For collector's only

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1224876/question-about-de-lane-lea-bbc-session-2-bootlegs.aspx?page=2

De Lane Lea Demos
FACT: I bought two versions of this tape from the same source. A master reel and a copy...
Guess which version I sold  - and which version I kept?

I also seem to recall GB sticking his nose in sometime after the deal was completed - because he thought it was
dishonest of me to sell the copy - while retaining the master - you go figure!

Serious Question here:
As a collector (be it CD's, coins, stamps or whatever) one can sometimes end up with doubles or even multiples of the same item.
Is it therefore only me who keeps the "best" and sells or trades on the "inferior version" (even if it is in mint condition) - or as I suspect - is this the way all of us handle our duplicate items?

If this is so, why would a third party get involved in a trade that had nothing to do with him, and claim "foul!" after the event?

To answer the first part of your question... you keep whatever you think is the better quality of ANY item that you have and trade or sell off the extras. I've done it many times over through the years of collecting and see nothing wrong with it at all. As for the second part of your question... jealousy.

I don't see a problem in trading/selling an "inferior" version and keeping the best one for yourself. For all we know, your inferior version might well be an upgrade for the other party so I guess as long as everyone gets what they bargained for, who cares if either one has something better in store?

If I know you have a "superior" version I can offer you something better in return but ultimately it is your decision to trade for it/sell it or not.

On the other hand, intentionally creating a lossy/degraded copy to trade is another story. I'm against it.
Inserting audio "watermarks" of some sort in your media is a bit of a gray area for me, though.

Nooooow...

Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :)

Wiley wrote: Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :)
Standing ovation!

It all depends what kind of agreement you and RW made really. 

If the deal was that you would sell him your master you have to sell the master.

Pacta sunt servanda. One of the oldest legal expressions in contract law.

On the other hand if you and RW didn't agree on wich version you would sell, let's say the agreement was that you would sell RW 'the de Lane Lea demos' there's nothing wrong with selling the first gen copy.

However, I must say if I was about to spend 1000 Euros on a recording I would make sure I was buying the master reels. Not some copy. If you would be the person who had promissed me to sell the master and I would end up with a copy you would have a serious problem. Not with the law, but with me.

Over the years I've ended up with many doubles, and I've always done the same thing; keep the best copy and sell the other one.

As long as you are honest about the condition of the item you are selling I see no problem, it's up to the other guy to decide if he wants to buy it.

Wiley wrote:

Nooooow...

Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :)

Crazy LittleThing wrote:  BRILLIANT!

Well, you can of course ANYTHING you like with your own property :-)

I guess it all depends upon what was being offered, what was accepted as offered and what was received.

If the buyer had been under the impression that they were to received MASTERS, then the only way of resolving any issue is to try to find reference to MASTERS or if sale of MASTERS was aluded to in any way whatsoever in any communication between you.  If they weren't, then it's potentially a language issue (trading with non-English speakers) or nothing more than jealous and greed.

Sounds to me like the RW cried to GB after the event more out of jealousy than anything else in terms of the buyer wanting MASTERS and not getting them atthe budget price he had in mind.  GB's a slimy little bastard who has some questionable links with various Europeans who believe being "in" with him will open the floodgates for them through trading with him.

When I used to trade Who tapes across the US, I came up against a number of people who said that they had something and then, what arrived after receiving what they EXPECTED from me, simply lied.  No money changed hands in that respect, but it's kind of illustrative of the mentality of some people and how deeply they CRAVE and WANT simply for the sake of it as opposed to maintaining any kind of personal standards in such things.

i have a disc called     queen in the beginning its got over etc and it from 1971 and it says de lane lea with 5 traks on the disc it says qcd 01 is this worth anything? thanks

scollins wrote:
i have a disc called     queen in the beginning its got over etc and it from 1971 and it says de lane lea with 5 traks on the disc it says qcd 01 is this worth anything? thanks

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Things like that have no fixed "worth", it's just a question of interest. If you find someone being desperate to buy it, he may pay more money, you may even find no one. And no one knows how many copies are existing.
Also this particular bootleg is not the best, it plays false speed and the eq is also very lousy.

The real mastertape would be worth a lot of course. But even this is debatable.

I guess there's nothing bad about passing on your older copy when you have a better copy. But then, there's that other part of me that feels like having multiple versions of the same thing in various forms of quality is clogging up that market. Blurring the lines about this version or that version, etc.
Does it always have to be about having the best copy for yourself and passing on something lesser to another person? Can't we all just have one definitive copy?

Adam.

Adam Baboolal wrote: I guess there's nothing bad about passing on your older copy when you have a better copy. But then, there's that other part of me that feels like having multiple versions of the same thing in various forms of quality is clogging up that market. Blurring the lines about this version or that version, etc.
Does it always have to be about having the best copy for yourself and passing on something lesser to another person? Can't we all just have one definitive copy?

Adam.

You do have a point with the last bit and I've known a few collectors who have that attitude. Still, there's usually a part of their collection that they are not willing to part with, and IMO that's their choice (not that you implied otherwise).

When it's something material and commercially available, there's really no question, is it? A Mint copy of a portuguese "Keep yourself alive" 45 will be worth more than a Fair one.

For recorded material that is only available on reel to reel tape or perhaps acetates maybe it's not that simple but the same principle could apply. Like I said in an earlier post, it's not like you're "polluting the trading pool" if you trade/sell an inferior version to the one YOU (and only you) have, unless there is a better version widely available. It would still be an upgrade to everybody else.

Now, if you have the best version and then make copies of it on tape and claim they are something that they are not with the only intention of making profit, then it's dishonest.

John S Stuart wrote: Serious Question here:

As a collector (be it CD's, coins, stamps or whatever) one can sometimes end up with doubles or even multiples of the same item.
Is it therefore only me who keeps the "best" and sells or trades on the "inferior version" (even if it is in mint condition) - or as I suspect - is this the way all of us handle our duplicate items?[/QUOTE]

Pretty normal way of acting, I'd say.

[QUOTE]If this is so, why would a third party get involved in a trade that had nothing to do with him, and claim "foul!" after the event?[/QUOTE]

Because the party in question was Greg Brooks, who operates according to a logic all of his own. We hope.

It is all academic now, but, considering the buyer paid less than a 'Bo Rhap blue vinyl', I don't think it was that bad a deal for what it was - which was a copy of the De Lane Lea demos.
Also, considering the profits he made from his CD bootlegs - he actually made money on the deal - which in effect means at the end of the day, he got his tape for free. So I think he came off OK.

Now, when I talk about GB's interference, I don't mean a few days, or a few weeks later. This was years afterwards when I told him I retained the best copy - it was then he cried 'foul!', and it was then I thought - what had this to do with him anyhow?

I personally believe it is this 'Copy' tape which is in the archives - but I may be wrong - and that is what is at the core.