The Stone Roses – The Stone Roses

I also have to agree that this is a 1989 release - I bought the cassette album a couple of months after it was released (spring 1989) but it was stolen at a party I went to in July of that year. I ended up going and buying the record to replace it a few days later, which I still have and it is a non-embossed lettered sleeve with black and red labels.

I bought my copy the day it came out-non embossed cover but with black & red labels -& same run out markings -so , yes, I'd agree with the comments beneath.

Sorry, in summary there has to be a 1989 no embossed version with red and black labels with the same run out markings as the later 1990 re-release. I know this because the copy I am selling on here as a 1990 re-release was purchased in York in 1989 the day te LP came out. The band were still very small at the time (esp outside Manchester) and there maybe very few copies? I put the laziness of have the same bar code etc down to the very quick rise of the band in 1990 and the quick need to produce records to sell.

I know I was a massive fan from Feb 1988, Met the band after their gig at Leill ing Jack Rubins. Took half of Sheffield over to Manchester to see them twice at International 2 (the Sheffield gig was much better than both as they started the 'attitude thing then') and had everything they did (inc first 12" which I sold a few weeks ago for over £200). I purchased this LP the day it was released in 1989 from a record shop in York (I it well as they were the post Smiths band I was into and couldn’t wait for it to come out) nobody had still even heard of them as they became big the following year.

The mystery is Discogs says my copy is the 1990 version with the black and red labels. Well that is absolutely wrong. I know I have a first pressing from 1989 but how do I prove it?? Not all the first pressing could have had the embossed front cover and some must have been like mine which got duplicated when they became bigger. They didn't hardly sell any on first release (esp outside Manchester) so that might be the source of the problem?

Any ideas?

Steve

Why design a different label for the non embossed 1st pressings and then go back to the original label for the 1990 repress? I suspect this edition is part of the first 1989 pressings - it's identical in every way apart from not being embossed. The embossed and non embossed were pressed within months or even weeks of each other as I recall seeing both editions for sale in some stores.