3. LONDON SILVER LABELS 8399-8625
8399-8625 Small or Normal Text on Catalog Numbers. Just to see how far this actually goes, we checked this series for copies we had. Titles 8601, 8605, 8617 and 8620 only exist as the post 8625 design, as do others. 8604, 8607, 8608, 8609, 8615, 8618 and 8623 exist as the earlier type so it's not a clean changeover. So this explains why the last of the earlier typeface style we found is 8625.
As shown below on a mule 8437, two types of label design with Small Text or Normal Text (ie larger size) on the Catalog Number were generally used apparently at random. They are interesting though and some may prove rarer than the others, but it's too minor. We're not doing a list of what exists as what type as this is a minor variation unlike other variations like Gold & Thick Tri. You can say the small text ones are related to the Gold earlier labels in style & the larger text to the earlier large number & matrix, but as that page shows, neither can conclusively be stated as before the other as it varies too much. Neither is worth more or less than the other! Only by recognising the variants can you find buyers want one type more than another. Just to try it out, 2 small text turn up much less than the large text, ie 8506 & 8604. Also having showed both variations of 8435 Gladiolas on actual 45s to a 60s Psych collector, just to see what appealed more visually, he found the harsh sans-serif font of the smaller text one quite ugly & the serif text of the larger text one more pleasing.
Some long text title-artist 45s after 8626 such as Johnnie & Joe 8682 exist with a different sans-serif small or normal print on the title as does Little Anthony 8704 & possibly others. Pre 8626 Small Text labels always have MSCF instead of MSC that the Normal Text labels have, as did the Golds that were also issued as Silver. The vinyl matrix on comparing 2 types of the same press shows it has little meaning otherwise, ie MSCF or MSC on the 3 Little Richards labels, but the vinyl may have MSCF or MSC. The RIS London book says the F is for 45 (Forty Five). It appears to be random, so will be ignored. The fact 8437 and also a newly found 8509 exist with mule labels as explained above, shows the labels were printed in different places/with different machinery yet the fact the label styles were mixed together on pressing means one type ran out before the other could match it.
The Small Text labels apparently printed where the small text Golds were printed with the title in sans-serif print. The Normal Text serif text matches the early Silvers with Large Matrix-Large Catalog Number as explained on the Golds page.
The fact is some big £££ records, that you can compare several copies labels online etc, only exist with one style, like 8482 Dale Hawkins is with B+B codes on Normal Text & 8433 Eddie Cochran is with B+B codes on Small Text shows absolutely no proof that small text is the first!
But... the small cat number can sometimes be seen as the rarer of the two IF the large (normal) exists, ie 8526 Sam Cooke is rare on small text as mostly found large (normal) text. Oddly 8526 exists with 1C & 2C matrix code on the vinyl, odd for a small hit record. As you'll read elsewhere, the actual matrix 1C etc is pretty meaningless so ignore it except on a tiny few where the music actually differs. Having played the 1C & 2C of You Send Me to compare, the 2C is slightly crisper sound and slightly less bassy, else the music is identical. The minor sound difference is due to the mastering engineer & the equipment used. The 2C has no other codes except the matrix, showing Decca often made errors, so take anything not too literally without comparisons. It's interesting though, which is why we've written all this!
From a sample of 71 Londons 8399-8626 we had to check on doing this article, 1 was a round 1961-2 press, 1 was a mule of types, 6 were the post 8626 label, 16 were small type & 47 were normal type. 3 had the codes unreadable as too feint or unstamped in error. On some big hits that sold for an extended time the codes can extend pretty high, eg a 1961-2 press of Everly Bros 8626 has HB+HU codes. HU = 82nd press if B is the first and U is the second! On our sample, for those who'd like to know, Small Text B+B found 3 out of 16; Normal Text B+B found 3 out of 47. Small Text highest codes were H+H on 8467 and I+I on 8506.
Starting 8626 the title & artist are in a larger sans-serif, ie plain text. Again the odd variant as you'd expect, but nothing much happens now until 8900 series with the Tri or Round, see the next article.
According to the VRC book at this exact point overnight the sleeves changed from blue with small centre to blue with large centre, though it is unlikely to be that clean a change over as with anything records. Through years of having thousands of sleeves, the small hole Londons are always on thicker paper. Sea Green Londons appear to be up to 8199. Many have sticker tears from the early days of collecting where sleeves were just a cover and stickered by thoughtless sellers. Number got written on sleeves by the shops selling when new: 8498 is a small hole, 8590 is a large hole. Just to carry it on a bit further, the large hole Blue London sleeves went through certain variants of shading & paper thickness until finally about Dec 1960, when the white with blue lines ones began, which carried on until 1967 when the 'box' London logo started & the red-white sleeves start. Firstly small holes which we considered were 1957 sleeves, then large centres on the same thicker paper as early 1958s and thinner paper thru 1958-59 you find blue with the white corner for the cat number, then very thin paper dark but paler blue until about May-June 1960, then brown-buff with blue lines then the familiar white with blue lines by c.Dec 1960. The exact changeovers could only be proved by having an untouched B+B code with the number on the sleeve. The buff paper is found on some early Warner Bros as WB1 Everlys was issued May 1960.
To conclude this section, Buckingham codes ARE the best way to age a record, ie early & find label types etc, but used TOGETHER with the LABEL style it proves facts. Of course some minor facts here could be proved wrong by records that contradict them. If you can prove something worthwhile, let us know!
There are several 1960-61 repressings we've had or seen of pre 1960 releases that do use earlier labels, any round repress of a pre 1958 is usually rarer than the first. They are oddities really & make no difference in price to any design of a round one, we've tried. Usually found with the bigger name artists who sold certain 45s steadily, though 1954 Matty O'Neil was apparently available into the mid 1960s, we've had a Round 1960-61 press with a 1958 type label. London round centres with 1958 style labels exist, though only ever seen a Slim Whitman Gold one on a round centre 1960-61 press.
TOTALLY UNKNOWN LONDON DISCOVERY!!
This concerns a CHUCK WILLIS 45 on London 8818, so best put here. The tracks on the label are "Thunder and Lightning" and "My Life". But all of the the several copies we've had always played "My Crying Eyes", a track on a 1957 single instead of the slow track My Life as on the USA 45 & the 1960s UK LP. But here's the thing, we've found a REVISED PRESSING clearly made after the bulk of sales were made & someone complained, as it actually PLAYS "My Life". The matrix number cleary gives it away as 45-MSC-2955-T2-IC instead of the usual one without the "T2". As with the Buddy Holly 1960s LP with the wrong track later revised, most buyers would have bought the record on release & few shops would have noticed the error or bothered to reorder once the initial sales were made as it was not a particularly good or popular 45 after the good selling one before, "What Am I Living For"/"Hang Up My Rock & Roll Shoes" which was repressed in 1963 on a Round London-Atlantic. No further 45s were issued by London though more turned up on USA Atlantic, but were not particularly outstanding like the 45s London did issue. The 1961 Fontana EP of his 1952-54 Okeh tracks was clearly issued to take advantage of Elvis covering "I Feel So Bad" and is still a top rarity if not making the huge prices of before.
For this to go "undiscovered" for 54 years is remarkable & is clearly extremely rare. The seller we got it from was a collector who found some extreme rarities, like the 2 1960 Tri Brunswicks we picture elsewhere, but he thought the one with the wrong track was the rare one, we know better as dealers!
