My Two Cents About "Collectable" Records

Hi, everyone. I've been a record collector for 30 years now and I get my stuff from every possible source: shows, flea markets, garage sales, etc. What frustrates me to no end is the number of people out there who seem to believe in one or more of the following fallacies:
- All Beatles and Elvis records are valuable
- All 45's and LP's are valuable because they don't make them anymore
- All 78's are valuable because they don't make them anymore and they're fragile
By "valuable" I'm talking multi-dollar prices on otherwise common stuff. The people are generally dealers in Old Stuff who seem to get their prices from guides and treat these values as Gospel because, hey, it came from an Official Guide. Now, I give them credit for doing it if the value is accurate based on condition and such, but...I'm talking like $20 for a beat-up Elvis LP or $30 on a well-enjoyed Beatles record. I try to help these people out with suggestions about values (case in point: I had to tell a guy at a flea market that his reproduction "Introducing The Beatles" wasn't really worth the $30 he was asking for it) but sometimes I get brushed off by someone who's more interested in the Almighty Dollar than the truth about actual values. I'm not trying to come across as a hotshot to these people - I love records and I'm only trying to educate them. I just hate to think they'd keep dragging the same stuff from show to show and wondering why it isn't selling.
I was just wondering if anyone else out there has had the same experience.

It happens all the time, and it happens in every field of collecting I think. I hate to think how many times I've seen dealers with "full price" marked on cracked and chipped china. In most cases, it comes down to 5% lack of knowledge, and 95% greed. Very seldom are they ever thankful for any imput you might offer, unless it's going to line their pockets.
Most people tend to think just because something is collectable or rare, that it automatically makes it valuable as well.
Are my Elvis and Beetles records collectable? Of course, but they aren't valuable. A packet of cigarettes is more "valuable" than any of them!
I have an early Vitaphone record, which I found out through the "Vitaphone Project" is a previously missing record number, and it may well be the only copy in existance. Is it rare? Hell yes... Is it collectable? Sort of I guess to the right person, but is it valuable? ...Cigarette anyone

Things are worth what the market in general will pay for them. And that, in turn, depends on how hard the item is to get.

Four years ago, I paid $40 for a limited edition record from the 1970s. But there is a hitch to this. Half of that was the shipping to get it here from Europe (where it was released). Other than that, I never paid more than a few bucks for a used record.

Today, most records are not worth more than a couple of dollars.

But there was a time when people were paying as much as $100 for certain records. Here is the story of that:

From 1939 on, our country was under rationing of certain commodities, because the Axis Powers had seized the sources for the materials needed to make them. One of these materials was shellac. 78 rpm records were made of shellac, and Japan had captured most of the suppliers of natural shellac. Since shellac was needed for aircraft manufacture and war was looming, Roosevelt put rationing on shellac.

Under the rules of rationing, record companies had to stretch the shellac they used, and anyone who wanted to buy a record had to turn in an old record. So the record companies started making substandard records, adding filler materials to the shellac, and putting cores made of other materials between layers of shellac. They also ground up the records that were turned in, to get the shellac to make more records.

Meanwhile, people turned in favorite records to get the newest wartime hits. Collections were ruined as people turned in records. Only libraries were exempt. And because the wartime records were substandard, the throwoff and knife-type record changers started breaking them instead of changing them. This further depleted record collections.

After the war, people tried to rebuild their prewar collections. From 1946 until 1953, many people were paying large amounts to get the records they lost during the war. With the economic boom during that period, people could afford to pay that much.

Then, the record companies started releasing their repertories on LP. This took the value out of the 78s, because the LPs sounded better and were harder to break. Classical albums lost value very quickly, because the pauses between 78 sides were gone. The music was in one piece, as it should be.

Only a few records retained value after the LP releases:

- Records which were never reissued after the war.

- Records for which the masters were lost. Many companies donated their oldest and worst selling masters to the war effort scrap metal drives.

This happened to a large part of the Gennett repertoire, because the company went bankrupt, and the court sold the masters as scrap metal to pay the creditors. All of them would have been gone if an enterprising collector hadn't spotted them in the scrapyard and bought them for the price of their metal value.

- Records which had most of the existing copies turned in to the rationing for the coupon to buy a new record.

- Some records totally disappeared. No known copies exist. If one is found, it will be very valuable.

- Others are very rare. There is one record with only two known copies. One of them recently sold for $40000.

- There were some shellac records which acquired some value in the 1950s and 1960s because collectors were seeking extra copies. They thought they were getting bad pressings. Actually, all of them were manufactured to standards that didn't work well with the standard groove stylus. Also, some of them were recorded vertically in a time when vertical recording was not being used very much. But now that the proper way to play them has been found, they no longer have this extra value.

- No bestselling recordings are rare. There were so many copies sold that millions still exist.

- There are several albums that came with one or more LPs, and a 45 in the same jacket. Often the 45 has become separated from the other records. These albums fetch more money if the 45 is included. Examples are:

- - John Williams "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"
- - Joan Baez "Blessed Are"

- Radio station copies usually differ in only the label on the record, and possibly the jacket. They are usually not worth more than the equivalent consumer record. But there are a few exceptions:

- - The radio-station version of Don McLean's "American Pie" single was originally released on a 10" 45 rpm disc, so the entire song would play at once. The consumer single had half of the song on each side of a 7" 45.

- - Early radio-station copies of the Beatles "Let It Be" album was released with the two sides of the album on different discs. The flip sides of these records had blank grooves. This was done so the entire album could be played without a break.

shane wrote:It happens all the time, and it happens in every field of collecting I think. I hate to think how many times I've seen dealers with "full price" marked on cracked and chipped china. In most cases, it comes down to 5% lack of knowledge, and 95% greed. Very seldom are they ever thankful for any imput you might offer, unless it's going to line their pockets.
Most people tend to think just because something is collectable or rare, that it automatically makes it valuable as well.
Are my Elvis and Beetles records collectable? Of course, but they aren't valuable. A packet of cigarettes is more "valuable" than any of them!
I have an early Vitaphone record, which I found out through the "Vitaphone Project" is a previously missing record number, and it may well be the only copy in existance. Is it rare? Hell yes... Is it collectable? Sort of I guess to the right person, but is it valuable? ...Cigarette anyone

Points well taken, shane - it's true that every possible hobby suffers from the likes of these guys. Not everything that is rare has significant demand - I have records at home which are unique but their entertainment value exceeds any monetary value (they are all home-recorded discs from the lte 1940's and early 1950's).
I have a friend who's a serious Beatles collector, and his criteria is this: if it's just slightly less than mint condition, it's worth only HALF of the mint value. Half. That's IT. Because there are SO many less-than-mint condition records out there, they are worth much less than their cleaner counterparts. But too many speculators see what the mint value is and they automatically assume that THEIR played-to-death copy is worth the SAME. Trying to tell them anything different is like shouting through a brick wall.
On a similar note, I too have a "previously unknown" record according to the "Song Poem" website (forgot the exact name of the site but it's a lot of fun) and as far as I'm concerned, it's still only worth the 25 cents I paid for it. Whether it's worth any more than that isn't up to me.

Record-changer, that was one REALLY well-researched response! I had no idea that there was a post-war rush to collect long-lost records. Another factor in reducing the supply of records was, undoubtedly, the Depression. Fewer records sold meant fewer records in circulation over the years, plus the increased likelihood that they'd be recycled for shellac or whatever also put a crimp in the supply. That's a shame because I really love the "oomph" of a good Viva-Tonal Columbia or a VE Victor and that's when a lot of those were produced.
Another factor I didn't realize until recently was that poor-selling records were returned to the pressing plants and destroyed - that would explain why there's only four known commercial copies of "My Bonnie" by Tony Sheridan & The Beat Brothers on US Decca.
So you have a ten-inch pressing of "American Pie"? Sure it's not an acetate? That's the first I'd heard of it - I know there were a couple "late 78's" produced around that time (a promo of "Mr. Bojangles" by The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band exists in this form) but I have yet to see a 10" 45 of anything from this era.

I don't have the 10" 45. I saw one back when the record was originally released. But it might have been a 10" 33 (My DJ friend said it was 45, but I didn't read the label). It was one of the first large-diameter singles.

They released it that way, but only for DJs, because the entire song wouldn't fit on one side of a 7" record. The consumer version on a 7" 45 (which I do have) has half the song on each side.

I have a couple dozen 12" 45s.

There is a commercial copy of the full version of "A.P." on a 7" 45 which was released some time in the 1980's. I don't have it but I know of it. It took that long to come up with the technology to carve 8 minutes onto a single 45 side (the "record" is ten minutes-plus, on a B-side, but I can't think of the title or artist at this time).
I've seen 12" discs cut at 45 RPM, too - must've been a real pain for DJ's, especially during the Disco era.
Back to the original subject of "those who think they know it all are a pain to us who do", I had an experience at a flea market with a guy who sold me some 45's at $1.00 each...except for the lone Elvis Presley record I had in my hands. "Oh, that's going to be a little more", he said, "I'm going to have to charge $3.00 for that". I'm glad he did - I took it back to my hometown, sold it to a dealer, and got enough money to pay for a week's worth of work clothes. He just saw it as a copy of "It's Now Or Never"...I saw it as a mint-condition Living Stereo copy of the record.

I have one of the 12" 45 classical albums Angel records put out.

Has the higher speed made a difference in sound quality? I've heard it's true for Rock & Roll 78's versus 45's, and some swear that's especially true with the Sun label 78's.

I couldn't tell any immediate difference (I bought it for the music, not the speed). But I would have needed to have the same album on 33 to hear a difference. Angel made excellent recordings.

I have a microgroove vinyl RIAA 78 from the mid 1950s, and it is the cleanest recording I ever had on a 78. I can't tell it is a 78 from listening to it - it sounds like a 45.

Yes, some of those "late 78s" sound great. I still prefer the 78 version of Les Paul's "Tiger Rag" over the 45 (though anything by Les Paul blows me away anyway) and some of my rock 'n' roll 78s sound better than the other formats. Had they stayed with the speed but made the records unbreakable, the format probably could've lasted a little longer...if people had paid attention to the output rather than the size of the disc.

I've got a few dozen of those big disco 45's. I think they sound great, and seem to have a little bass boost. Many came from Sal Soul Records out of New York. I like those records when music was live, not sampled like alot of the crap out there today. Full, symphonic, but grooving at the same time. Many folks didn't care for disco, but from a musician's perspective, a lot of work went into producing that music. Big orchestras, rhythm sections and whatnot. I give them that much credit for doing such works on a large scale. Look at Barry White's music. I believe somewhere in an old interview that the string section was his heart, soul and lifeline. Something about that music just rips me a new one, thinking about all the collaboraton that went into producing these recordings. And that Sal Soul Orchestra really kicked butt with that rhythm section. Thank God for my old Maggie consoles, I can listen to these records all day!!! --BB

BobbyB
Tucson, Arizona

I have about twenty 12" 45 singles and thirty 12" 33 singles. The problem is that I have to keep them apart. Although I have two record changers that take 12" 33 and 7" 45 in the same stack, I don't know of any that can tell the difference between 12" 33 and 12" 45.

I had a part-time job at a combination bar/restaurant/dance floor (this was the early 1980s, so it wasn't a "disco" per se) and it used to crack me up when the DJ played a 45RPM 12" at 33. A couple of the guys who worked there were so full of themselves, they weren't even paying attention to what they were doing. Even though most record companies made it as plain as day that the disc was mastered at 45, they'd still goof. It's no wonder the building's currently serving as a NAPA Auto Parts Store these days....

Oh Gosh don't I know it! "Why them's is Aunt Tillies old records! They's OLD! Why they don't make them no more! $50.00 a piece and that's a good bargain!"........ummmmm....how about I give you a dollar and break it over your head. LOL!!

I had a friend just going wild over Michael Jackson records after his death, "Those are worth 1000's now! I'm gonna sell my copy of "Billie Jean." Yeah....you have a copy of that....I have a copy of it and so do 90 million other people! Get a clue!

It's the obscure records that didn't get pressed like a million seller that are worth more, in good condition. That's what most people do not realize. "Why that's on Sun records!" Un huh.....I have 10 copies of "Great Balls of Fire" calm down.

45's vs. 78's in sound? Yes, the 1950's 78's really do sound better after about 1953 or 54. They had FINALLY figured out how to record on them to get superior sound. The early 45's were very low in quality. The output of the music was low and tinny sounding. Compare a 78 of the exact same record to the 45 and you'll be astounded at the difference. That's why so many people collect the 78's from the mid to late 50's.

Now the obscurity shift was also about 1955. This really affects the R&B and rock and roll records values. Prior to 1955, more 78's were produced so the 45's are harder to find and more valuable. The reverse happened after 1955. The 78's got scare and are more valuable.

It's kind of like how the end of 45's were. They still continued to make 78's up until about 1960 basically for the jukebox trade. When 45's came out, a lot of jukebox vendors had just purchased brand new 78 machines that weren't paid for yet. They needed years in operation to get their money back on them. So jukebox vendors still demanded 78's. They weren't commercially sold anymore by the late 50's but sold to vendors. Same thing happened with 45's. You couldn't buy them in the stores anymore but you could go to your local amusement distributor and buy them.



A lot of jukebox vendors liked the 78 jukeboxes because they only held 20 to 24 records. Less records to buy and deal with. More profits if you kept just the top 20 in the box instead of 100 records or 50 records.

A lot of 78's you find from the mid to late 50's have the tell tale sign of the rubber ring stain around the label where the jukebox (Especially Wurlitzer 1500) used direct contact with the record label with idler wheels to make the record turn. You'll also see one side of the record in nearly mint condition and the other side nearly worn out. Vendors were still using jukeboxes with steel needles and 1950's 78's should NEVER be played with a steel needle. They are too soft. With these 2 tell tale signs you can bet your Aunt Tillie they came off a jukebox.

The most interesting find I ever snagged was in Chattanooga, TN about 30 years ago. Somebody got a hold of the warehouse contents from a retired vendor that specialized in the whorehouses and juke joints frequented by strictly black patrons in the early 50's. He had like 20 jukeboxes in these houses and bars. You wanna talk a gold mine? TONS of super rare R&B and doo-wop on 78's in multiple copies. I took a loan out and bought the whole thing. LOL!