Convince me why I should/shouldn't spend the extra on a 1st press LP

[dustin2123]

All I care about is a great sounding record. I'm just confused why people charge, and people pay for that matter, more for a record just because it's a 1st press. Does it sound better or is it just more collectible? This same guy also charged more for a Mono version... doesn't that not sound as good as stereo??? Oh well I suppose but I couldn't care less if something is rare. I'm not trying to make money on a record man. I'm just a listener and a lover of music!!!!

 

[ra7c7er]

It depends many people like first presses because they claim the first presses with new masters makes the best playback. I don't really buy it though. Most of the time for subsequent pressings new masters were made so its just the same. And a lot of times when records were king. Pressers would have multiple machines pressing the same album at the same time.

 

[DougMac]

I have some first pressings, only because I made a bee line to the record store on the day of the release. Most notably are "Meet the Beatles", "The Beatles Second Album", "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper". I also a few Stones first pressings and a first pressing of "James Brown Live at the Apollo".

There may be a few records that would be worth paying extra for the first pressing just for their collectability, but I buy to listen, not to necessarily to collect. I don't have a frame of reference to determine if there is a difference in SQ.

 

[E.Man]

Once again. In the analogue world it's a case by case situation.
It depends which one you're talking about. what is it ?

'Collectability' is fun but on my budget I try for the best SQ. Sometimes I can't afford that either.
I've found first US to beat repress Aussies and 'country of origin' is a guide. Seriously careful mastering and pressing can bring out the best of 40 yr old albums, and there's been some of those in the last few years.

 

[bluestime]

There are listeners and collectors and listener-collectors and they value LPs differently.

 

[dustin2123]

Mono version of the Stones Flowers and since it was a 1st press he wanted $70 but would cut me a deal at $40.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Some people are more serious than others, and then their are the serious ones.

 

[gregj]

Some people are more serious than others, and then their are the serious ones.

Collectible records have become similar to baseball cards in that condition and demand set the values.

The musical content is secondary to many collectors. I have many highly valued jazz and rock records that I've obtained for less than $3 because the covers were less than mint condition or the vinyl had visible wear that did not affect sound quality. After cleaning the vinyl and restoring the covers they are totally accecptable to me because they produce excellent sound.

I would have to spend 10x or much more what I paid to get copies that were visually "NM" or "VG+" condition.

 

[E.Man]

Mono version of the Stones Flowers and since it was a 1st press he wanted $70 but would cut me a deal at $40.

Well.. that's a big instant discount. That should tell you something.

First press Mono version of the Stones Flowers is for Stones collectors, of which there are many, which is why the high price.

I'm not familiar with those tracks but in 1967 there was a lot of tracks mixed first and better in mono. Stereo was a new thing and sometimes done as an afterthought and sometimes not done well.

It really depends on the condition of the record and how much you want to spend.

 

[dcmfan]

Mono version of the Stones Flowers and since it was a 1st press he wanted $70 but would cut me a deal at $40.

Not sure about the Stones, but George Martin said that in the early days of stereo, the Beatles would be in the studio for the final mix of the mono cut, but usually absent for the stereo mix. At the time, the mono version was the most popular and widespread of the two so that's the one the band paid attention to.

 

[markshan]

Often, but not always, the first press is a mastering approved by the artist and/or producer. Later pressings could be mastered by anyone.

 

[classicform]

Not sure about the Stones, but George Martin said that in the early days of stereo, the Beatles would be in the studio for the final mix of the mono cut, but usually absent for the stereo mix. At the time, the mono version was the most popular and widespread of the two so that's the one the band paid attention to.

Mono was also the version that most people heard first over their transistor radios or in their cars (mono as well).

If the mono mix didnt sound good over those two then I would imagine sales would suffer.
I've heard that mono mixes were done on very cheap and small radio type speakers in the studio to make sure.

 

[ssmith3046]

Several years ago when they were still affordable I set out to collect the Beatles UK Parlophone first pressings. It took a bit and my Revolver with the remix 11 of Tomorrow Never Knows was the costliest but over the last few years the prices of these records has gone up substantially so I'm glad I did it.

 

[krisjay]

Many of the early British invasion were actually made mono so the mono version actually sounds better in many cases. Hence why the Beatles original mono are so sought after.

 

[markshan]

mono vs stereo is a different issue than first press.

 

[dcmfan]

mono vs stereo is a different issue than first press.

True, but the OP said the LP in question was a mono first press.

 

[yarvelling]

When you're talking the UK Parlophone first issue mono Beatles LP's, then these are certainly the finest to collect. The sound quality is excellent; well recorded and well mixed and mastered. A few of the stereo albums that were mixed second to the mono sessions are also first class: Hard Days Night, and Beatles For Sale are two excellent examples of early/mid 60's stereo. Sgt. Pepper really changed it all; the stereo, for me, is as good as the mono - slightly different yes, but still a quality and exciting listen!
Later mono and stereo pressings of these records in the later 70's and early 80's weren't of the same high quality as the original 60's pressings. And of course, nowhere near as collectible, so to answer OP's question, in THIS case, it's probably both - quality and collect-ability. However, if you just want a good playing copy, the early 70's pressings are equal to the 60's versions.
All depends ultimately on the artists wanted, and the recording/pressing times and processes...

 

[wmgwizard]

In a nutshell it boils down to what you want and how bad you want it.

From a listening standpoint there is no guarantee that a 1st press will sound better. For a collector, there is only one "first" so the price goes up.

Many early rock albums were recorded, mastered and initially(first press) offered in mono. Once again, no guarantee of better sound but certainly more collectable.

If your in it for the music look for records in good clean physical condition and buy the best you can. Unless you listen back to back you won't notice any difference if there was any difference to begin with.

 

[the_nines]

All I care about is a great sounding record. .....

Then you shouldn't care if it's a first, second, third or fourth pressing.

If it sounds great is all that should matter.

Yes?

 

[markshan]

From a listening standpoint there is no guarantee that a 1st press will sound better. For a collector, there is only one "first" so the price goes up.

Since "better" is a matter of opinion, there is no way to predict what will be better to a given listener. However, unheard I will take a first pressing every time.