Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > For collector's only

forum rss feed
Author

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 10, 08:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1224876/question-about-de-lane-lea-bbc-session-2-bootlegs.aspx?page=2

De Lane Lea Demos
FACT: I bought two versions of this tape from the same source. A master reel and a copy...
Guess which version I sold  - and which version I kept?

I also seem to recall GB sticking his nose in sometime after the deal was completed - because he thought it was
dishonest of me to sell the copy - while retaining the master - you go figure!

Serious Question here:
As a collector (be it CD's, coins, stamps or whatever) one can sometimes end up with doubles or even multiples of the same item.
Is it therefore only me who keeps the "best" and sells or trades on the "inferior version" (even if it is in mint condition) - or as I suspect - is this the way all of us handle our duplicate items?

If this is so, why would a third party get involved in a trade that had nothing to do with him, and claim "foul!" after the event?


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Jazz 78 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 502 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 10, 08:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To answer the first part of your question... you keep whatever you think is the better quality of ANY item that you have and trade or sell off the extras. I've done it many times over through the years of collecting and see nothing wrong with it at all. As for the second part of your question... jealousy.

Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 10, 14:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't see a problem in trading/selling an "inferior" version and keeping the best one for yourself. For all we know, your inferior version might well be an upgrade for the other party so I guess as long as everyone gets what they bargained for, who cares if either one has something better in store?

If I know you have a "superior" version I can offer you something better in return but ultimately it is your decision to trade for it/sell it or not.

On the other hand, intentionally creating a lossy/degraded copy to trade is another story. I'm against it.
Inserting audio "watermarks" of some sort in your media is a bit of a gray area for me, though.

Nooooow...

Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :)

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 10, 14:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wiley wrote: Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :)
Standing ovation!


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
people on streets user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1313 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 10, 15:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It all depends what kind of agreement you and RW made really. 

If the deal was that you would sell him your master you have to sell the master.

Pacta sunt servanda. One of the oldest legal expressions in contract law.

On the other hand if you and RW didn't agree on wich version you would sell, let's say the agreement was that you would sell RW 'the de Lane Lea demos' there's nothing wrong with selling the first gen copy.

However, I must say if I was about to spend 1000 Euros on a recording I would make sure I was buying the master reels. Not some copy. If you would be the person who had promissed me to sell the master and I would end up with a copy you would have a serious problem. Not with the law, but with me.

Jam Monkey user not visiting Queenzone.com
Jam Monkey
Bohemian: 664 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 10, 16:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Over the years I've ended up with many doubles, and I've always done the same thing; keep the best copy and sell the other one.

As long as you are honest about the condition of the item you are selling I see no problem, it's up to the other guy to decide if he wants to buy it.


Contact me, I'm no Darth Vader: jam_monkey@hotmail.com
Crazy LittleThing user not visiting Queenzone.com
Crazy LittleThing
Royalty: 1593 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Apr 10, 20:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wiley wrote:

Nooooow...

Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :)

Crazy LittleThing wrote:  BRILLIANT!


I saved Spike's life in 'Nam.
pittrek user not visiting Queenzone.com
pittrek
Deity: 10072 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 01:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, you can of course ANYTHING you like with your own property :-)

Benn Kempster user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 194 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 07:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I guess it all depends upon what was being offered, what was accepted as offered and what was received.

If the buyer had been under the impression that they were to received MASTERS, then the only way of resolving any issue is to try to find reference to MASTERS or if sale of MASTERS was aluded to in any way whatsoever in any communication between you.  If they weren't, then it's potentially a language issue (trading with non-English speakers) or nothing more than jealous and greed.

Sounds to me like the RW cried to GB after the event more out of jealousy than anything else in terms of the buyer wanting MASTERS and not getting them atthe budget price he had in mind.  GB's a slimy little bastard who has some questionable links with various Europeans who believe being "in" with him will open the floodgates for them through trading with him.

When I used to trade Who tapes across the US, I came up against a number of people who said that they had something and then, what arrived after receiving what they EXPECTED from me, simply lied.  No money changed hands in that respect, but it's kind of illustrative of the mentality of some people and how deeply they CRAVE and WANT simply for the sake of it as opposed to maintaining any kind of personal standards in such things.

scollins user not visiting Queenzone.com
scollins
Bohemian: 255 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 09:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i have a disc called     queen in the beginning its got over etc and it from 1971 and it says de lane lea with 5 traks on the disc it says qcd 01 is this worth anything? thanks


studyan
Soundfreak user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 378 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 09:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

scollins wrote:
i have a disc called     queen in the beginning its got over etc and it from 1971 and it says de lane lea with 5 traks on the disc it says qcd 01 is this worth anything? thanks

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Things like that have no fixed "worth", it's just a question of interest. If you find someone being desperate to buy it, he may pay more money, you may even find no one. And no one knows how many copies are existing.
Also this particular bootleg is not the best, it plays false speed and the eq is also very lousy.

The real mastertape would be worth a lot of course. But even this is debatable.

Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 10:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I guess there's nothing bad about passing on your older copy when you have a better copy. But then, there's that other part of me that feels like having multiple versions of the same thing in various forms of quality is clogging up that market. Blurring the lines about this version or that version, etc.
Does it always have to be about having the best copy for yourself and passing on something lesser to another person? Can't we all just have one definitive copy?

Adam.

Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 10:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Adam Baboolal wrote: I guess there's nothing bad about passing on your older copy when you have a better copy. But then, there's that other part of me that feels like having multiple versions of the same thing in various forms of quality is clogging up that market. Blurring the lines about this version or that version, etc.
Does it always have to be about having the best copy for yourself and passing on something lesser to another person? Can't we all just have one definitive copy?

Adam.

You do have a point with the last bit and I've known a few collectors who have that attitude. Still, there's usually a part of their collection that they are not willing to part with, and IMO that's their choice (not that you implied otherwise).

When it's something material and commercially available, there's really no question, is it? A Mint copy of a portuguese "Keep yourself alive" 45 will be worth more than a Fair one.

For recorded material that is only available on reel to reel tape or perhaps acetates maybe it's not that simple but the same principle could apply. Like I said in an earlier post, it's not like you're "polluting the trading pool" if you trade/sell an inferior version to the one YOU (and only you) have, unless there is a better version widely available. It would still be an upgrade to everybody else.

Now, if you have the best version and then make copies of it on tape and claim they are something that they are not with the only intention of making profit, then it's dishonest.

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 10:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote: Serious Question here:

As a collector (be it CD's, coins, stamps or whatever) one can sometimes end up with doubles or even multiples of the same item.
Is it therefore only me who keeps the "best" and sells or trades on the "inferior version" (even if it is in mint condition) - or as I suspect - is this the way all of us handle our duplicate items?


Pretty normal way of acting, I'd say.

If this is so, why would a third party get involved in a trade that had nothing to do with him, and claim "foul!" after the event?


Because the party in question was Greg Brooks, who operates according to a logic all of his own. We hope.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 13:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It is all academic now, but, considering the buyer paid less than a 'Bo Rhap blue vinyl', I don't think it was that bad a deal for what it was - which was a copy of the De Lane Lea demos.
Also, considering the profits he made from his CD bootlegs - he actually made money on the deal - which in effect means at the end of the day, he got his tape for free. So I think he came off OK.

Now, when I talk about GB's interference, I don't mean a few days, or a few weeks later. This was years afterwards when I told him I retained the best copy - it was then he cried 'foul!', and it was then I thought - what had this to do with him anyhow?

I personally believe it is this 'Copy' tape which is in the archives - but I may be wrong - and that is what is at the core.


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 14:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

So there you have it: he's jealous about not having the best tape (or cassette, or whatever it is).


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 14:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote: It is all academic now, but, considering the buyer paid less than a 'Bo Rhap blue vinyl', I don't think it was that bad a deal for what it was - which was a copy of the De Lane Lea demos.
Also, considering the profits he made from his CD bootlegs - he actually made money on the deal - which in effect means at the end of the day, he got his tape for free. So I think he came off OK.

Now, when I talk about GB's interference, I don't mean a few days, or a few weeks later. This was years afterwards when I told him I retained the best copy - it was then he cried 'foul!', and it was then I thought - what had this to do with him anyhow?

I personally believe it is this 'Copy' tape which is in the archives - but I may be wrong - and that is what is at the core.

I think Sebastian's got a point. He probably thinks you and the whole trading community should consistently trade their best, lowest generation material so that he can get his hands on it without any effort and have his supernatural hold on the masses of fans with trinkets from the archives. And here, in this case, he's sour about you having acquired the better items, as apparently (from his own ranting) you have in a multitude of cases.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 17:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

He's jealous? Is that really how you think, TQ? Maybe he thinks that such an item should be part of the band's archive rather than a private collector having the best copy for their own pleasure. You see why I don't like all this copy this and good/bad versions floating about. It just creates this weird subterfuge amongst people and can create bad vibes. It's very strange behaviour if you ask me.

It's at times like these I thank god for people like the Dr Who fans who willingly give anything and everything towards the Dr Who archive. There's something incredibly noble about what they do.

Adam.

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 17:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Why should I not have the best copy in a private collection?
I paid for after all - not QPL. It's not as if I stole anything.

What excatly was the last donation by a Doctor Who fan?


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Adam Baboolal user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam Baboolal
Deity: 4986 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Apr 10, 18:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I never argued that you shouldn't because, you can. You paid for it. But I'm getting at the idea of it. Look at this thread you created about this one thing. I'm glad cause you brought attention to it, actually.

As for the last thing given to the Dr Who archive, I'm not privy to that info. Anyone here that is? Again, it was simply a point about giving something back to the show (or artist). That's all. I was just citing them (the fans) as an inspirational lot.
Don't feel like I'm saying you're bad, I'm not. It just breaks my heart when I see these kind of items kept for personal collections. I have this belief that with something historical like this, I'd give it the best home for all to see. Money be damned, I want people to be happy. And not left bitching about this track being kept or that track sounding worse than this person's track, etc. etc. I'll never forget Wiley (I think that's right), who first uploaded an mp3 copy of the rare Let Me Live track pressing where the backing vocals were intact. And when asked for a flac version, he uploaded a flac version! Now, THAT was inspirational! Before he came and did that, the best copy I'd heard was a slightly hissy but grungy sounding version.

I guess I'm just getting sick of that world around Queen. QZ seems to bring about more free trade which, can be enjoyed by all. But when I hear about things intentionally hoarded away somewhere while the lesser versions are put back out there? It's just depressing. It reminds me of an article where it touched on how much fine art we'll never see because it's in someone's personal collection. I know that's not the same thing because we get to hear something of the De Lane Lea demos, but maybe it's like putting up a dirty window in front of a picture. The view is not quite the same. I wish the Queen trade community would be more open and friendly towards the everyday Queen fan. How about someone giving us 1 free rare track a year?

Adam.