petgrief

No problem! It was something we'd wanted to do forever, but seemed there was never enough time. No, I don't think there's any way to distinguish between those pressings of the box set. Only the first pressing with the vertical poster.

Possibly later this year, but I've just heard rumors.

Wish I could, but that decision is above my pay grade. RSD people told us that they need to be the ones to announce. I'm sure plenty of labels don't abide by that, but my bosses told me that we're keeping things under wraps until they post it. Seems kind of pointless to me, but whatever.

Hi, I compiled this list. Took forever, and unfortunately it's not complete. But I did the best I could, considering that some old paper invoices have gone missing over the years. I was surprised at how many copies of Wide Awake, Lifted, and Danse Macabre we've gone through as well. Someone asked how you can tell the difference between certain pressings that are listed as the same (except for the date). The truth is that you can't, really. One indicator is if the label catalog insert is included, you can get a general idea of the date within a year or so. And I agree about pressing Black Out. I bring it up every so often, I guess the concern is that we'd be sitting on them forever. I think they would sell well, there's definitely a pent-up demand. The question is how big. Maybe when Tim drops his next solo record I'll try pushing for it again. Anyway, I've added some pressing quantity info to Discogs, but there's still a lot to do. Another big project is splitting up release entries for records with multiple versions. Danse Macabre (there's only the first press with the Mark Morris cover listed, and people are selling both cover versions from that entry, Ugly Organ might need another entry, and same with Rilo and a few others. I'm assuming that it's acceptable to have two different entries on Discogs for 1st pressing on std weight, and 2nd pressing on 180? Anyway, if anyone wants to dig into the list and try to clarify some Discogs entries, that would be awesome. I'll be working on it going forward, but things are super busy around here getting ready for Record Store Day and the new Thermals record!

Good to now that I'm not the only one that's had terrible luck ordering from them. I've only ordered twice, and both were horribly messed up. They sent me the wrong 7" the first time, and then were out of it by the time they got around to answering my emails. Last time, they took 6 weeks to mail my order, and wouldn't answer email at all. Then when it finally showed up, they sent me the non-limited version of a 7" without saying anything about it. When I finally got in touch with them, they said they were out of the limited one, and I was lucky to get the non-limited one. They did refund my $1.50 or whatever. Very frustrating and time-consuming both times....

Last I heard from them, these were being made to order based on the number of pre-orders that came in by a certain date. Don't know what that date is, but I guess they are pressing the number of pre-orders plus some extras for orders that came in before the cut-off.

Yeah, it's a self release. SC isn't involved.

Here is why I don't wait 45 days. If you are selling something on-line and can't respond to an email within one week you don't deserve any leeway. Most of the time if a seller doesn't ship within 2 weeks they have either no intention of shipping or have completely forgot about the item. When I open a claim after 2-3 weeks of zero communication one of two outcomes occur, they ship they very next day or they continue to ignore me until I am refunded. Either way I get the money or item much faster and can move on. If you wait until the 45th day you then have to wait one week for the seller to respond then then ~3 days for paypal to make a decision then ~3 for the refund to be in your account. That is almost two months that you have now had to wait. I'm with you. I would hope that people will leave negative feedback for people that would wait 45 days--or a Paypal claim--to ship. I'd want to be able to see that feedback and stay away from that seller. Waiting over a month and a half to get a record in hand, with no communication, seems way over the line to me. Maybe I'm biased because I ship everything I sell by the next business day... 2-3 weeks seems way more than reasonable to wait for someone who won't respond.

Truth, I love my copy of 'you may already be dreaming', I'd love for 'the hate yourself change' to be on teh vinyl. I don't think we have the rights to that one. Sidecho put out the CD. EDIT - repeated myself from what I said above... thought that was on another thread.

Sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding your question... Gemini and People's Key are still available.

ADA recommended that we wait a little longer to avoid any confusion from having both versions overlap at all. Don't want anyone to buy the non-RSD pressing thinking it's limited. Looking like some time in July last time I heard.

Exactly! To each their own. I don't think I'm an audiophile, and I don't try to prove anything to anyone. If unlined paper works for you, I'm not telling you to change, it doesn't matter to me what you use. Personally, I don't like the standard paper sleeves because they give my LPs hairline sleeve marks that cost me money if I ever sell the record. They also produce a lot of tiny paper bits that stick to the record, which are a result of the manufacturing. This is just my opinion, I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do.

So i called Record Technology, Inc - They said you have to press with them in order to get the pink Anti-Static Poly sleeve, they don't sell them a la carte. So, sadly i think most of us are out of luck. Check out this thread I found. Sounds like the RTI style might not be the best after all, if this is true. I have heard that polypropylene is better (the crystal clear material used in the poly-lined paper sleeves from Bags Unlimited or Sleevetown), since polyethylene (most common for outer sleeves, and what RTI sleeves are) can out-gas stuff that's not good for vinyl or jackets. Anything is better than paper, though. http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=36510

Assuming you're talking about the pink-tinted ones that are all heavy poly, no paper? Those come standard from RTI (pressing plant that we usually use) when you order 180 gram vinyl. If the LP is pressed on standard weight, you get paper inners. They offer upgrading to the pink poly ones on standard weight, but there is an upcharge. We haven't done that because even that relatively small cost can bump some releases up a dollar in list price if they're right on the line. Usually if we're doing standard weight for a release, cost is a concern. I don't know if RTI would sell you the sleeves separately, but I'm guessing you'd have to buy a whole bunch for them to bother. http://www.recordtech.com/

This is awesome. Is that a jacket in the lower left? And what's the cassette?

The "white vinyl" thing was a typo. Fixed now.

Thanks everyone! We're really happy with how they turned out. It was fun getting to put these re-releases together... long overdue. Glad you guys were happy with them too!

I wish so much that I could get these. Oh well... I see it as proof that existence is meaningless, fate is cruel, and there's no god. Of course, I am a Cure fan...

Isn't that because discogs is all BINs. I have a hard time believing that people on eBay don't pay when using BINs. I think there is even a setting to where they have to pay right away. My most recent sale on ebay I had to list twice because someone used BIN and never paid. I had forgotten to check the box requiring immediate payment. They were from a Latin American country that I said I didn't ship to. (For future auctions I found the setting to block those countries, I had been doing it wrong). So yeah, BIN listings are fine if you require immediate payment. But I've had numerous non-payments for auction style listings over the years, and there's nothing you can do about those. You can still have non-payment from Discogs buyers... they place the order and never pay, since immediate payment isn't required on that site (as far as I know). I've just never had it happen there.

Way too many non-paying buyers on ebay. Why not? They have nothing to lose since you can't leave them negative feedback, and have to get THREE unpaid item strikes before you can even block them from bidding on your auctions. Even then, they just set up another account. I've never had anyone not pay me on Discogs. I find that the people on there tend to be more serious and know exactly what they want. Of course, as Discogs continues to grow, so will the number of morons and deadbeats....

Actually began back on pg 2 of this thread. We're fast.

They still fill a niche, but with this increase I don't see how they'd ever begin to seriously compete with ebay.

Sorry if this has been mentioned previously, but Universal is reissuing the first five albums by The Cure for UK RSD. Supposedly they are all limited, numbered, and on colored 180 gram vinyl. Unfortunately, none of these will be available in the US until they appear on ebay for stupid prices, so I'm going to go sulk. http://www.recordstoreday.co.uk/exclusive-product.aspx (Half way down the page. Only mentions colored vinyl for Faith, but supposedly it's been confirmed that they're all color).

I don't begrudge them the fee increase, actually. I think it's inevitable as their company grows. They're close to ebay cost-wise, but there are still times I'd rather list on discogs. If I have a rare item that has a small niche fan-base, it would easily go under the radar on ebay. But if I'm willing to leave it on discogs for a month or two, that person may just come along. I sold a CD just today for $20 that fits that exact description. If I'd put it on ebay, it probably would have gone unnoticed. As has been mentioned, ebay is great if you can get a couple people into a bidding war. But that never seems to happen to me. I can list an item that sells for between $50-$100 based on completed auctions, and somehow I always manage to end up right at the low end.

Just got an email from Discogs and their seller fees are going up. Quote: To enable the hiring of additional staff and improve our level of service to you, we're going to be increasing Marketplace selling fees effective May 1st, 2012. Items sold on or after that date will have the following fees: 8% for Standard Listings 10% for Product Search Listings (a $0.10 minimum fee will remain in place) Invoices sent on or after May 1st, 2012 will now be due 10 days after the invoice date. Increasing fees is something we try to do as infrequently and with as much notice as possible. Our last fee increase was almost 3 years ago in July 2009. As a result we've made a number of significant improvements to Discogs: * grew our team from 4 people to 9 people * delivered over 1,300 features and bug fixes * increased conversion rate in the Marketplace by more than 84% * more than doubled the number of servers, making the site faster and more reliable This fee increase will allow us to: * bring on additional software developers, so that we can add additional features * hire a customer support rep based in Europe, so that we can respond to requests in a more timely manner, and in multiple languages * improve our marketing efforts, to increase site awareness and expand our user base * continue investing in new hardware to keep Discogs fast and stable We sincerely thank you for choosing to sell on Discogs and we look forward to your continued success. Kevin