'1st press' in the FTF?

I encountered two subs where this was done:
The Rolling Stones - 12 X 5
and
The Beatles - Help!
since it is an extrapolated attribute, it looks to me this should not be done
what do you think?

Pet hate. Unless it's proven, it shouldn't even be in the release notes imo.

I think, apart from some possible subjectivity in the Notes, that it MIGHT be a valid thing to do if the runouts were in evidence... but they are not :)
The Rolling Stones - 12 X 5
Ditto here The Beatles - Help!
which really needs the Mother & Stampers
Indeed, was there not a '1' suffix press?
(I'm no expert on either artists' work btw)

I don't think it should be there unless unequivocal evidence in sub

This has been discussed at length elsewhere. I still believe there is an argument for idenifying a "first edition" where, for example, a song was replaced on subsequent versions: consider Seal - Seal (first album), Mike Oldfield - Platinum, Roy Harper - One of Those Days in England. However, the cry is always "Release Notes! Not FTF!"
This being the case, statements of that kind in the FTF should be voted NMiC.

marcelrecords
it looks to me this should not be done

This, unless mentioned on the release.

swagski
Indeed, was there not a '1' suffix press?

No, -2 was the first master.

Bruce Spizer 'Beatles For Sale On Parlophone Records' (New Orleans 2011), p. 187-195 has three different font variations and six sub-variations (this release: PAR 1255.MR1C[i]). Spizer has not identified a 'first pressing', so first pressing in this case is an assumption by the subber; it should not be added in notes and/or the free text format field IMO. Mother and stamper could help to determine a 'first pressing' indeed.

edit: typo

thx all, will point to this thread.

This is becoming something of a bloody plague in Beatles land - if you come across then remove or move to notes if it can be substantiated.

The Beatles - Help!
Should it now stay or not in the FTF?

RSG §6.1.5 The Free Text field should be used to describe;

Any non-standard color of the audio carrier
Any notable packaging (for example gatefold sleeves, Digipak etc ( see 6.1.6)
Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)
Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example 'Disc 1', '30th Anniversary Edition' etc). The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields
Bitrates for lossy file formats, for example "320 kbps"
Any non-standard weight on vinyl releases, provided it appears on the release, or is clearly identifiable as part of a series of heavy presses
Cassette information such as "C60", "Dolby B", etc

RSG §6.1.6 Unless any release that has the same title and format on the artist or label pages is also released using different packaging (for example a slimline jewel case and a Digipak), package description should not be added to the free text field, but remain in the Release Notes.


I need this thread as a reference.

if it is not to remain in the FTF -
this thread it is useless if the samples are not changed or voted imo.

Willow.the.Wisp
Should it now stay or not in the FTF?

1st edition should never be added to the free text field, we tag the later pressings as reissues instead (so long as they are reissues according to the reissue guideline).
Nik's decision on the matter:
http://discogs.mejorespelis.org/help/forums/topic/233681#2872832

For sure, this information should only be added where it is confirmed - looking to the submission notes or release notes for that.

I can understand when people want to tag the 1st issue of releases with a large number of issues. I have been quite firm in the past regarding the fact that 'reissue' should be used and the lack of that will indicate a 1st issue, but I can't help but wonder what the harm would be in allowing this tag / FTF usage in provable cases for releases with multiple issues?

If it were to be introduced, how would you suppose we would work it. Could there only be 1 first edition? Of could there be first editions within each given territory? The latter seems tho be the most honest way to approach it.

nik
but I can't help but wonder what the harm would be in allowing this tag / FTF usage in provable cases for releases with multiple issues?

Sometimes it might be handy if such a tag is added to the FTF because it allows the differentiation "at a glance" and right out of the MR. I know a release where 2 repressings exist but are only identifiable by subtle matrix variations and/or the absence of an insert / printed inner sleeves. And if you think this is abominable, check out New Order - Blue Monday....
I know three people trying to work out a good way to present this on Discogs and to replace the currently existing "second edition" and "third edition" tags. Looking at the incarnations though, is making it nearly impossible. The UK edition alone sold over a million copies until 1992. And we find: Three pressings (A1, A2 and A3, plus a multitude of transitions, e.g. A1 and B2 or A3 and B2 etc.), two different outer covers (die cut or plain printed), four different inner sleeves (thick silver carton with straight top corners, thin silver paper with rounded top corners, thick glossy black carton with straight top corners, thin matte black paper with straight top corners), and - making it all worse - almost everything can come in either combination, i.e. a cover is not assignable to a certain pressing or period. Hence, you'll find this 2nd press but also t h i s 2nd press .

First Edition - WHERE? UK? USA? Cambodia? How many "First Edition"s are there?
I've proposed "First Version" in the past but even then the Discogs community has been uneasy about the suggestion.
There are meaningful reasons for wanting First Versions / Editions, e.g. songs that were removed and replaced on subesequent versions or bonus materials such as free singles or posters.
I have also proposed "Version A", Version B", etc. to parallel the use of numbers in parentheses on this site and that proposal has received little .
Can we plan in advance NOW to have the site prepared for the demands that will inevitably come in the future: "Are you sure that your copy is the pressing from August 1968 with the 3-lug knock out centre and the error in the credits on the B side?"

Eviltoastman
Pet hate. Unless it's proven, it shouldn't even be in the release notes imo.

Agreed 100%. The first press can normally be identified by the fact it's the version without Repress or Reissue in the format!

nik
wonder what the harm would be in allowing this tag

it's much too imprecise IMO.

does 1st edition mean the promo pack that came before the retail version or the 1st retail version itself?
if the latter, what is the promo then, the pre-1st edition?
does 1st edition mean 'in the native country' or anywhere in the world?
does every country get its 1st edition?
does 1st edition mean a withdrawn version that slipped out in small quantities (like The Beatles' Revolver)?
does a release that has two (or more) simultaneous variations get two (or more) 1st editions?

to me 1st version or edition is much too vague for comfort, I would not advocate its use int the FTF.

marcelrecords
to me 1st version or edition is much too vague for comfort, I would not advocate its use int the FTF.

+1

I agree with Nik. Each country can have it's own. It's only really for artists with loads of reissues which are well documented/obsessed over like the Beatles though.

bump, nothing concluded here, is there?

Mop66
+1

+1

errrr... 2?

marcelrecords
1st version or edition is much too vague for comfort, I would not advocate its use int the FTF.

+1

and when

sebfact
a cover is not assignable to a certain pressing or period

perhaps the best way to arrange the releases would be to ID each variable in a similar way this has been handled here: http://discogs.mejorespelis.org/Rolling-Stones-The-Rolling-Stones/master/9715

marcelrecords
nothing concluded here, is there?

It should not be added to the FTF.

It should only be added to the release notes with strong citations / confirmation.

We may review the situation in the future.

^many thanks!