Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
aha, i see what happened.
arthur, i assume they took DPRO-12694 and put that in the matrix code, but that all the rest is missing.
even if they copied the whole thing – very unlikely – this is still clearly a fake to me. just look at the cd, man! it’s not what it’s supposed to look like. (and it’s not like they made different official versions of this. well, not until 2002.)in 1996 a lot of people were probably already aware that a cd without DPRO-… in the matrix code was fake, so the bootleggers thought they would be smart, and put that release code in the matrix code. (i guess it was actually quite smart.)
i personally have no idea what is going on with this upload[/quote:4p9fg9g5]
i’m also a bit puzzled.who tweeted this? https://twitter.com/SPfreaks/status/448111628127457280
what made you unsure? what do you think this might be, in case it’s not a bootleg?the artwork of this bootleg is based on a scan of the real ’94 promo. it makes sense that there’s no barcode: that would’ve been only more work for the bootleggers. i guess they changed the year to 1996, maybe to make it seem like a reissue? and they did some editing on the cd, because the unaltered scan of wouldn’t have worked.
well? what’s the deal here?
i found it worrying to read on twitter that it’s still unsure if this is a bootleg. or am i missing something important? because i don’t doubt it.
the cds i’ve checked all have the same layout. band name at the top. a band or record company logo on the left and the compact disc logo on the right. the track title with track length at the bottom.
also, the type of cd-r and the type of thin jewel case seem to be the same for all of these promos.
very suspicious. everything points in the direction of these being made by the same person. i can’t believe they’re getting away with this.
that seller seems to have been selling quite a lot of fairly dodgy looking promo cd-rs, often for a huge amount of money. there’s no negative feedback though. i wonder what’s going on there.
on a sidenote, ebay links can easily be reduced by only keeping the item number. like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/181351178583
huh, what’s that?
this has to be fake, right? it doesn’t look very convincing, this homemade \"promo cd\".
(also, what promo cd literally says \"promo cd\"? i don’t think i’ve seen that before.)i’m surprised it went for $135. that’s a lot. even if this was real, that’d be a very high price for a promo cd-r.
Also, Authorise is the correct spelling outside the USA.[/quote:xrrwlha9]
true. but where the cds say "unauthorised", the text on the insert says "unautorised", without the "h".so ALL copies of this are fake?
or do real copies also circulate?and how certain are we that the (numbered?) tafh box set sampler is also fake?
and are only the numbered copies fake, or is the general cd-r promo, that isn’t said to be watermarked, also fake?if we can make a proper rip (EAC) of one track of different \"watermarked\" copies (with a different number), we can easily check if there is in fact a watermark present, by comparing the audio (sample per sample, also possible in EAC).
didn’t the tafh box set sampler show up before the tafh reissue was released?
what about these live in nyc promos? did these show up before or after release?doesn’t that booklet come with the lp?
i’m not entirely sure, but i can check later.edit: http://www.spfreaks.com/default.aspx?pa … &item=1902
booklet is there.i believe my (sealed) lp also came with that feedback postcard. (edit 2: yes, it did. the spfreaks entry also says the postcard was included.)
the invitation is something separate. (was the invitation given away together with the sampler tape? or not necessarily?)
so does anyone own a purple US version, or has found a picture that clearly shows these exist?
i know we have that youtube clip, but it’s only half convincing. if the purple US ones are out there, we should be able to find a copy or a picture of a copy.
thx!so you think they choose to have the back insert upside down?
– \"hey, billy, the back insert, do you want it the right way up, or upside down? your choice.\"
– \"upside down, please! but do it the right way up for the EU release.\"
– \"ok, got it. no problem.\"so this is basically a mistake on the american issue: they put the \"fold over part\" on the wrong side, so the back insert had to be placed upside down. (surely that wasn’t intentional.)
right?the small piece on the side that’s folded over is on the right, instead of the left. this might be the reason the back insert is upside down: if you want to put/hide this folded over bit under the magnetic strip that closes the box, you have no other choice.[/quote:tiiuoubg]
does this make sense?well, i received my copy today (from CA, made in US) and the freakin’ back insert is sealed upside down. was that the case w/ anyone else?[/quote:3qignmcm]
yes, i remember it was exactly the same with my US copy (from amazon.ca).i also noticed the US back insert is different from the EU one. the paper is thicker, but the main difference is that the small piece on the side that’s folded over is on the right, instead of the left. this might be the reason the back insert is upside down: if you want to put/hide this folded over bit under the magnetic strip that closes the box, you have no other choice.
Yes, it’s a reissue from ’96 or even later. They were definitely everywhere in the early 2000s. My guess is that the most recent pressings are from that time (even if manilla is correct, and this reissue was first pressed around ’96).
Yes, it’s an official release. And of course it’s good to have. But it’s the most common and least collectable Gish on vinyl. (Or does the recent reissue win that prize now?)
your face, jawn till dusk. lol!