|
Post by whitealbum on Apr 10, 2015 12:57:18 GMT
I have a white album. Had it for a long time. Covers are glossy it opens like book with a 33 1/3 record in each slot on either side. No numbers on covers or on white labels on records. Each record is in a parchment paper jacket. And neither record has ever been played at least by me and I've had these for like a really long time. On ebay they talk about numbers. No numbers on these and no imprints or nothing, just white. I'd like to sell. Any record experts out there. I'm in southern inland California.
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Apr 10, 2015 14:36:24 GMT
Hey Southern Inland California. Ok. No number on the front huh? So,,,,,, is the name on the front grey or embossed white? and is the label on the record Apple or Capitol? AND, does it come with the poster and pictures? Where was it manufactured? Are the records black?
All the variations with no numbers in good condition can go anywhere from $12 - $40. capitol pressings and/or grey Beatles title and/or no poster and pics, the value is around the lower end.
The reason why it's hard to have a Beatles album that is a financial treasure is because all of these albums sold in the millions! There's millions of them out there. They're not rare at all. For valuable white albums, they need a low(ish) number stamped on the front. And the poster and pics included and in fairly good condition. And the condition is hard to find as these were played many, many, many times.
Hope this info helps.
|
|
|
Post by ROCKY on Apr 10, 2015 15:33:28 GMT
Welcome to the Forum whitealbum. And don't quit your day job yet.
|
|
|
Post by pothos on Apr 10, 2015 16:52:16 GMT
Hello and welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Apr 13, 2015 1:17:33 GMT
Ya, like mentioned above, millions were made, and 1 without numbers means it is a reissue made after 1968. If it was top loading (records coming out the top, not the sides) with numbers, it would be an original UK LP
|
|
adam
And That's A Start
Posts: 19
|
Post by adam on Aug 29, 2016 17:16:13 GMT
There has always been a debate on whether it should have been a single or double album.
There was too much quality for just one album. But not enough quality for two.
Twenty songs would have been perfect. But in those days albums had 14 songs on. So 20 songs would have been inappropriate.
They may have got away with 25 songs.
|
|
adam
And That's A Start
Posts: 19
|
Post by adam on Aug 29, 2016 17:18:47 GMT
Is it true John wanted to release Revolution 9 as a single ?
I understand the other Beatles and George Martin then tried to prevent the song going on the album. But John put his foot down.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Sept 5, 2016 22:36:29 GMT
Is it true John wanted to release Revolution 9 as a single ? I understand the other Beatles and George Martin then tried to prevent the song going on the album. But John put his foot down. Yes!
|
|