| GB: Queen Archivist 27.04.2013 17:44 |
Just to put the record straight... My good chum Gary Taylor sent me a picture of a Seven Seas Of Rhys acetate the other day, asking my opinion on whether it's real or not. I had no idea who owned it, and I didn't need to know. I offered my very best 'considered' answer, based upon my experience generally, of collecting Queen stuff since 1976, and more importantly from seeing many such acetates in Brian's collection - all of which are of course 100% real. It's a rare and very useful position to be in, to KNOW for certain that the items you're talking about are absolutely irrefutable THE REAL THING. How often does that happen ordinarily ? Usually, you simply don't KNOW, so you have to give it your best shot. Anyway... you can see what I said in that other thread... the one about Seven Seas Of Rhye acetate... but in the meantime, I think it fair to add - because evidently some fans here are suddenly assuming that Sikke's collection of acetates is fake - that is emphatically NOT the case. I've seen photos of Sikke's acetates and the Trident ones, for example, are clearly real. They look exactly like those which Brian has, from a similar timeframe. It's very clear that most of Sikke's collection is exactly as it should be. I can say that with confidence, because they're the same as those I know to be right. I can't vouch for ALL of them though - nobody can. I'm saying this only because it seems fair... in case I've inadvertently implied that because I'm not at all sure about the SSOR disc, the same applies to all the rest - that is NOT the case. There's always people out there that love to poo-poo other peoples' collections and treasures, and shout "Fake" at the top of their voice at the first opportunity. Such people usually have little first hand experience of acetates, but they do have have first hand experience of jumping on the easy obvious band-wagon and peeing on other peoples' fire. Some people aren't happy unless they're smashing someone else's happiness. Sikke... you have a very fine collection, and some STUNNING items. They're as real as this posting... although... there will no doubt, as always, be someone who'll suggest this isn't the real Queen Archivist... like they always do. This is the real one. A good deal of this negativity comes from the some old place... someone somewhere's jealousy of what another fan has, and they don't have. GB |
| Hangman_96 27.04.2013 18:23 |
Thanks for clarifying Greg! |
| rocknrolllover 28.04.2013 00:21 |
I don't understand the meaning of the topic. I expected more new details about the "Rainbow" or "ballad compilation". |
| brENsKi 28.04.2013 04:20 |
why would you ^^^expect - in a thread titled "Sikke's Acetates" - to find stuff about the "Rainbow" and "Ballad Collection" ? as stupid and pointless as all your other posts anyway, thanks for clearing things up (a bit) Greg |
| rocknrolllover 28.04.2013 05:29 |
brENsKi wrote: why would you ^^^expect - in a thread titled "Sikke's Acetates" - to find stuff about the "Rainbow" and "Ballad Collection" ? as stupid and pointless as all your other posts anyway, thanks for clearing things up (a bit) Greg my posts aren't stupid. Yours yes |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.04.2013 07:40 |
rocknrolllover wrote:You are evidently too stupid to understand that the title of a topic and the contents of that topic are closely related. If you come into a thread named "Sikke's Acetates" expecting to find anything other than a discussion about acetates, you are a fucking moron.brENsKi wrote: why would you ^^^expect - in a thread titled "Sikke's Acetates" - to find stuff about the "Rainbow" and "Ballad Collection" ? as stupid and pointless as all your other posts anyway, thanks for clearing things up (a bit) Gregmy posts aren't stupid. Yours yes |
| rocknrolllover 28.04.2013 08:11 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:rocknrolllover wrote:You are evidently too stupid to understand that the title of a topic and the contents of that topic are closely related. If you come into a thread named "Sikke's Acetates" expecting to find anything other than a discussion about acetates, you are a fucking moron.brENsKi wrote: why would you ^^^expect - in a thread titled "Sikke's Acetates" - to find stuff about the "Rainbow" and "Ballad Collection" ? as stupid and pointless as all your other posts anyway, thanks for clearing things up (a bit) Gregmy posts aren't stupid. Yours yes I do what I like and I want and I won't ask what right and what wrong. My life my rules |
| brENsKi 28.04.2013 09:17 |
well then your life and rules are also stupid but then what would you expect form someone who has a shit album title for a nickname? |
| rocknrolllover 28.04.2013 09:31 |
brENsKi wrote: well then your life and rules are also stupid but then what would you expect form someone who has a shit album title for a nickname? I decide what shit and what not shit. and my life is my life |
| brENsKi 28.04.2013 09:49 |
your inability to read and comprehend is only matched by your hostility just to recap i didn't say your life was not your life - said you life/rules are stupid |
| rocknrolllover 28.04.2013 09:56 |
brENsKi wrote: your inability to read and comprehend is only matched by your hostility just to recap i didn't say your life was not your life - said you life/rules are stupid stop it you |
| princetom 28.04.2013 10:57 |
*getting popcorn* @rocknrollover: your life, your rules. ok. but this place is public. interactive. who are you to think that your rules are more worth than others ? you really don't realize why people are bitching at you, do you? so: f.o. |
| rocknrolllover 28.04.2013 11:04 |
princetom wrote: *getting popcorn* @rocknrollover: your life, your rules. ok. but this place is public. interactive. who are you to think that your rules are more worth than others ? you really don't realize why people are bitching at you, do you? so: f.o. I don't care why people bitching at me. |
| The Real Wizard 29.04.2013 00:26 |
Fuck me - Greg Brooks starts a great thread and it becomes yet another flame war between intelligent people and a buffoon with an IQ of under 75 using a translator. Someone needs to create a Queen forum that doesn't suck. |
| GB: Queen Archivist 29.04.2013 03:47 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Fuck me - Greg Brooks starts a great thread and it becomes yet another flame war between intelligent people and a buffoon with an IQ of under 75 using a translator. Someone needs to create a Queen forum that doesn't suck.I think you're right, Real Wizard. Most things tend to go that way here, for reasons I've never understood. That seems to be the general default. These days I spend less time pondering it and more time on other sites. Shame though! |
| rocknrolllover 29.04.2013 04:11 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Fuck me - Greg Brooks starts a great thread and it becomes yet another flame war between intelligent people and a buffoon with an IQ of under 75 using a translator. Someone needs to create a Queen forum that doesn't suck. If you're so clever and you do have time for it create your own forum we will do everything we want everything |
| thomasquinn 32989 29.04.2013 04:29 |
Well, back on topic... The SSOR acetate - if the rest of the collection is authentic, then what's the story with this utterly bizarre acetate? There are so many oddities, from the misnomer-title to the "Radio"-text on the label. Has anyone ever seen an AUTHENTIC acetate like this before? |
| FriedChicken 29.04.2013 05:20 |
Doesn't the lacquer on an acetate damage and disappear after a couple of plays? This surely isn't something you want on a radio, right? And also the 'Seven Seasons of Rhye' is just weird. Like it was done on purpose. And it says 'Wrong backing track', which suggests that the master vocal take is present on this version. In a time where they didn't use clicktracks it's really hard to record a new backing track under an already existing vocal track or to put the vocal track on a different backing track. These days it's easy to do when you record do a tempo track or click, but in ye olden days it was almost impossible. |
| thomasquinn 32989 29.04.2013 07:18 |
FriedChicken wrote: Doesn't the lacquer on an acetate damage and disappear after a couple of plays? This surely isn't something you want on a radio, right?Like I said, I am aware of acetates being used (in a limited way) as a kind of 'last resort' to broadcast something that should've been done live, but for one reason or another had to be pre-recorded. If it's a one-time only thing, an acetate is a cheap and practical solution. However, a song for radio play on an acetate is just weird. Considering how important radio play was to promote a song especially in those days, I can't imagine that an early, evidently faulty mix, would ever have made it to a disc for radio play, and I certainly can't imagine them using an acetate for such a thing. I don't think it's a fake, quite simply because of the hassle of making an acetate (requires specialist equipment and such), and the fact that this thing is so outlandish that it begs to be considered a fake, which would be very poor strategy for a forger. However, I don't understand at all what this thing is. Is this perhaps a test version for a proposed radio-mix? Also, what is the meaning of the "Required CMRF"? From what I could find, it refers to Combined Mode Resonator Filter, but I don't know the purpose thereof. |
| brENsKi 29.04.2013 11:31 |
my understanding was that even the very best acetates would only last for 40-100 plays - and that's if they are best quality and cared for for their entire life. when you factor in stylus quality/wear you can significantly reduce this figure.one dodgy needle can damage an acetate and make it unplayable, because a worn stylus will rip the lacquer off the acetate, whereas a dodgy stylus would only scratch a vinyl record. bearing in mind this "SSOR" has been around for 40 yrs and anyone wanting to purchase it in the past will have asked to hear it - won't that count as a "play"? - it must be very difficult to have many original acetates around that have their "theoretic play counter" still near the max. so if this is genuine - it may look good - but shouldn't it play like shit? as regards the "Required CMRF" (Combined Mode Resonator Filter) does this help? is it connected in any way? "They usually used a crystal cutter head that had a frequency response of about 100hz to about 3khz. The output level was about -2db below standard reference level. Commercial cutting heads could get from about 50hz to about 10Khz, and about +6db of level. Nowadays with the feedback, moving coil cutterheads, the response jumped to about 20hz to 18Khz, many times reaching 22Khz, and the levels of +10 are possible. Aardvark cuts their plates at +6 as +10 puts way too much risk on the cutterhead" (from: link. |
| mooghead 29.04.2013 14:51 |
If this turned out to be unplayable but genuine... would it still be a Queen collectable? Go.... |
| brENsKi 29.04.2013 17:02 |
yeah and the mad doctor would insist on checking it is unplayable before allowing it to be sold |
| people on streets 14.05.2013 07:58 |
link |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 14.05.2013 09:14 |
people on streets wrote: link |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 14.05.2013 09:14 |
people on streets wrote: link |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 14.05.2013 09:14 |
people on streets wrote: link |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 14.05.2013 09:15 |
people on streets wrote: linkI find this very insulting. The thing is real : * Greg compared this one with Brian his own acetates, because this has a different label , is the claim this isn't real. So this means that the test versions handed out to the artists are excatly the same as the ones made for other pruposes? * Some high class collectors including JSS asked me for the file and told me he was very interested in this ebay lot. And now he claims this one is a fake. * this item features a unique version of the song, which cannot be made by amateurs , queen keeps on playing extra verses... This is without the "I like to be the seaside ending" which could be meant as a standalone track.And this appears on Reel to Reel as wel.... * I recieved emails that my Sheffiled acetate is a fake as well : this one I bought in person of Sheffield, there is no doubt. * See the first topic in Greg his topic "sikke's acetates" * Why in heaven sake would a evil man which is aiming to gain money out of pirates and bootlegs spent his time and effort in making a costy acetate with the risk to gain maybe 100 pounds knowing this will take a lot of time and effort. Knowing he can't be pooring out acetates : people will know and think it is suspicous when one person is flooding the market with rare acetates ! * See point above : why would use words like "rejected alternate version" , "take 5 rejected" etc.etc. * Nobody told assumed it is a fake , while pictures of this one where on my facebook for 1 year or so... No people loved it.... People wanted to buy it. * It has been in my collection since 1999 I bought it at a auction house. While unpakcing boxes with Queen I noticed I have 2 of these the one sold and the same on Trident label. * Why is it a radio acetate : who knows why ? Why are the BBC sessions cut on Acetate they have the reels of the sessions.... ohhhh wait I just found out that the BBC aceates are all fakes !! * It is a acetate all the point JSS mentioned in his topic count for this being genuine , he forgot 1 thing : the specifc smell of acetates.... The older they become the thinner it's sent will be. You have to be experienced for this. Well I hope this makes sence. The biggest fake acetate is Hangman : * this one does NOT excist ! This has been confirmed by QPL employees. * Why cut a acetate of a not going to be single release ? (curious point !) * A picture showing a trident aceate with "angman" written on it can easily be made. Further I have to react to the Reel tape point in JSS his topic. The one I sold is the one shared here for free to celebrate Bob W. his birthday. I paid $ 800,- for it back then , knowing uploading it would make it only a piece of memorbilia and dlete it's value. And not a exciting piece of possible content. Btw this is the March show of Rainbow, not the November one of the VHS. As you know there are no VHS releases of the march show. And it is genuine. Further one the reveresed /ufo story : this makes no sence at all. And sound like a explanation of my daughter after watching 2 hours the History Channel (ancinet aliens) this kind of engeneering was done way before 1947 : during the World Wars, and even in dark ages , finding out how to built trebuchets. |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 13:47 |
If you want to prove that your acetate is genuine, post a wav file of the music contained therein. It wouldn't devalue the acetate itself. If you're selling the acetate you obviously don't have an issue with the music getting out there, so the "it needs to remain rare" argument doesn't apply here. If you don't want people to ask questions, then don't talk about it and don't post it on ebay. People are skeptical by default until proven otherwise. The questions are bound to come, and you carry the burden of proof. |
| brENsKi 14.05.2013 14:09 |
or failing that - lossy mp3 - but still clear enough to see there are no amateur edits/joins/splices |
| Negative Creep 14.05.2013 14:32 |
The Real Wizard wrote: If you want to prove that your acetate is genuine, post a wav file of the music contained therein. It wouldn't devalue the acetate itself.LOL - Why would you need it in WAV/lossless quaity? You're not very subtle - you want to make out it's fake just to get the old owner to just hand you a lossless copy of something you don't have for free. An acetate featuring unreleased material is worth far more than an acetate with standard release material, so of course distributing the audio in any form would devalue it. |
| John S Stuart 14.05.2013 15:06 |
...Or failing that; why not accept this simple challenge... upload a very poor and lossy version to the fan mix forums? If it is not genuine - it will be easily deconstructed and "reversed engineered" to match. If it is genuine the fan-mixers will not be able to recreate it. The Dea Lane Lea sessions cannot be reverse engineered. The Cool Cat demo cannot be reverse engineered. When Bowie and Queen's "Under Pressure - Rah version" was re-released; it was reverse engineered using the additional "New York is Dangerous" ad-libs (which were not available elsewhere). Therefore; UP could not be reverse engineered by the fan-mixers because they did not have access... As I said before; this is a thread about fakes - not accusations; just because I own a fake Rolex does not mean that I did not buy it in good faith or pay £5,000 for it, but at the end of the day, that does not in itself make it genuine. I did not mean to stir a hornet's nest; but ebay has gone to town recently on fake autographs, fake pic discs, fake Picture sleeves etc, and is the scourge of all genuine collectors. Am I the only one who gets fed up with all this crap? |
| Holly2003 14.05.2013 15:25 |
Negative Creep wrote:The Real Wizard wrote: If you want to prove that your acetate is genuine, post a wav file of the music contained therein. It wouldn't devalue the acetate itself.LOL - Why would you need it in WAV/lossless quaity? You're not very subtle - you want to make out it's fake just to get the old owner to just hand you a lossless copy of something you don't have for free. An acetate featuring unreleased material is worth far more than an acetate with standard release material, so of course distributing the audio in any form would devalue it. Indeed lol! And this from the same Real Wizard who's been arguing that traders can't possibly release stuff like that from their collections because it would devalue their collection! You couldn't make it up lol! |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 15:30 |
Negative Creep wrote:Mp3/wav, whichever.The Real Wizard wrote: If you want to prove that your acetate is genuine, post a wav file of the music contained therein. It wouldn't devalue the acetate itself.LOL - Why would you need it in WAV/lossless quaity? You're not very subtle - you want to make out it's fake just to get the old owner to just hand you a lossless copy of something you don't have for free. An acetate featuring unreleased material is worth far more than an acetate with standard release material, so of course distributing the audio in any form would devalue it. The physical piece would be worth no less. The blue BoRhap is likely more than any acetate with an unreleased song. |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 15:31 |
Holly2003 wrote:If it's on ebay, the material will likely become public at some point. Selling on ebay relinquishes control and is the opposite of keeping something rare.Negative Creep wrote:Indeed lol! And this from the same Real Wizard who's been arguing that traders can't possibly release stuff like that from their collections because it would devalue their collection! You couldn't make it up lol!The Real Wizard wrote: If you want to prove that your acetate is genuine, post a wav file of the music contained therein. It wouldn't devalue the acetate itself.LOL - Why would you need it in WAV/lossless quaity? You're not very subtle - you want to make out it's fake just to get the old owner to just hand you a lossless copy of something you don't have for free. An acetate featuring unreleased material is worth far more than an acetate with standard release material, so of course distributing the audio in any form would devalue it. Nice try though, Mr Expert who has never even seen an acetate. |
| Holly2003 14.05.2013 15:35 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Holly2003 wrote:If it's on ebay, the material will likely become public at some point. Selling on ebay relinquishes control and is the opposite of keeping something rare. Nice try though, Mr Expert who has never even seen an acetate.Negative Creep wrote:Indeed lol! And this from the same Real Wizard who's been arguing that traders can't possibly release stuff like that from their collections because it would devalue their collection! You couldn't make it up lol!The Real Wizard wrote: If you want to prove that your acetate is genuine, post a wav file of the music contained therein. It wouldn't devalue the acetate itself.LOL - Why would you need it in WAV/lossless quaity? You're not very subtle - you want to make out it's fake just to get the old owner to just hand you a lossless copy of something you don't have for free. An acetate featuring unreleased material is worth far more than an acetate with standard release material, so of course distributing the audio in any form would devalue it. I don't claim to be an expert. However, I can see through your transparent arguments. |
| Negative Creep 14.05.2013 16:11 |
The Real Wizard wrote: The physical piece would be worth no less. The blue BoRhap is likely more than any acetate with an unreleased song.Yes it would - don't be stupid. An original acetate of an unreleased variant of Bohemian Rhapsody would be worth more than the blue vinyl BR - no question. It wouldn't be if that variant was freely available on the bootleg market. "If it's on ebay, the material will likely become public at some point" Really? You truly are having a laugh. So you think someone has paid over £1000 for it to freely distribute it for you to hear? If so, why badger the original owner to give you a copy? Rhetorical question. |
| Holly2003 15.05.2013 04:30 |
* * * * tumbleweed * * * * lol! |