›

HELP: Skull Snaps Matrix

davesrecordsdavesrecords 1,802 Posts
edited April 2009 in Strut Central
I got a copy of this...the cover has ringwear and is definitely original but the record looks shaky OG wise. usually when you think something is too good to be true, it usually is... Matrix confirmation, either og or repress...mine says stamped GSF-S 1011A/B with written by hand z 5.the font doesn't look right nor does the record look heavy duty...plus there is a line on the label that isn't in the OGs I can see on Popsike (it's more toward the spindle hole). THe ogs on popsike have a band around the edge of the label but not near the spindle...Thanks in advance...I know this is nerdery but the financial difference between the OG and repress is obviously substantial.d

  Comments

  • bull_oxbull_ox 5,056 Posts
    Sorry, don't have the numbers... but that looks bootleg as hell.
  • davesrecordsdavesrecords 1,802 Posts
    Sorry, don't have the numbers... but that looks bootleg as hell.

    yes it sure does. it's strange because it was with all original / non reissued records by the same seller.
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    That doesn't look OG at all. I sold mine but here's the label scan:
  • davesrecordsdavesrecords 1,802 Posts
    That doesn't look OG at all. I sold mine but here's the label scan:

    yeah but i noticed also on popsike, one that looks similiar to mine (went for $300):



    i noticed most copies have the sticker but this one nor mine do not. maybe a later 70s issue ?
  • triptoyourmindtriptoyourmind 294 Posts
    My copy has the sticker but I believe the first release doesn't? there's little difference in the prices either goes for however. What's the cover like on your copy?
  • davesrecordsdavesrecords 1,802 Posts
    My copy has the sticker but I believe the first release doesn't? there's little difference in the prices either goes for however. What's the cover like on your copy?

  • triptoyourmindtriptoyourmind 294 Posts
    My copy has the sticker but I believe the first release doesn't? there's little difference in the prices either goes for however. What's the cover like on your copy?


    The cover looks legit. From memory it is quite a heavy duty pressing on the o.g. Maybe it's been swapped with a reish? someone might have a scan of the reissue they can upload.
  • KineticKinetic 3,739 Posts
    Wouldn't an unscrupulous individual who found an empty Skull Snaps sleeve possibly buy a reissue to get the record out of and pass it off as an OG?
  • hcrinkhcrink 8,729 Posts
    Dudes, this is a major label record that was either pressed multiple times or simultaneously in different places. I just can't really imagine anyone switching vinyl like this outside of maybe some sketchy eBay dealer. Same thing happened recently when someone was freaking out that they had a Silver Apples boot in an original sleeve and it was confirmed that there are indeed multiple slight label variations.
  • ageage 1,131 Posts
    It looks slightly glossy from this side, but it's a pic, so I think it looks legit to me.

    As far as I remember,there are two to three different label variations for the Skull Snaps. It's looks like an og press. I have the same one. Here is the Matrix Number as requested

    GSF-S1011A-Z-5 1 * (Side-A)
    GSF-S1011B-Z-5 1 * (Side-B)
    [/b]
    (in the dead wax, there is a sideways 1[/b] and a "*"[/b] also the "Z-5"[/b], Are hand scribed and the rest are stamped).

    hope this is helpful
  • troublemantroubleman 1,928 Posts
    That doesn't look OG at all. I sold mine but here's the label scan:

    My copy has the sticker on the cover, and the label looks like Rey's above.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    From what Young Einstein told me, the original first issue has no sticker. So the sticker-ized versions are, basically, the second issue on GSF (which makes sense, since, at that point, they were trying to blow up the album by noting its "hit song!")

    Not like it really changes the price on it - I don't think anyone really distinguishes between the first and second pressings.
  • davesrecordsdavesrecords 1,802 Posts
    It looks slightly glossy from this side, but it's a pic, so I think it looks legit to me.

    As far as I remember,there are two to three different label variations for the Skull Snaps. It's looks like an og press. I have the same one. Here is the Matrix Number as requested

    GSF-S1011A-Z-5 1 * (Side-A)
    GSF-S1011B-Z-5 1 * (Side-B)
    [/b]
    (in the dead wax, there is a sideways 1[/b] and a "*"[/b] also the "Z-5"[/b], Are hand scribed and the rest are stamped).

    hope this is helpful

    thanks age...what mine says...so i'm thinking why does the first press look like shit ? i like the font on rey's copy much better. much more professional looking.

    following occam's razor it doesn't make sense that this seller, who doesn't know about funk, would switch one record in their sales list with a reissue, when everything else for sale was original...
  • LokoOneLokoOne 1,823 Posts
    Wouldn't an unscrupulous individual who found an empty Skull Snaps sleeve possibly buy a reissue to get the record out of and pass it off as an OG?

    Is that how you scored your one so cheap?
  • bull_oxbull_ox 5,056 Posts
    Dudes, this is a major label record that was either pressed multiple times or simultaneously in different places. I just can't really imagine anyone switching vinyl like this outside of maybe some sketchy eBay dealer. Same thing happened recently when someone was freaking out that they had a Silver Apples boot in an original sleeve and it was confirmed that there are indeed multiple slight label variations.

    I wasn't just talking about the font - I know there's alot of variance there in 60s and 70s pressings. The label looks shiny (which as someone mentioned good just be the pic) and the the circle is pretty close to the spindlehole. I pulled out a Scorpio to compare though and the one I had looked a little closer to the hole.

    I'd think that if you were holding it the weight and appearance of the vinyl (as well as the etchings) would give it away, but I've found one in a roughed up sleeve before that I had a hard time deciding on...

    Oh and even though its dumb, I think its still possible in 2009 for someone to try pull something like this if they knew the record's value and had an empty sleeve or beat record.
  • SoulOnIceSoulOnIce 13,027 Posts
    Do people really pay $250 for this record?

    I like this record, actually like it quite a bit ... but
    there are so many better - and more rare - records that don't
    even come close to that price!
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    I paid $250, kept it for two years, then sold it for $320.
  • SoulOnIceSoulOnIce 13,027 Posts
    I paid $250, kept it for two years, then sold it for $320.


  • hemolhemol 2,578 Posts
    that fool should just buy short sleeve shirts.
  • LokoOneLokoOne 1,823 Posts
    I paid $250, kept it for two years, then sold it for $320.

    And now your wear your hat to the side and walk with a limp.....
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    I paid $250, kept it for two years, then sold it for $320.

    And now your wear your hat to the side and walk with a limp.....
    CALL ME YOUNG POLIO
  • spelunkspelunk 3,400 Posts
    $250 is a rational price. Would move easy at $200. I mean one of the top 5 breaks of all time, good record start to finish, and one of the illest covers of all time, plus the mystique - not surprising at all that it goes for money.
Sign In or Register to comment.