Hello people!
I want some help with some discussion I have if a record is or is not a mispress.
It's about Queen - Somebody To Love.
The label and matrix don't match up like other UK version. In my opinion a mispress. In other oppinion it's a manufacturing variant, and therefore not a mispress but variant of normal UK release.
But what about the releases: Queen - Play The Game. There are labels missing, and is also called a misprint.
• Mispress is if the tracks are cut on the respective opposite matrix, regardless what's printed on the labels. Or if a wrong matrix was used in the first place.
Example from my collection: Fela Anikulapo Kuti* With Afrika 70* - No Agreement
Track "A" is cut on matrix "B" and vice versa.
Since label "A" is on matrix "A", the release is mispressed but strictly speaking still labelled correctly as the side designation on labels matches the side designation on the matrix.
If the tracks match the matrix as intended, it is not a mispress.
There should also exist a correctly pressed version of the same release to make the erroneous one a "mispress".
• Misprint is if there is a printed error on the release artwork (incl. labels) that has been corrected in a subsequent edition.
Reversed labels are generally not even a misprint; rather a manufacturing variation. Possibly nearly every vinyl release may have an odd bunch of mislabelled copies, be it reversed A/B, same label on both sides, a blank label on one side etc. That does not make them unique yet in of Discogs.
Exceptions are complete release runs known to be reversed and subsequently corrected.
Examples from my collection: Werktag Play Alex Buess And Antoine Chessex (2nd press, "repress" with correctly applied labels)
Both boxes with 300 LPs each are stored in an office next to mine, so here we simply know for sure that two distinct versions exist.
Without a specific update to the Guidelines/Defintions, this difference-of-opinion will continue. Forum discussions seem to end one way or the other, or fizzle out somewhere in between.
kraftberg
sieksa1) is Queen - Somebody To Love a mispress?
In my opinion, yes.
Fix label on vinyl is a process of the pressing. When it pressed on the wrong side, so I think it's mispressed.
I also think this way. If you look at how a vinyl is pressed (hot wax/grooves moulded in shape with machine, which places glue and label at the same press/time. All in one go. One press is one record including label). So I think if a record has a wrong label, it's a mistake in the pressing a.k.a. mispress as a fact. But I understand that Discogs has a different opninion about the term 'Mispress' and there is a lot of confusion.
Isn't a manufacturing variation (unintented) the same as a mispress in meaning?
Then i'm also with baytee37...that mispress should have a more specific describtion in guidelines.
sieksa
If you look at how a vinyl is pressed (hot wax/grooves moulded in shape with machine, which places glue and label at the same press/time. All in one go.
This is not the point.
"Mispress" on Discogs generally means that there is wrong audio on the medium.
This is an error that usually happens already at the mastering step of the whole manufacturing process, i.e. a mistake with the audio master tapes/files. Or if a completely wrong matrix has been accidentally used.
sieksa
Isn't a manufacturing variation (unintented) the same as a mispress in meaning?
A mispress cannot be "manufacturing variation" according to the physical laws of the Universe as we know it.
You cannot "accidentally" press a few odd copies with a completely different audio signal during the pressing process. (Unless you're under the influence of some, uh, substances and you have absolutely no memory of what you were just doing… ;)
sieksa
Then i'm also with baytee37...that mispress should have a more specific describtion in guidelines.
lol...i have seen 5 year old discogs forum threads with same topics!! And also then...ppl are asking for a specific definition. :)
I understand both sides of the arguments.....it;s just what people favor let's say.
But when there is not really a specific guideline nobody can say it's false or true (correct or incorrect). So incunclusive means it's not wrong or good, and give not a solid proof that mispress tag is wrong. Since there is no guideline, it's both just as good as wrong.
And that's also why a lot of records are mispressed which maybe shouldn't be, or other way around.
Even if you are really funny, people can even say "the text on label a-side is printed on b-side label" and therefore a misprint. Like.....the label isn't wrong...but the text printed on it. lol :D
All is possible without guidelines....lol! :D
loukash
This is not the point.
"Mispress" on Discogs generally means that there is wrong audio on the medium.
This is an error that usually happens already at the mastering step of the whole manufacturing process, i.e. a mistake with the audio master tapes/files. Or if a completely wrong matrix has been accidentally used.
I think this is in fact the point. "generally" is incunclusive. And to vote correct/incorrect there first has to be a definition. With it all this debate is not nescessairy.
baytree37
But as is clear from the submitter's comments (on the sub and here in this Forum discussion) he's not necessarily agreeing.
Well, sieksa is free to disagree, but that's about all they can do in this case. ;)
We have a plenty of other very similar precedent cases, regardless of the current guideline wording.
loukash
baytree37But as is clear from the submitter's comments (on the sub and here in this Forum discussion) he's not necessarily agreeing.
Well, sieksa is free to disagree, but that's about all they can do in this case. ;)
We have a plenty of other very similar precedent cases, regardless of the current guideline wording.
Thanks for the respect!
loukash
baytree37Until we have a conclusive definition, we'll always have differences of opinion like http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=7676968
There's nothing to "conclusively define" here, that's a simple manufacturing variation due to sloppy overprint.
I agree....i accept that. Even voted Yes for the merge :)
Don't understand me wrong....it's just that I really interested in 'Mispress' variations. Since they can be so different from the normal releases. It's interesting for collectors and buyers to find those gems.
This is up for a Merge based on Staff member Diognes_The_Fox saying, in this thread, "I would definetley agree that double A-Side/B-Side/Swapped labels are a manufacturing variant and not a unique sub."
It seems that even a quoted decision from Staff Diognes_The_Fox isn't universally regarded as legitimate. Perhaps this means we really need an official update to the Format guideline...?
I think only when a repress version exists, with labels on good sides, there is a valid Misprint. Even then, there should also be some difference in matrix or other differences beside only the label switch (otherwise a printing/manufacturing variation, just like the Queen record done earlier).
But when I look better, I don't see a release page of a correct version. Is that true?
The corrected version has not been submitted because of diogenes comment that only switched labels don't validate an own submission, yet the misprint tag requires it?
Thats seems not aligned.
Maybe this will help. Check out: Queen - Somebody To Love (and then variant 13, instead of the other variants). Also take a look at the notes there.
You can make one submission for both records. Then make a note that variant X has labels switched which is more common, but this submission is also for the correct labels on correct sides, which has Variant Y.
Do you agree?
If you are a seller, you can always make a comment in the box 'condition item' that you offer Variant X which has labels switched, to make it more interesting for buyers/collectors.
Whether a corrected version exists or not (does it? cereal states "all versions I had in my hands during the past 18 years were like this one. I have never seen one where the labels are actually on the correct side" and "everyone I know has it like this") is immaterial: if the side which is labelled "Hot In The Heels Of Love (Dave Clarke Remix)" plays "Allerseelen (Jeff Mills Remix)" and vice-versa, then that's 'switched labels' and it's not a Misprint (or a Mispress).
The quoted comment from Diognes_The_Fox is: "I would definetley agree that double A-Side/B-Side/Swapped labels are a manufacturing variant and not a unique sub." He is specifically ruling against switched labels being tagged Misprint or a Mispress. I'd say neither the black-vinyl version not the clear-vinyl version should be tagged 'Misprint' (or Mispress), and the fact that the labels are switched should just be mentioned in the Notes.
Diognes_The_Fox
I would definetley agree that double A-Side/B-Side/Swapped labels are a manufacturing variant and not a unique sub.
I'm surprised you have that opinion actually, it's never been a standard on Discogs, and is certainly not in the guidelines. In my experience the same label on both sides has always been treated as a misprint. This needs to be sorted out and detailed in the guidelines, not just left as one person's opinion on a thread. Thanks.
loukash
Reversed labels are generally not even a misprint; rather a manufacturing variation.
Again, I've never heard this on Discogs before, quite opposite in fact. I think it's a flawed sense of logic to suggest that a mistake in having the same label on both sides, or a reversal of labels is to be treated as a variation in the manufacturing process. We have this tag "Misprint" to detail releases with incorrect printed material. The wrong inner label or the wrong cover should come under the use of this tag IMO. And tbh, I always thought it did. Strange that this far down the line people have had this confusion, or is it a more recent thing.
Well, I could argue that the wrong audio cut on a release is also a mistake in the manufacturing process, and thus is simply a variant. No, we'll call this a mispress, and tag it as such.
Incorrect inner labels, covers, etc., should be identified as incorrect printed material IMO = Misprint. Granted, this is not the exact same scenario as incorrect information printed on a release, false credits, etc., which are later corrected, but it's still incorrect printed material.
Silvermo
Do we use:
Other (Variant 1): Labels on respective side
Other (Variant 2): Label on opposite sides
Or do we note it in the release notes "some copies comes with labels on the wrong side"
That would be an acceptable way, but it's never been before, which suggests that the consensus has always been to enter it as a unique release. Primarily because incorrect inner labels have always been regarded as misprints in the record collecting world. Surely?
InDaMode
I could argue that the wrong audio cut on a release is also a mistake in the manufacturing process, and thus is simply a variant.
A "variant" is something that can be a one-of-a-kind unique item within the whole edition.
An incorrect cut thus cannot be a variant.
Whereas a lone single record with reversed or missing labels can be unique within the complete batch of a pressed edition. Hence a "manufacturing variant".
loukash
Whereas a lone single record with reversed or missing labels can be unique within the complete batch of a pressed edition. Hence a "manufacturing variant".
Well now this is a new variable, a lone record vs multiple. lone = variant, multiple = misprint/mispress. Are we determining this by a percentage or a counted amount? :)
Are you also suggesting that a lone mispressed record is a variant and shouldn't be entered as a unique release?
The guidelines need to be addressed and updated/reworded so as stop this confusion. If the guidelines can be interpreted in several ways then they are not working. I think its acceptable to say that a Mispress is a release with unintended audio. A Misprint has unintended printed information. The question is, do unintended inner labels or unintended covers, etc., constitute a Misprint, and therefore a unique release. Some s are even saying such occurrences are a Mispress, although I think that's just confusion between the two tag: Misprint vs Mispress.
InDaMode
The guidelines need to be addressed and updated/reworded so as stop this confusion. If the guidelines can be interpreted in several ways then they are not working. I think its acceptable to say that a Mispress is a release with unintended audio. A Misprint has unintended printed information. The question is, do unintended inner labels or unintended covers, etc., constitute a Misprint, and therefore a unique release. Some s are even saying such occurrences are a Mispress, although I think that's just confusion between the two tag: Misprint vs Mispress.
Diognes_The_Fox, can we have a proper discussion on this matter and have the outcome reflected in the RSG please?
