 |
... |  |
||||||||||||||||
|
The Sgt. Pepper Decca Contract Pressing In Summer 2006 we at Beatlescollecting.co.uk became aware of the existence of a Decca contract pressing of "Sergeant Pepper" in mono. The pictures that we saw and details we were given of the LP certainly seemed to indicate that this was indeed a so far unknown contract pressing variant - the familiar Decca groove was visible under the labels; lack of a tax code in around the centre spindle hole; no stamper letters at 3 'o clock, only a number at 9 'o clock (Side 1 = "2" / Side 2 = "7")
Yet there were some inconsistencies between this pressing and the usual Decca presses - whether it be a true Decca pressing or a Beatles Decca contract press. The main arguments against it were: 1. The groove under the labels just didn't look right, it appeared a little too narrow. 2. The familiar "polo" centre around the spindle hole was not visible. The owner assured us it was present on one of the sides, albeit very very faintly. I haven't come across a Decca grooved pressing which doesn't have this centre design on both sides. Usually it is quite prominent. While this isn't particularly strong evidence against it being a Decca pressing, we found it more interesting when we compared this information to the late 60s contract pressings we were aware of, especially the silver and black export Abbey Road (see page 3 of the Contract Presses section of this website.) The mono Decca "Sgt Pepper" was kept in our gallery of known contract presses as from the details we had of it there was no doubt it wasn't an EMI press as an EMI would have stamper codes and a tax code, even if for some reason they used a different pressing machine than usual which created the grooved labels. Sadly, from what we can gather by comparing the original images we had of the disc, this same Sgt Pepper has been sold on eBay recently to an unknown bidder. While we had all the basic information about it to prove it wasn't an EMI pressing, we were still no closer to finding out who actually pressed it! Very recently I came across another copy of Sgt Pepper - this time a stereo version which exhibited an identical groove under the labels like the mono copy that was sold on eBay. Luckily this time I was able to purchase it so at last this variation can be examined in detail!!
The first thing that struck me about the LP when I got it under a bright light was how narrow the grooves under the labels looked. This was noticed on the mono copy but we weren't able to measure it. This stereo Pepper's label groove was under 1mm in diameter, while a standard Decca groove is 2mm. I have never seen a Decca disc that has a groove that narrow so straightaway the Decca-contract myth seems to have to be dispelled. Another subtle but important difference between the grooves is the lack of a "third rim" inside the groove on my stereo Pepper. Normally on a Decca pressing there is the large, obvious deep groove which is closest toward the edge of the labels. This then slopes down into another shallow ridge at the bottom of this decline. Finally there is a third incline ridge toward the centre of the label. All of this occurs within the 2mm "groove".
It looks something like this from a side profile view, edge of label toward the left and the spindle hole toward the right: | __/ The stereo Pepper does not exhibit this type of groove. On this one it is like this side profile diagram: |_| It's a lot cruder, just two vertical walls and a narrow valley all within under 1mm in width. Another major missing detail on my stereo Decca Pepper is the polo centre. On a Decca press it looks like this:
Although the blue image displays it faintly, it's more prominent in real life as anyone with a Decca disc can understand. The pale blue disc that appears in the pictures are of the Rolling Stones' "Satanic Majesties" LP in mono. I chose this as a comparison as it came out soon after Sgt Pepper in 1967 and so is a contemporary of my stereo "Decca" Pepper. There is absolutely no trace of a polo centre on my stereo Pepper, even though this detail is clearly present on the two confirmed Decca contract presses of Please Please Me and With the Beatles. The next thing to compare is the deadwax info and weights. I compared 4 discs: Decca press of With The Beatles, Rolling Stones Satanic Majesties, stereo EMI pressing of Sgt Pepper, and my "Decca" stereo Pepper. There are no differences in matrix numbers so I won't bother to state them here. 1. DeccaWith the Beatles Weight: 148g 2. Satanic Majesties Request (1967 grooved first press) Weight: 154g 3. Stereo EMI pressing of Sgt Pepper (1967 first press) Weight: 144g 4. Stereo "Decca" pressing of Sgt Pepper Weight: 148g
An interesting note to this disc's deadwax is that it doesn't conform to the standards of the other discs. The matrix numbers are at 11 'o' clock to the labels position on both sides, thereby making the 9 'o' clock figures stated actually being visible at 1 or two 2 'o' clock in relation to the labels. It's consistency on both sides indicates to me that it could be standard practice for the company who actually pressed this disc. The weights of these discs don't seem to vary enough to be conclusive in any way. The two Sgt Peppers have only 4g difference between them, while the Satanic Majesties and the "Decca" Pepper have around an 8% difference - quite a bit but weights of discs can vary by a couple of grams either way. ************* Tax codes appear on all EMI and Decca discs in way or another - EMI LPs have them embossed around the centre hole, the Decca's have it etched at 12 'o' clock in the deadwax; but the Decca With the Beatles and my Pepper don't have it anywhere. This is actually quite interesting as all LPs in the 60s should have had a tax code somewhere but these contract pressing LPs never seem to exhibit it. Other similarities/differences are minor - there's no "lip" on the edge of the vinyl like on the recently verified Pye presses; there's no extra etchings in the deadwax; all the deadwax detail is stamped on and not hand written. The only other detail I notice about my "Decca" Pepper is the quality of the labels. They seem more papery and prone to pockmarking than my EMI Pepper and the text isn't quite so sharp - it looks more stodgy. From close inspection I would attribute this to the lower quality of the label composition, it doesn't seem to be the usual good quality stock EMI used. ************* As for a conclusion, I don't think we can come to one yet! Owning this disc has allowed me to scrutinise it and take measurements in as much detail as possible, but all we can suggest here is that it is NOT a Decca contract pressing. It's very easy to miss-attribute it and without actually having the LP in your hands it's rather hard to be sure either way. Perhaps the new owner of the mono copy could contact us if he or she notices something odd about it that isn't documented here. But as all collectors know, if there's one copy out there then there's bound to be more. Whatever company pressed these two discs would have done so in a run - of how many is impossible to know. Considering that both a mono AND a stereo pressing have appeared then it would appear logical that there are more than one copy of both types out there. If anyone has a copy of this or any other contract pressing that isn't "Please Please Me" or "With The Beatles", please contact us at Beatlescollecting or post a message in our forum. Also if anyone recognises this narrow ridge pattern from other record labels then please get in touch so we canconclude this variant!!
Written by Andy Pace
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
... |  |
