Of what? I'll take some of the CD and the booklet.

Edit: shit the quality of my phone is too grainy

On the inner ring in silver letters it says cc 016.038-2 SPV 84-25102

http://www.discogs.com/Protector-A-Shedding-Of-Skin/master/140917
that matrix info doesn't match the original one here, the reissue has no matrix info entered, annoying.

but yeah $10 = warning bells, unless the guy hated it and just wanted to flick it off.
does he have any more for sale?

thanks for the info, I already knew this fact, but the credibility of wikipedia is not 100% reliable. A monkey with a computer may write in wikipedia.



a represses? man, i believe in what a see and nobody can tell me that my copy of Rotting Christ "Thy Mighty contract" purchased by myself in a record store back in 1993 is a repress. The same for Bolt Thrower, RDP and many others



My copy of R.D.P "Brasil" CD has the same matrix listed on discogs, but my copy has ifpi code, so in your oppinion, what I have to believe, what say a place updated for any person with access to internet whom I don't meet him personally and I dont know their credentials, or the fact that I purchased this CD in 1989? Obviously my own past.

As the wikipedia place, discogs is not 100% reliable. And many releases at discogs are incompleted, or contains wrong info, just because people simply copy/paste information from places where the information is not correct or incomplete, without verifying the accuracy of this information.

Just look at:
http://www.musik-sammler.de/media/528965
http://www.musik-sammler.de/media/7641

You can see that the same information from DISCOGS to MUSIK-SAMMLER vary.
Bolt Thrower "Realm of Chaos" information is incomplete at DISCOGS, accordingly from what we can read on MUSIK-SAMMLER. At Musik-sammler, we can read that original press from 1989 of Bolt Thrower "Realm of Chaos" has ifpi code, but this information is omitted at Discogs.

So what place is most reliable, discogs or musik-sammler? any of them are 100% reliable.

In this case, since i purchased these cds back in 1989, and contains ifpi code, and it is the same information i can read at musik-sammler, i have to believe that the information at musik-sammler is reliable and accurate.

I know many of you, based your knowledge on what an internet place says, like wikipedia, discogs, musik-sammler, because back in the 80´s/90's you were too young to purchase music, and nowadays many of you are still completing your music collection purchasing at ebay or trading.
But it is not my case. And my past is my main source of knowledge. Of course all these internet places are a tool, and I use them often, but as they are not 100% reliable, if I have a doubt, I must belive in my own experience. Therefore, nobody can tell me that these cds purchased by me the same year they were released, are reissues.

unfortunately he does. Here's the seller's profile

Well i can tell ya after doing a lot research on cds i will sell soon, that Discogs, Musik Sammler and other sites do not always have correct info. And many of the blanks need to be filled in. Thankfully i bought most of my cds back in the day. One cd i bought recently from a german seller (not on ebay) may be a bootleg though. I have been researching it today, figures that a CD i bought recently would be a bootleg. Friggin hell after reading this board and many others, i am getting paranoid about buying cds now online hahaha.
The cd that i think is a bootleg is

Grinder-Dead End (cost me 20 Euros)
reasons why i think its a boot
The cd lettering is all beige (light brown) apparently the real one has grinder in BLUE and the rest of the writing in black.

Now i have looked over this cd every which way, and was ondering if a later copy came out that year. The matrix matches up perfect.
Matrix is perfect CDT-BERLIN NRR 1007 01, even in font. Everything looks good except for the color of writing on the disc.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Grinder-Dead-End-CD-1989-No-Remors-Rec-bonus-Not-Boot-/230843513815?pt=Music_CDs&hash=item35bf587bd7

Let me know so i can either sell it or friggin nail it to the wall as a reminder hahaha

generic images for every auction fuck him, and if he has multiple copies of a hard to find cds for a greatly reduced price i'd say it's a filthy bootleg and he should be in jail.


why do russians always have to say "not a bootleg" or "not pirated" etc?!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/230843513815

There you're right, in the wikipedia and elsewhere. But the wikipedia is not as bad as they have made you think. And you're free to search for yourself, look for the "SID CODE implementation guide - IFPI" and read the Background section, this is a trustworthy source I guess.


No, I'm an old man too. And checking a couple of CDs at arm's reach, from early 90s, major labels, none of them has SID codes, as expected. Hardly scientific, I know. Checked a couple more, still no SID codes. But seeing that I can't convince you I won't try anymore.


Because it is?

@ metaldiscussor666 - We've had a little discussion a while ago regarding bootlegs and the conclusion we came to is that if it's too good to be true then it is. There are some albums that when found at low price are obvious bootlegs, so I'd say that you need to be a bit more careful in the near future and avoid some shady sellers. Check their catalogue, prices and location. That's often indicative of things.

@ svartetroner70 - Thanks for taking the time for greeting me in my native language. I didn't meant to pass down as ironic and my aggressive responses were so because many times we find users trying to feed us bullshit, that's the reason why dreadmeat asked you if you were selling CDs. Bootleggers sometimes get in the middle of us with strange theories.

Anyway, too much has been written in the meantime to reply all and some has already been replied actually so I'll just say a few important things. First of all you need to realize that EU and US versions, despite having the same date on the CD, are often released with a few months difference and many times manufactured in different countries. The most pressing example are Noise Records editions, take Deathrow's Deception Ignored. There are two versions of the first press, the EU by Noise and the US by Noise International, where CAT# and matrices are different, as well as EAN obviously. They're both firth prints but they're very different, for instance the EU version is silver and the US is blue. Watchtower's Control And Resistance has a lot of different presses because it had one for each country where it was released, and then you have a 1999 repress with IPFI that has everything like the 1989 version but has Noise's website/email mailorder addresses. Since the Internet wasn't around like that in 1989 and the CD has IPFI codes it's obvious that the print at hand isn't the original first press. We could go on an on with this.

I also have a lot of original albums that date from before 1994 that have IPFI codes, do you know what that means? That they're represses. I can give you the example of Bolt Thrower's Warmaster, the first two Malevolent Creation albums on Roadracer/Roadrunner and Suffocation's Breeding The Spawn. So are they bootlegs? No they're not. Are they first presses? No they're not. A little something you don't know, companies repress their back catalogue after a few years to keep the engine running, and before the 2000s it was common practice to do this. RR repressed a lot of stuff in 1996 according to one of the biggest collectors this site has seen, which I had the pleasure to discuss this to, slayerhatesusall. The Warmaster CD for instance was bought at the Earache booth on Hellfest, is Earache selling bootlegs? Or do they have stock from the early nineties still? It's a no on both accounts, they're just selling represses. Now if you buy into that or not that's your problem, but it's the truth. Black Mark is another label who has done this and worse than that, has remastered some albums and didn't provide any info on that. Edge Of Sanity comes to mind.

So, say what you will, trust what you will, I won't try any further if you keep denying evidences. What I can tell you is that it's impossible that you've bought CDs with IPFI codes BEFORE they were implemented, i.e. before late 1993/early 1994. And if you're really interested in learning something do a search for a thread which asks about For All Tid's first press, you'll find that there are versions with and without IPFI. Maybe that can teach you something.

There are an unbelievable amount of Protector bootlegs doing the rounds. The true first pressing has a more matte finish on the disc, where as the one bootleg I've seen of it has a sheen on the disc surface. However, the bootleg I've seen had the correct matrix code for the disc, albeit in a massive fat font miles bigger than the original press. If yours just has the catalogue number as the matrix, it sounds like another bootleg. Here's a pic of my original press, bought way back in the 90s when it was still in print.... (click for larger view)



If yours looks like that, it's legit. If it doesn't, it a bootleg. To me - $10 cost price? Sounds like a bootleg. There was a European 2nd pressing of A Shedding of Skin which I also came across which was legit, with a slightly different cat no. Of course, there was also a Japanese press etc.



Aye, most likely because most savvy buyers looking for rare stuff will spot Russia/Belarus/Kazakhstan/Latvia/Greece as the seller's country and completely ignore it right off the bat. That CD likely IS a legit copy, hence why they're making a big deal of saying it is legit. If it was a bootleg, they'd not mention it, or say '2011 reissue' , 'not 1st press' or something equally absurd buried in the fine print. But, personally speaking - I'd not want to risk it either way - especially for that money!! Wouldn't surprise me it was the original they bought to use as a template for their bootlegs

Can't find any IFPI code on my copy (bought used around 1995).

Take a look and get informed! as much as you can...

http://www.metal-treasures.com/2011/04/ ... tures.html

IFPI codes were introduced in 1994, this is a fact!
If you have cd that says P i C 1989 with IFPI it's repress from '94 or above and other on cd/backcover may be the same as real 1989 "very 1st press"

It's a bit hard to see the picture you posted. It appears to have PILZ DIGIP CC 016/038. Mine says CC 016.038-2 SPV 84-25102. That probably means it's a bootleg right? But why would it have some correct information and not all of it that I saw in that picture? Btw it's not too late for me to open up a case for item not as described on ebay. It is from latvia by the way.

Edit: I guess it doesn't matter because I just got a refund for the CD!

I don't agreed. Some of you said 1993, you 1994 (you do not bow agreement) and the fact is that I purchased some CDs before 1994 and they contain IFPI, so I have to believe in my own experience.

Just check that: http://www.musik-sammler.de/media/7641

it is well clear, a cd from 1989 contains IFPI code: SID-Code Presswerk: IFPI 7302

if you think that musik-sammler is not reliable, then any website is reliable.

Anyone?

Both originals, DOCdata Germany classic matrix for that plant, the right one i didn't saw jet but i see small IFPI letters so it must be original.

You don't understand, do you?
I tried to explain in my post...and i will again...that Bolt thrower of yours is repress from '94 or above it's not printed in '89, i know that on cd itself or on backcover is probably only year 1989? Am i right? But this is not as collectors say very 1st press. This cd like many others have many represses and records don't change the look of CD/Booklet or back cover....for normal people they are all known as 1st press but for collectors they aren't...so if some old cd have IFPI this is reprint from middle '90 or above

Thanks!!

Can someone post a picture of a coroner no more color first press CD so I can see what the matrix code looks like? Maybe a picture of the top of the CD too. I would appreciate it, because I suspect this coroner CD I have may be a bootleg due to only catalog number being on the bottom of the CD itself.

I looked up the matrix code on discogs and it says N 0138-2 P+O-3913-A 09-89. My CD does not have the P+0-3913-! 09-89. Fuck! I bid on a mental vortex and a no more color CD from this guy. Unfortunately it was so long ago I can't find the ebay auction profile anymore.

Anyway, more on the subject of IFPI SID codes:

http://pinkfloydarchives.com/DUSCDPF.htm
http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/wiki/Matrix_Numbers
http://madonnadiscography.pl/article/view/103/

Maybe you got the same (bootleged?) as mentioned here?

http://www.metal-archives.com/~metalarc ... 36&start=0

More on No More Color versions (and bootlegs) here: http://sabbat.proboards.com/index.cgi?b ... &thread=26

Different seller though. I bought mine from a seller named angrax2x back in june. Looking at his feedback he now has a couple allegations of bootlegging in his feedback. I payed 50 dollars for a mental vortex CD and a no more color CD. I doubt i'll ever get my money back. I highly suspect this is a bootleg because there is nothing else except the matrix code on the inside of the CD. At the time I never even was concerned with bootlegs. This is absurd.

why did you get a refund? did he see the thread? and yes it does matter, he got sprung selling 1 cd but what about the rest? did you report him to ebay?
it's common to use almost correct info in the matrix of bootlegs eg catalogue numbers
definitely open a case or whatever they call it with ebay, he can't just refund you and get off the hook.

I got a refund for the item because it arrived too late. He wants the money back when the CD arrived he says. Fat chance. I'm more concerned about the 50 dollars I spent on these coroner CDs back in june. It's been only recently since I started paying attention to true pressings of a CD.

I will open up a case with ebay about this guy. Don't even worry. I think the statue of limitations has probably expired on my coroner CDs though.

@svartetroner70

Well OK then, warped logic it is. Late 1993, the whole of 1994, and on some pressing plants 1995 still. Implementation of new measures in never an immediate thing.

With that out of my system I have to say that you're beginning to annoy me in how you twist every fact you spit out according to your argument at the time. Didn't you say above that we couldn't nor shouldn't take heed from what is written in user-input websites because they're faulty? Then all of a sudden you claim that Musik-sammler is the bible of knowledge??? There's a thing called being coherent which is something you're not.

You remind of Ahmadinejad, you know, the Iranian president. Like him you say ludicrous things and deny historical facts as it fits you. Next you know you'll be saying that the States have created technology to steal the clouds from Iran. Oh wait, Ahmadinejad already said such a thing! I wonder what's coming next out of your keyboard punching...

I'm done trying to reason with you.

@ metaldiscussor666

That sucks indeed! We also come to the conclusion in a recent thread here that the Noise CDs are now so perfectly and/or widely bootlegged that they're nearly impossible to be differentiated from the real deal. Try getting the Sanctuary reissues from 2007 which at least are official, although they do suck balls with having no lyrics on the booklet which is just a two page thingy.

how long overdue was the delivery? he was pretty quick with offering a refund was he? [sorry if you mentioned it already, there's a lot of words and stuff in here to wade through ha ha ]

I ordered it on the 22 of last month. I picked it up from the post office two days ago. I see now that the CD is a bootleg. So I figure, glad I already got my money back.

Is it possible to open up a case for an item purchased in June so I can get my money back for those coroner bootlegs?

No, it's 45 days from listing end. And 45 days from the payment date if you used paypal.

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/buy/protection-programs.html

crikey, he refunded you after less than a month?! guilty conscience aye.
i think you'd be cutting it a bit fine, you have 45 days to raise a claim/complaint with ebay from memory?
go check out their faq, in the meantime try to get the cds appraised in writing so you have some 'proof'
you may even want to name and shame him in the appropriate thread

What do you mean by get a CD appraised?

Amen!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appraised
get a shop/collector/distro etc to check them out and confirm they're fake, preferably in writing.

Like you did with the Angelcorpse CDs right? Hand him the link for the thread you made at the time, he can read it through and have a better notion of things.

It's always a peach when you're browsing Ebay and you find a seller that has two hundred CDs for sale, half of them tagged as "NOT BOOT" while the rest has no reference as to being boot or not, which is the same to say that he admittedly states that half of his catalogue are bootlegs. Talk about reassurance when buying things from that guy!

yeah mate, i handed him his arse, he hasn't been seen since.

http://gglobb.wordpress.com/fake-cds/

Glad to know that.

@androdion
Man, if any person who thinks different like you bother you, then you have a problem.
It seems you missunderstand my words or read so quick my posts. I am so coherent with my argue, in addition I proof everything I say.
No musik-sammler is not the bible, like almost all websites. Did you read my post properly? I dont think so.
Almost a year ago I read in the press, that an official study, proved that almost the 75% of the information circulating in internet is false. As I said a monkey with a computer may update any website.
I have attached links from discogs and musik-sammler where the same information vary.
Then do not say that I said something that I did not say. And read my post properly, please.

In conclusion, what I say is that if you based your argue from the information you find in internet, be careful because internet is full of errors and many information does not have any historical accuracy.

Please do not take the trouble to answer this post, since you finished to reason with me.

@ japc


Please, Could you explain that: first press of A Momentary Lapse of Reason from 1987 with IFPI code?

http://pinkfloydarchives.com/DUSCDPF.htm#MLOR1

Title: A Momentary Lapse of Reason (Columbia Records 1st issue)
Record Company: Columbia Records
Catalog Number: CK 40599
Bar Code: 7464-40599-2
Matrix Information:
1) Top: DIDP-70659 5 +++ +++++ MANUFACTURED BY DADC [Made in USA - Digital Audio Disc Corp. D]
2) Top: DIDP-70659 8 +++ +++++ MANUFACTURED BY DADC [Made in USA - Digital Audio Disc Corp. D]
3) Top: DIDP 70659 21A8 [Made in USA - Digital Audio Disc Corp. D]
4) Top: DIDP 70659 31A15 [Made in USA - Digital Audio Disc Corp. D]
5) Top: DIDP-070659 11 [Made in USA - Digital Audio Disc Corp.]
6) Top: DIDP-070659 11B1 [Made in USA - Digital Audio Disc Corp. D®]
7) Top: DIDP-070659 20 IFPI L336
Pressing Plant: Sony DADC, Terre Haute, Indiana
Production Mastering: Mastered at The Mastering Lab and Precision Laquer.
Release Date: September 8, 1987
Release Information: First U.S. release. 16-page booklet.
Sound Mastering: The first mastering of Momentary Lapse of Reason for CD and the same mastering as the first (32DP 820) Japanese issue.
Total Time: 51:14
Track Peak Levels: 64.1 / 100 / 93.0 / 89.2 / 85.1 / 99.9 / 40.8 / 99.8 / 39.7 / 93.1


thanks

perhaps it has been repressed a few times [understandable]
it gives 7 different variations.

Accordingly the website, "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" has been repressed 11 times. But each reissue has their own matrix codes. The first press of "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" from 1987 has 7 different versions/variations released at same time (otherwise, this website would catalog it as repress) and one of them contains IFPI. Based in what some of you argue about the IFPI code origin, this is not possible, so this is a big shit, there is no way to know the truth? Obviously someone is wrong, the website? who say IFPI started at 1993/1994?

SID Code Implementation Guide [.pdf file]
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/sid-code-implementation-guide.pdf

http://www.ifpi.org

@dreadmeat
thanks, I already knew these links, is for that reason that I am asking how is possible that in other websites like:

http://pinkfloydarchives.com/DUSCDPF.htm
http://www.musik-sammler.de/media/7641
http://www.musik-sammler.de/media/785171

we can also read that CDs released back in 1987, 1989 or 1992 contains IFPI code.