White Album Stereo Uploaded

[muffmasterh]

I agree in part especially as there were so many colours variations on first issue white albums.

However I do think the MATT labels are a label type (not just a variation) all by themselves, even though the txt is the same as some others the label type - not just the colour - is quite different.

Also this is not just a curio - like EMI textured labels can be - they are a definate label type that (like CBS textured labels were) had a pretty much specific timeframe, late 71 to mid 73 although they did overlap the late dark green glossies and early awful light green glossies.

If a late 70's light green had the same txt variation as an early dark green Apple I wouldn't call that the same label type but to the untrained eye the difference would purely just be in the label colour...

[tezca]

Hi there,

Would you be interested of pictures of the Parlophone/ Apple 78 export issue in white vynil? it is stereo, of course

Thanks.

[billstiggins]

I have a stereo copy of the White Album purchased in the mid 70s which has a label design somewhere between the 4th & 5th labels in the labelography section.

The Apple has the lighter colour, with publishing credits added after each song, rather than once at the bottom of the label. The text is much wider spaced than on your 4th label scan. Also, George's songs have 'Harrisongs' listed as publisher, rather than Apple Publishing (but only on sides 3 & 4!).

Should I send a scan in?

Cheers,

Mark

[yarvelling]

I've just acquired (and mentioned in another thread), a 'new' variation on the Label 2 design - what I would venture to call a '2C'! It is pretty much identical to 2B except that now, the SIUK legend has been removed. It differs from the Label 3 in that font is slightly different, and the Harrison songs asterisc (*) are still lined up against the end of the track name, rather than being spaced. This label is consistant across all 4 sides, and comes from a 7-digit side opening sleeve.
Large photo's of all sides are freely available for inclusion if required :)
Cheers,
Steve.

[muffmasterh]

To be honest if this is accepted as it appears to be as a new variaition, I would say that it's a variation on Label 3 not label 2. It maybe that your variation should actually replace the current label 3 and the present label 3 becomes label 3 varition A?

[Baard]

That's my thoughts as well H, since this font is only present on later issues of the album, and that the SIUK-statement is missing from this one.
The fact that it resembles label 2 could date it before the present label 3 making them 3A and 3B.

[muffmasterh]

we are at one Baard!