I'll compare both B sides and get back to you. From what I recall they both play the same thing (i.e. KLF004T-A-1), however. I see you're point about using the existing 004T plate rather than re-cutting a new one just for the same track. Apart from that, both records are identical and both come in paper bags (as opposed to translucent plastic bags which were used in the 1991/92 re-issues?). Sadly, I bought both copies post-1991 so there's no way I can be conclusive. Chris
-----Original Message----- From: klf-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:klf-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of indiearchivist Sent: 28 June 2003 19:31 To: klf@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [KLF] Re: KLF 4R strangeness
At 19:04 28/06/2003, Chris Peel wrote:
KLF 004 R A / ORLAKE KLF 004 R B (the R and B are scratched over what look like a T and an A) / DAMONT
my copy is like this, i assume it was cheaper to use the pressing plate from the KLF004T a side, rather than to re-master it.
KLF 004 R A / ORLAKE 'KLF 004 R B' scratched out and 'KLF 004 R B' written separately next to it) / 'DAMONT' scratched out and '9J4 79' written underneath it.
that's weird, given the scarcity of this 12" i wouldn't assume they pressed it twice in 1989.
if you play the b side, is it really the correct (original wtil) mix, or could it be mispressed with something else? or perhaps it was a bad run that was discarded? is the quality of the pressing as good as the first one?
or could it be yet another 2001/2002 (counterfeit) re-press? when did you buy it?
cheers
Robert
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/klf