BUTCHER COVER...
djsheep
3,620 Posts
Beatles collectors are SUUURIOUS!
https://web.archive.org/web/20140807225734/http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/butcher.htmlpeace.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140807225734/http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/butcher.htmlpeace.
Comments
The infamous discovery made up here in the Pacific Northwest is one of the best stories.
And, after reading the following quote -
..discussed this exact situation with the late Gareth Pawlowski back in the late 1970's. Gareth was THE premiere Beatles collector worldwide, having started collecting in the EARLY 1950's! [/b]
- seriously calendar challenged.
I think they were all like that. I still cant believe anyone ok'd the butcher cover. I mean, what the fuck?
naw, the "first slate" ones didnt have another cover pasted over it, thats the reason the are the raerest. They pasted the "Yesterday and Today" cover of Paul sittin on an old trunk and the rest of them just standing there, over the butcher cover. I believe the origins of the Butcher cover was the bands idea..they were showing their dislike for Capitol and their US issues of their records, because Capitol would "chop them up" and spread songs all over different records, not putting songs on the albums that the band intended, hence "butchers".
I had a pasted over one once, took it down to the Austin Record Convention and some dude offered me $300 for it. So I took it and bought some raers at the show with it.
The easiest way to tell a butcher cover out in the field is to look for a little black triangle(which is ringo's turtleneck on the "butcher" cover) showing through to the pasted cover) happy butcher hunting!
Edit: I didn't read that link...
1st state = Butcher cover.
2nd state = paste over.
3rd state = paste over has been peeled off.
Then you can add all kinds of other variations; stereo, mono, pressing plant #...
A sealed original Beatles lp is worth at least 10x what a mint copy is worth.
2nd and 3rd state covers are not as rare as 100s of soul/jazz titles that are worth a lot less.
Dan
Correct, and stereo being of the most value since most people bought mono, something like 8:1.
Another thing that others should think about was that this album came out in the summer of 1966. In England, the photo was used as a way to promote the "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" single on Parlophone. No commotion there, it was just "ha ha, baby dolls and raw meat, those wacky lads". The photo itself was not meant to be used as an album cover, period, but Capitol Records felt a need to release a new record as the group themselves were recording Revolver. In traditional 60's fashion, they slapped together an album and it became Yesterday And Today. The photo was chosen at random from a selection of pictures that fit the period (early 1966).
The theory for years was that the cover was a statement to Capitol, after being angry about their albums being "butchered", but that's not true. The photo is one of a series of photos that were meant to show the human side of the group. People had turned them literally into holy figures, and the photos were a suggestion of the photographer. The raw meat and broken dolls (as well as someone's teeth) was a metaphor for the group, essentially saying "inside, we're all the same".
I believe the "we're more popular than Jesus" quote was about to be exposed in the United States, and by 1966 the pop press ("Rolling Stone" and other underground publications had yet to make their mark) were wondering if the group had run out of steam. That's why the group knew that their forthcoming tour would be their last.
Combine all of these elements with a group who were considered angels, now being bad boys with something as revealing as raw meat... punk rock was still ten years ago, that was the ultimate in sick. Of course if you read the documents that exist, very few if any actual covers made it to stores. Rather than be too wasteful (!!!), Capitol simply printed up new slicks and pasted them over the old covers. There are different variations of the slick, with different color schemes, photo touches, and even different lettering) that went over the cover, some rarer than others. Once all of those covers were taken care of, Capitol printed up a new version with the new slick, no hidden meat in sight.
Once there was knowledge of the secret cover, fans immediately started peeling.
For years, no one had ever seen a "1st State" butcher cover, because no one knew of its existence.
Someone from Capitol had an unopened box of butchers, which were originally meant for shipment. He kept one, and no one is sure if other unopened boxes are still in existence, were opened long ago and sold, or (the more obvious answer) destroyed by Capitol.
I've held a $50 butcher cover that was poorly peeled, in a condition that was worse than a decent thrift store record. It looked like a spitwad with a record inside.
i just talked with my dad and he had one a few years ago and sold it for some bucks when getting rid of his records (before my collecting days), he knew it was worth money, just didnt want to deal with vinyls anymore...damn shame.
You used to be able to find a any mint first press and slide it in there. Now a days Beatle collectors know if the pressing plant cover and disc match up. I'm guessing about 90% (or more) of the value is in the cover, so it might not matter that much.
One reason for that is because there are people who CAN do quality peels, for a price of course. Some dealers/collectors are also finding it easy to sell non-peeled butcher covers. In other words, if the butcher sleeve is underneath, leave it alone. With only two living Beatles, the value will probably remain steady for another ten years.
HA HA! i know where youre talking about central cali dude.
As you can see, an attempt was made to remove the cover that was put on it, as you can still see George peaking out on the top in the middle, and the Capitol logo with a white background. However, look on the bottom left of the cover, and part of the original butcher photo was removed. The peel process can continue, but it wouldn't be worth as much as a successful peel.
You can also still see a thin layer over the photo, which comes from the cover that was glued on. What has to be removed is that thin paper layer and any glue residue that may be stuck on. I have heard people using lighter fluid, or steaming it as one would do to an envelope, but you also don't want to damage what's underneath either, we all have seen what water damage can do to an older record cover.
It's well documented:
http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/beatles/howtotell.html
2. On the back, lower-right-hand corner is a number. This will usually be a number, 2,3,4,5 or 6 denoting the Capitol Pressing Plant where that album was pressed.[/b]
http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/others/butcher.html
peace, stein. . .
No worries, now i'm listening to it.
I need to put these records on more often.
Sometimes you get bogged down by all the "Herbie and the Blowholes RAER 500 COPIES PRESSED ONLY 3 KNOWN TO EXIST!" records and forget to listen to the damn Beatles.
Let me make clear: DO NOT PEEL YOUR PASTE OVER 2ND STATE COVERS. They are worth more as paste overs than as peels no matter how good the peal job.
The exception would be to peel a stereo copy, reseal it and sell on ebay. Just kidding.
Dan
Ive picked up late 50s early 60s columbias where the disc itself was in a sealed plastic inner sleeve. I always thought these were record club issues, but an old jazz collector was just telling me they were in the stores like that.
So in answer to your question, I have know idea.
Dan