Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on Saturday

Ha ha, fab432.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on Saturday

I was unsure but was thinking issue date would be the easiest thing to look for to disqualify the sigs without prejudice (or mercy),  or the need to even consider them. Seems it is. I read this was  first issued in 1964 on Discogs, a source I am doubtful of now. It appears 80's retro/"vintage" look, not the early 60's which is what I was looking for, 1987 (after Dec. 1980). 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on Saturday

They’re correct that it was first issued in 1964. It was reissued as a picture disc in 1987.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on Saturday

It was. Thanks Ballroom. I am sleepy I guess. Did the 1964 issue look the same color-wise? I was unsure what I was seeing at Discogs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on Saturday

The original is just a regular record album on black vinyl. They reissued the original recording as a picture disc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on Saturday

So they are instantly distinguishable if you know what you are looking at?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on Saturday

Yes. Here’s what the original looks like:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on Saturday

Then this is as dumb an attempt as I expected. It is self-excluding. Perhaps my favorite kind of de-authentication.

Both the forger and the potential consumer are lacking essential knowledge.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page