Prestige: draft guide to original pressings Part 1: the N.Y.C Fireworks label

Note: this post contains 100% vinyl-oriented content, unsuitable for followers of The Evil Silver Disk. Mobile phone down-loaders visiting this site should be accompanied by a responsible adult at all times.

Prestige not up your street? Elsewhere on LJC, new additions (reading skills required):

Reviews of jazz books of  Whitney Balliett

The inside story of ’70s vinyl manufacture

Work in progress…. corrections as we go. I know for some this must be like watching paint dry, but its God’s Work.   Last Updated: April 21, 2015 17:30 GMT

Prestige Yellow Fireworks Label, 446 W. 50th St., N.Y.C, (1955-8)

Rival to Blue Note, Prestige Records was one of the main specialist modern jazz labels in the 50’6s and ’60s. The quality of recording and pressing found on its 12″ first NYC label (1955 -1958)  is outstanding – vibrant and exciting, many the work of van Gelder, and the artist roster includes many of the most important musicians of the genre: John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and um… Moondog

For the most part, Prestige is highly collectable, especially the early titles, with the most coveted 1st pressings fetching up to thousands of dollars. Prestige recordings were frequently reissued during the life of the company, hence the proliferation of early titles on later labels, often incorrectly described as “original” merely due to the fireworks design, without regard to label address and catalogue number. Prestige is perhaps not as well-documented as Blue Note, hence the need for a definitive guide to the label.


This label-guide to original Prestige Records, starts with the all-important  N.Y.C label of the 7000 series in use between 1955 and 1958. Almost every Prestige title issued is accounted for here, but there may be issues over second and subsequent pressings within the tenure of the N.Y.C label.

The final Guide, subject to anomalies and corrections, will be put to permanent archive on LJC.

Prestige transition from 10″ to 12″ LPs (circa 1956)

The legend “Non-breakable High Fidelity” was proudly carried on Prestige 10″ LPs, marking the consumer advantage from the transition from 78 rpm shellac to 33 rpm vinyl. Thus it was perhaps natural that in the first faltering steps to the 12″ LP the very first title should also continue the non-breakable legend..


AB-on-Prestige-500-LJC-2In the early days Plastylite were involved in some early titles, evidenced by the “Custom Molded by Plastylite” reference on some labels (7026, 7030, 7041, 7042 and 7050). Other plants pressed for Prestige, including the excellent Abbey Manufacturing NJ (“AB” stamp, right)

Transition from N.Y.C label to Bergenfield, N.J.

Many early Prestige recordings were first issued on the N.Y.C. label and subsequently reissued on the latter Bergenfield NJ labels (1958/9 onwards), the latter sometimes mistakenly described by sellers as “original”. The breakpoint is PRLP 7142, after which Bergenfield NJ is the original label. 7141 is actually found in both variations (below).


I have not found any reference from sellers or discographies regarding   font-style, label-colour, and text variation: that is uncharted waters, in which we are currently swimming. There are differences within the main N.Y.C label that affect “original” status, yet these are unrecognised except by a few wise owls. . This is the age of the Internet. Knowledge is a freely available commodity, no longer the provenance of “experts”

Note: Regarding colour fidelity:

this  is highly variable due to different light  label-shots were taken under by hundreds of individual contributors to Ebay, Discogs, VinylRootsGuide and other online sources.  We know there are two specific label colour tints variations, possibly three including egg-yolk. Example below, ochre (red bias) and lemon yellow (blue bias).7142-NJ-High-Fidelity--Coltrane-Soultrane-ochre-


Warning! Vinyl sleuths venture here

Several unexplained variations in some early 7000 series labels have come to light, courtesy of our resident First Pressing Fundamentalist Dottorjazz, super-sleuth Aaron, and Rudolph, Master of More. between them, they are the brains behind many LJC discoveries (I just try to take the credit). Some variations are presented here, using the LJC Compare-the-Label frame ™l. See what you make of them: which if any  is the first pressing? The finest minds in record collecting are active.






LJC---DJsherlock--RTUPDATED:  Slowly, it’s beginning to make sense, the variation within the N.Y.C. label itself: narrow and regular fonts, colour tints, typesetting and layout styles, the  “Non-Breakable” legacy, “HI FI” Re-mastered by VAN GELDER, custom Plastylite press.

The first 30-40 Prestige LPs enjoyed a settling in process, repeat label print orders required to keep pace with sales orders. “Original” may not mean much with 1st, 2nd, 3rd or more pressings in quick succession. But “original” remains the “Holy Grail”, if only to the most purist collector.

What we think we know: (with the guiding hand of Rudolf, the Master of More)

  • “Non-breakable” has direct lineage from earlier 10″ Prestige LPs, so it’s potentially an early indicator, but a passing anomaly on just a few titles, replaced by HI FI
  • “HI FI” is the main early text. It competes with the Van Gelder reference: which is earlier?  On the evidence of 9 &10 comparison above, Van Gelder reference could be later than HI FI, or possibly not. A known unknown.
  • The Plastylite connection – “custom molded” – was an early Prestige relationship that didn’t last. So they are early.
  • The  more-delicate regular font is early. The typesetting layout of the earliest labels has a more balanced, rounded form. The use of narrow fonts to squeeze information onto the label looks like a later characteristic.
  • With manual typesetting in cast metal, variations in spacing and positioning of text are to be expected, and may not mean much of itself.
  • The presence of full artist listings below the title, all on the upper half of the label – seems characteristic of early pressings
  • Song-writer credits including royalty collection organisation (e.g. BMI). In the ’50s , record companies were notorious for assigning publishing to their themselves. It wasn’t until much later artists got wise to their publishing rights, early ’60s, though some artists were quicker on the uptake than others. Useful potential indicator.

The first forty label pictures in the guide are being updated to reflect these considerations.

Reader Feedback

If you find any significant variation in your collection from those published here, email these in if you wish. If you have been injured in an accident at work that was not your fault, or even sold a record claiming to be original that wasn’t, you may be entitled to compensation. You can report variations to LJC, I promise to look into them. Briefly.

Technical note on label photo colour variation

The aggregation here of label shots from different internet sources to into small multiple sets is the most efficient means of design comparison but not a reliable guide to colour variation of Prestige’s different label print suppliers.

Hell is other people’s photography. Some seller photos have an appearance of yellow-ochre which, if you neutralise their red colour-cast, reveals they are in fact lemon-yellow. Or they are underexposed and look green, which when corrected, shifts the colour to bright yellow. Those taken by window light often have a blue cast. Consumer camera auto white balance is not suited to this kind of product photography.  These are some examples encountered  on the way.



I hereby place a curse on record sellers who show you the whole vinyl disk, and think it’s cool to photograph it at a 45° angle so you can’t read the label. Where colour is badly adrift, I have corrected toward egg-yolk, by default. How sweet the birdie sings…

On to The Guide (updated continuously as existing pictures of second or later pressing are replaced with a first edition label )

Last updated: April 21, 2015 17:30






To be continued, the Bergenfield releases, but I am becoming allergic to the colour yellow for some reason, it might be a while…

If you spot any errors or omissions, I’d be amazed of there aren’t some in a project this scale, comment or email. If you have 1st press correction or  better picture email me.


7001 large scale uploaded to illustrate main post, with ear!

Correct 7056 replaced previous re-issue of same title…

Comparison pairs 9 & 10, and 11 & 12 added

Labels originally posted replaced: 7001, 7002,  7003, 7011, 7012,


69 thoughts on “Prestige: draft guide to original pressings Part 1: the N.Y.C Fireworks label

  1. Super! Another label guide, love it. Overwhelming as always, yes, but makes for a great read time and again 😉

    And Andrew, check your email – I sent you better closeups of PRLP-7053 and PRLP-7057 😉

  2. has there been any furtherance of the GEM issue, or the address issues on the cover? is there any definitive distinguisher between the RECORDS that would go in those jackets and otherwise? because if not, how can we ever know we have originals, if the LPs could have been switched? i know i’ve made a nice marriage of some of my blue notes that way.

    the VINYL is my bag.

  3. I’m the one who collecting old American Jazz LPs(the first pressing, the early pressing) in JAPAN.
    I have 35 LPs within 7001 to 7050.
    My comments about the Prestige first pressing are as follow:

    The first pressing of the Prestige Records should be with [Narrow Font] label from 7002
    to 7025 exept 7007.
    Because 7007 has NON BREAKABLE HIGH FIDELITY as 7001 does.
    And should be with [Remastered by Rudy van Gelder] if mastering was done by RVG.

    For prove that I have 7002/7004/7005/7006/7020 all with Narrow Font
    and 7008/7012 with Narrow Font & Remastered by Rudy van Gelder.
    All of their Covers have 446 address not 447.

    And we pronounce [GAKUBUCHI] not [KAKUBUCHI] for frame.
    Thank you for your attention.

    • wellcome Hiromasa: for our search it’s so important to have so many early Prestige. can you please tell us something about the color of the labels?
      I mean: do you think color is not an important feature?

      • Dear dottorjazz,
        Of cource, color is important feature.
        My memo says 「the last LEMON YELLOW label is 7037」.

    • I am happy that the noyion “narrow font” is now generally accepted. I never knew how to describe this label type. Since the discovery of 7001 and 7007 as original firsts, the narrow font label is the second label variant, the third being what came immediately after.
      Hiromasa says the second label runs to 7025. I would have thought even to 7037. We will see once we are there. I am still around 7014.
      I checked my two copies of 7020: the first pressing with the narrow font has 446 adress. The second pressing with thelater label has 447 adress.
      Hiromasa, thank you for your contribution.

        • thank you, well noted, I had incorrectly assumed narrow font. Btw, the narrow font labels are the only ones with a steady unchanged yellow colour, close to lemon, if not lemon.

      • I am less disciplined than most of you. Having made a break at 7014, I jumped to
        -7025- mine is narrow font lemon, remastered by van gelder
        -7026- mine is ochre, custom molded Plastylite, remastered by van gelder,
        in short, both identical to the ones on Andrew’s tableau.
        We may assume that both are first pressings. 7025 has an unlaminated gakubushi cover, 7026 slightly laminated non-gakubushi. Both 446 adress on the rear.

  4. I would like to inform all passionate people writing and reading this post, which kind of fix we slammed into.
    the “simple” Prestige label, NYC until 7141, NJ starting 7142.
    no, no,no…
    I’ve, till now, found 9 different features to be investigated.
    FLAT EDGE: uncommon and irregular
    HIFI, HI FIDELITY, High Fidelity
    LABEL COLOR: lemon vs egg yolk
    GEM on back cover
    446 vs 447
    different art covers
    laminated vs non laminated
    kakubuchi (framed)
    nice job, Andrew!

    • Reference earlier posts regarding potential anomalies to the GEM 7061 start-point – 7044 Davis Collectors’ Items and 7054 Davis Blue Haze.

      Whilst I still can’t find a non-GEM of 7044, I have just found one non-GEM of 7054, GEM and non-GEM shown for comparison below:

      So we know that this one at least exists. Updated in the GEM covers page.

      The reply to your nine questions? All in good time.

    • like you say, there is more to an album than the label only. The labels come normally with an assorted art cover; we must retain this general principle of matching labels and covers, otherwise we have no reference at all.
      In this context I would like to come back to the “quiz” at the beginning, which is the first? 1 or 2, or 3 or 4? Etc.
      1/2: the first is n° 2. Why? Because n° 1 is the label which comes in a second pressing cover (broad spine with album title, laminated, non-kakubuchi, G E M mark), also “remastered by van gelder” seems more authentic 1st pressing than the generic HI FI. So n° 1 eliminated for first pressing.
      3/4: N° 3 is first because of unbreakeable on the label and flat edge
      5/6: N° 5 is first because this letter type came originally with the first green unlaminated kakubuchi cover
      7/8 are the same for me; no precedence
      9/10: n° 10 is the first pressing because this label type came in the kakubuchi unlaminated cover, which was the first issue of this album.
      11/12: n° 11 is the first issue for the same reasons as above for n° 10.

  5. as I see info-research has reached covers too, I’ve got this question: on ALL NYC labels, the address is: 446W.50th ST., N.Y.C.
    on covers, at some time, the address switches to: 447 West 50th Street, New York 19, N.Y.
    my simple and silly question is: WHY and WHEN?

    • Not found the exact point of change ,yet, it will take time, but it may be linked to the appearance of “Printed in U.S.A.” See example below:

      As to why, that is a good question, also for now without answer.

  6. Rudolf: to avoid the drainpipe, more GEM discussion: I suppose my only dog in the ‘fight’ are my NYC copies of 7044 and 7054, both Miles Davis: Collector’s Items and Blue Haze, respectively. They both have the GEM indicators on the back bottom right, but after scouring eBay, discogs, popsike, and some others, I find many pictures with GEM markings, but literally none of either without. do you know anything about the anomalies, or is this is an open question? i suppose my copies are still as “original” as we can get currently. anyone have copies of either of these WITHOUT GEM markings?

    • 7044 – Collectors’ Items – I got the same result as you – everywhere the N.Y.C. label, all with GEM imprint, my own included (RVG by hand, AB, HI FI, egg-yolk)

      What possible explanation for so many “correct” 1st labels and “possibly” second run GEM covers? Hypothesis: Weinstock anticipated huge sales with presence of Miles, Rollins and Parker, and ordered a large number of (N.Y.C.) labels printed in anticipation, cheapest option.

      I guess we don’t know anything about the timing of actual release around this catalogue number. It’s entirely possible 7044 was released out of sequence, later than the numbers around it. Same could apply to the other title. So the labels were printed in anticipation, but actual cover manufacture and pressing occurred slightly later, under the tenure of GEM. These things happened with the timing of Blue Note releases, why not here?

    • Hi Gregory, your last question is the right one to ask. My copies of 7044 and 7054 are also with G E M indicators. So any input of 7044/7054 without G E M would be most welcome.
      I checked the albums issued around the same time as 7044/7054, i.e. 7041, 7043, 7045, 7046 resp. 7053 (picture sleeve), 7055, 7056. None of them are G E M. They are authentic first issues, some with “not for sale” stamps.
      Around that time, Prestige issued a flier entitled: THE TWENTY BEST SELLING LP’S ON PRESTIGE. PRESTIGE JAZZ LP’S THAT SELL MONTH AFTER MONTH. The flier shows 20 corresponding album covers
      Which are the 20 best sellers? We are in 1957, the G E M heydays:
      7101, 7095, 7094, 7093, 7091, 7087, 7086, 7083, 7081, 7079, 7076, 7072, plus (according to my theory) re-prints of:
      7059, 7057, 7054, 7047, 7044, 7039, 7034, 7005 (with the letter type sleeve). The re-prints were logically given to their contractor of the time, G E M Albums, whence the G E M indicator on the re-printed items. I have an original 7034 without G E M, but the re-print is with a G E M indicator.
      I have the 7044 and 7054 with a G E M indicator but I consider them to be authentic Prestige albums, full stop.

      • P.S. I have two NYC copies of 7038, the earlier with the original 1956 price handwritten (19,95 Dfls), this one is without G E M, and one with the later price as applicable from 1957/58, also handwritten (18 Dfls), this one is with the G E M indicator.
        As you see, the question is very much alive with me. Apparently 7038 was not in the 20 best selling list. What a pity!

        • I’ve checked my Davis’ Prestige, and I’ve got ’em all.
          GEM can be found on on 4/15.
          7044, 7054, 7076 and 7094.
          all Davis issues prior 7044 and after 7094, do not have GEM

          • more info:
            NO GEM:
            7043, 7055, 7112, 7114, 7123, 7125, 7142, 7158, 7188;

            7053 Thelonious Monk: Quintets BUT SECOND COVER ( ON FIRST PHOTO COVER NO GEM),
            7063 Gil Melle: Gil’s Guests,
            7070 Tadd Dameron: Mating Call,
            7074 Tenor Conclave,
            7075 Thelonious Monk and Sonny Rollins,
            7079 Sonny Rollins: Saxophone Colossus,
            7080 Phil Woods: The Young Bloods,
            7089 Jimmy Raney: A,
            7095 Sonny Rollins: Plays for Bird,
            7105 John Coltrane: Coltrane,
            7118 Thad Jones: After hours,
            7104 Teo Macero: Teo,

            • very interesting, that confirms what I had found, Also my 7118, which I had omitted from my listing, is G E M. Conclusion, the G E M period for first pressings is roughly between 7061 and 7106, with the notable exception of 7118.
              My first pressing 7053 photo cover is no G E M; I don’t have the second abstract cover issue with the NYC adress, yours being G E M. I have the third pressing, abstract, N.J. adress, which is not G E M.

          • I have a 7038 without G E M and one with G E M, both have the current 447 adress. Later issues of low catalogue numbers by G E M come with the later 447 adress (e.g. the second cover of 7005 made by G E M has the 447 adress, the first issue has the 446 adress).

    • absolutely, and the music is great too. This one was never re-issued in the same format, so your copy is the only version. It came later as a half of a two-fer, together with # 7112 “Interplay”. The two-fer is # 7341, and is also entitled “Interplay”.

  7. I have a minor technical problem, when clicking on the first 25 of the label sheet to have a bigger format, there is no reaction. All the others react normally and the bigger format is shown.

  8. I’m following this post with the greatest interest, bearing well in mind how my mental peacefulness has been knocked out by a previous analysis for Impulse records.
    I’m trying to collect all infos coming’ out from this and other Prestige posts.
    I confess I’m stunned but I don’t give up.
    as The Master of the More (Rudolf) wrote, digestion is hard and long for this matter, no one elsewhere ever tried to ride this wild horse.
    my dear friend LJC, even if yellow-sick, charted the course.
    I do think we’re riding the right horse, for knowledge sake.
    it’s a challenging job.
    we all are aboard.

  9. cont.
    7012 in the tableau is an original first, going with the unlaminated black/white kakubuchi cover. 7014 in the tableau is a second pressing. Should be replaced by # 5 drawn from the “eight for the vinyl détectives”
    to be cont..

    • Rudolph, thank you for your steadfast input, I realise more than ever this is a foolhardy and over-ambitious project. However I’d rather have “over-ambitious ” on my epitaph than “lacked ambition”, so let us pursue this further.

      I am beginning to get a feel for what these First N.Y.C pressings might look like, distinguished from second and subsequent pressings within the same NYC period. I don’t think this has ever been documented before. I have updated the set for 7001 – 7025 today to what seem to me the “right” looking labels as found on-line. A lot seems to come down to typesetting.

      Having none of these records myself, and relying on (often rubbish) online pictures , I am unclear where the “Custom Molded by Plastylite” and “Remastered by Van Gelder” fit chronologically with the simple “HI FI” text.

      If anyone cares about the Prestige label, input is welcome.

      • It is worth giving it a try with the input of all, bearing in mind that we are in terra incognita. No people around who can give first hand testimony. My first Prestige bought from the shelf upon its release was 7109. So the crucial years since end 1955 were already history. But, of course, many from the first hundred still around in the shops, and bought during the Sales. Andrew, if you have the courage, we continue. I still owe you some pictures here and there. You know the problems this is creating me, but I will try…

  10. I continue with 7013: the label shown is a second pressing. I have this one as a G E M album, with the laminated abstract cover. The first unlaminated cover has the pictures of the artists and the labels are as per your 7003.
    Coming back on 7012.

  11. clever, I just noticed the word “draft”.
    Nobody replied on your questions regarding the block of eight sample labels:
    1 vs. 2: I have a feeling, but nothing more, that the mention “remastered by van Gelder” preceded the general HI FI. The remastered by van Gelder was to distinguish from the HI FI sessions which were done by van Gelder himself, starting with 7001 (exceptional case because of unbreakeable) and notably 7003 and 7005. Also the presentation of the titles and the typography seem atypical of the later standard presentation.
    3 vs. 4: 3 is a first pressing, 4 a third pressing, the now established second pressing is according to the model in 5.
    5 vs. 6: 5 is a first pressing; 6 a second pressing.
    7 vs. 8: they are basically the same, just the way they put the (same) text on the blank labels as available.

    • Thanks for this. With the paucity of hard information from any other sources, I guess the status of “first or very early pressing” is the closest we can get in some of these cases. I’ll chip away.

  12. I almost became a victim of the evil “OJC” due to my own inactiveness. It was late at night and the seller didn’t have a clear photo of the label. But he was nice enough to cancel my order and give a complete refund.

  13. The title “the complete Prestige first pressing label reference guide” is limitative and leaves no room for error. It requires an item by item scrutiny. After # 7037 this is easier since the same basic label prevails until the end when High Fidelity appears.
    With the help of specialists like Aaron we need to create order and establish a system by categorizing the labels by letter type, colour (yes) and features like ‘unbreakeable”, HI FI et al..
    I see three base categories:
    (i) the Plastylite related “unbreakeable” type in continuation of the immediately preceding 10″ period. We established two examples which we assume to be first pressings: 7001 and 7007 (example 3 in Andrew’s sheet). Thereafter this label becomes extinct and the main label, until and including 7037, becomes
    (ii) what I have called the lemon angular type.(example 5 in Andrew’s sheet) The first clear example in the tableau being 7003. The features of this label are a constant unchanging lemon colour and an immediately recognizeable typography. Normally, until and incl. 7037 this label is to be considered the dominant first pressing label. Thereafter
    (iii) the bulk of NYC yellow labels is of a typography best represented by 7049 and 7050 (Plastylite variation). But many variations exist:(examples 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8)
    I think each label should be considered within this framework, which is a hell of job! .

    • Perhaps too ambitious, but a start none the less. I have almost none of these pressings myself so I scoured the internet for auction results, giving priority to those with the highest final auction value – usually $300 plus – “trust the market” to find the most rare copies. What you see is what I got, right or not.

      I’ll happily update as improved information comes to the fore. The first twenty or thirty releases in the 7000 series seem the most contentious. The place of “unbreakable” and the “molded by Plastylite” is unclear to me, as they turn up in only a couple of my samples. Should there be more?

      By the time the Bergenfield label comes along matters are more cut and dried, I don’t think there is much to learn, it’s the NYC label that needs to be better understood.

      • amazing to see what you have assembled from the internet. I can only rely on what I still have and what I had.
        Starting with 7001: this pressing with unbreakeable and coming in a sleeve mentioning Plastylite must be a first pressing in continuation of the preceding 10″ issues having the same features. The same goes for Aaron’s copy of 7007, which you have reproduced. The logical question now arises about 7002 through 7006. Logically they should be the same as the 7001 and 7007 type. But in absence of any concrete examples, we must assume that the follow-up label as shown for 7003 and 7005 is the original. I have both exactly like these and can add that a 7006 has been issued in that format (I had it once). So the 7006 shown is no first pressing. I had 7002 in the form shown on the tableau, but that does not prove anything. It is an album which was repressed very often, so, really, I am in the dark regarding 7002, but a first pressing is likely to be as the 7003 shown. Regarding 7004, my copy, a re-issue with a G E M albums sleeve, is exactly as on your tableau. Definitely no first pressing. I had a kakubuchi cover of 7004, a first issue, but I don’t recall the labels going with it. The 7008 you show is no original, it should be the same as the 7009 shown. I had an original of 7008 as per 7009, but sold it for a brand new second pressing as you show on the tableau.
        The 7010 shown is a first pressing; the 7011 is not, it should have the same label type as 7010. I have such a copy coming in an unlaminated kakubuchi sleeve, your 7011 label goes with a laminated sleeve (no frame). Definitely a re-issue (or second print); I have had a copy of it, but sold it since no first pressing. (The others I sold hereinabove were sold because of bad condition).
        To be cont.

        • New Jazz are particularly blighted around 1962-3. Yellow Fireworks I haven’t come across many with a problem (small sample) but several silver Fireworks stereos that were each very hissy. Blue trident has a few hissy copies but most are untainted, sound great.

          I have found same New Jazz title – one hissy one not. It has to have been a local thing, not a policy thing. Early ’60s, Plant X supervisor Y, delivery of vinylite contaminated. Someone knew, but who?

          I have read interviews with Bob Weinstock, great businessman, and he is fairly clueless about audio issues. Last I read he thinks the future is downloads, CD was great, and vinyl is old fashioned thing the past. How wrong can a successful retired businessman be?

      • I would say the use of recycled vinyl started earlier as I have had a number of Bergenfield (and purple label New Jazz) pressings on that distinctive noisy recycled vinyl. Oddly enough most of my blue trident copies are on nice quiet vinyl.

        • I suspect it was never an active decision, but rather a result of making price the primary concern when pressing a record. The manufacturer was probably using recycled and non-recycled vinyl – which explains why there is not a uniform occurrence of noisy vinyl even on the same releases.

  14. For what its worth my only NYC Prestige – 7017 Art Farmer – has a lemony yellow label, RVG had scratched in to the dead wax with the master number, no other marks: no ‘ear’ or AB. It has a tapered edge. Label layout as per the picture on the guide.

  15. the wealth of this Prestige guide is so overwhelming that it is impossible to digest in one simple reading. Comments forthcoming!

  16. i will compare my small collection of NYC prestiges tonight with this presentation and offer what I can. I will likely return with lots of questions. i’ll send pictures if it is pertinent.

    can anyone comment on info about the flat edge and where it should be on prestige? i know some of my NYC prestiges do not have the flat edge.

    are we assuming that the color differences have to do with different printers, and not with different pressings? as i am colorblind, this is especially nightmarish to ponder, as i had no previous idea there even were color variations. have we compared color variations against font variations for the other NYC prestiges to see if we can make sense of early anomalies presented here?

    • GtF: flat edge on Prestige is a thorny issue. Prestige flat edge is uncommon and I have not yet found a pattern and regularity permitting to draw conclusions. I would even say that it isa non-issue. The colour différences are real, they range from lemon to egg yolk (the wormy one of outdoor chickens). A rather determining issue is more how the words HI FI, Hi FIDELITY or High Fidelity are written.

  17. Magnificent Andy. It’s going to take considerable stamina to see this right through to the end of the Prestige catalogue. All the more so if you take in some interesting detours like the New Jazz label. So I shall cheer you on and lend as much morale support as I can. I can also make a modest contribution by offering you pictures of the labels for Prestige first pressings I do own. These are mainly from the blue label period though. Hmmm… Prestige or Picasso?

  18. great job Andrew!
    I’ve just sent you two variants for 7004 and 7007.
    while my 7007 looks a second issue, I don’t know anything about my 7004 (Remastered by Van Gelder on the right side of label).
    any further info?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s