rings and different plants that pressed them.
mrformic
"translucent when when held to strong light"
This is comparing apples and oranges !
Different pressing rings confirm different equipment.
Translucent vinyl is truly just a manufacturing variation, same as a variance in the printing colours.
cereal
Different pressing rings confirm different equipment.
Exactly, thank you. Equipment, not companies. As soon you can provide proof (you don't), a new submission is valid. Companies buy and sell equipment whenever they want to.
I gotta it, this thread is insanely fascinating. I can honestly understand both arguments being made here.
Now, for the curveball….
As a DEEP Archer Records nut, and someone who has sent records to be manufactured at no less than a dozen plants across four different continents over two decades, I’ve seen a lot first-hand and have direct connections to a lot of the parties being discussed here.
So I have learned, without question, that this release has pressed at United Record Pressing since 1998. Prior to that, it pressed at Dixie Record Pressing (which United bought in 1998). How long it pressed at Dixie or whether or not it even pressed at any other plants I do not have direct insight to at this time. It seems the case is VERY strong that this was also pressed at Archer at some point, but I will it in 11 years of hardcore dedicated Archer collecting and documenting, I never truly noticed the pressing “rings” until someone pointed it out on the message board here.
Do with this info what you may, I’m merely just relaying facts without landing on either side of the argument.
That makes sense because it looks like the "32 mm single ring on flat labels" to quote dub_e_72 are found on some Dixie Record Pressing releases around the original 1992 release date and also on some 1998 or later United Record Pressing releases after they acquired Dixie Record Pressing.
That explains why cereal both have the small rings many years apart.
0bleak
That makes sense because it looks like the "32 mm single ring on flat labels" to quote dub_e_72 are found on some Dixie Record Pressing releases around the original 1992 release date and also on some 1998 or later United Record Pressing releases after they acquired Dixie Record Pressing.
That explains why dillinger.nl and cereal both have the small rings many years apart.
It does, so based on that input, we can keep both releases, can’t we?
nice work everyone ! to list archer and dixie in lccn seems necessary, now. i should be so glad to add archer :) but, what should be the required note to be in line with RSG §1.1.2 ?
0bleak
What about United Record Pressing on the same version as Dixie?
oooch... you are right ! perhaps pressing plant and year of release cannot be listed there, but release notes about, instead. what do you think about :
dub_e_72
oooch... you are right ! perhaps pressing plant and year of release cannot be listed there, but release notes about, instead. what do you think about
You can still list the original release year with a note stating when United acquired Dixie and say "Pressed by Dixie Record Pressing Inc. and later by United Record Pressing" and put both in LCCN.
As for the note about the source, it's cassdetroit as the real source.
0bleak
You can still list the original release year with a note stating when United acquired Dixie and say "Pressed by Dixie Record Pressing Inc. and later by United Record Pressing" and put both in LCCN
so, a record pressed by two plants (!?)... not sure discogs needs this kind of ‘premiere’ actually :-(
dub_e_72
so, a record pressed by two plants (!?)... not sure discogs needs this kind of ‘premiere’ actually :-(
If you're going to enter Archer on the other version, then certainly that shouldn't be a problem if it's explained properly in the release notes.
I really don't get the hesitance to be honest because it's the same record pressed by two plants with the same equipment at different times.
tricky one ! please, keep in mind Archer Record Pressing was owning only one kind of press (Lened or Hamilton) until the 2nd mid of the 90’s (probably until 95, 96 or 97). so, to tell ‘large bush’ version was from 93 seems valid, as it was the rings result of this pressing plant between the begining of the 60’s and the second mid of the 90’s.
when the company has acquired its second kind of plant (SMT, i think), then, ‘muffins’ have appeared stamped on the labels of their pressings, as well (more than ‘large bushes’ which were still in use until the begining of the 2000’s, apparently). also, United Record Pressings are reading exactly same ‘muffin’ rings as post 95 Archer’s new ones (as well as, probably many other U.S. pressing plants at this period...).
Hmm tricky indeed, but at least it seems to be clear that those pressings did not happen at the same time, so a manufacturing variation does not apply. One is rather a repress using the same lacquers but a different press.
Thanks for your input!
cereal
it seems to be clear that those pressings did not happen at the same time, so a manufacturing variation does not apply.
i agree, but what we know about the company who pressed respective versions ? nothing, i’m afraid... Archer, United, Dixie ? there was also more than one pressing company which were supplied ‘large stamped bushes’ on the labels in the U.S., at this period.
that being said, if we suppose both were pressed at Archer, for sure ‘muffin’ version was not done before the second mid of the 90’s, not a 1993 pressing !
i did ! thank you for the reminder. i also have left a comment about my position on this kind of topic. hopefully, s behavior will change a day, not sure (matters like this one on the database are so numerous...) ! best regards, d’
[edit : added ‘(matters like this one on the database are so numerous...)’]
I don't want the db to be flooded with any tiny variation of the same thing, but different pressing rings indicate at least different presses and mostly different plants.
If any tiny change on a layout of a printed label is sufficient to justify a submission, then for sure something as obvious and visible as different physical characteristics of a pressed record justify one as well.
