Topic: earphoria investigation
On 2014.03.25 at 10:10 am Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
This appears to be another bootleg of the 1994 promo release of Earphoria, we are still investigating things on this item.[/quote:3stdzxwj]
what is still being investigated?
how are we not 100% certain this is a bootleg?
this is the most bootlegged pumpkins release. if it isn’t the real thing, it’s a bootleg, no? or are there any other options?
am i reading that right? does the back insert say \"(p) & (c) 1996\"?
On 2014.03.26 at 12:24 pm Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
well? what’s the deal here?
i found it worrying to read on twitter that it’s still unsure if this is a bootleg. or am i missing something important? because i don’t doubt it.
On 2014.03.26 at 2:20 pm geofolkers wrote:
Is it questionable because there is no barcode?
On 2014.03.26 at 2:42 pm manillascissor wrote:
i personally have no idea what is going on with this upload
On 2014.03.26 at 2:43 pm Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
the artwork of this bootleg is based on a scan of the real ’94 promo. it makes sense that there’s no barcode: that would’ve been only more work for the bootleggers. i guess they changed the year to 1996, maybe to make it seem like a reissue? and they did some editing on the cd, because the unaltered scan of wouldn’t have worked.
On 2014.03.26 at 2:45 pm Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
i personally have no idea what is going on with this upload[/quote:4p9fg9g5]
i’m also a bit puzzled.
who tweeted this? https://twitter.com/SPfreaks/status/448111628127457280
what made you unsure? what do you think this might be, in case it’s not a bootleg?
On 2014.03.26 at 3:47 pm Arthur wrote:
The official 1994 had no barcode, this one hasn’t either. It’s a boot for 99.9% sure, but I had asked for the matrix code of the CD (the official matrix code is ‘DPRO12694-2 MO L4A17N Y 2-1-2 EMI JAX’) to be absolutely sure. Hence the text \"under investigation\". The contributor did not reply yet, though.
On 2014.03.26 at 4:12 pm geofolkers wrote:
I tweeted it. Not much thought behind it. I read right from the upload and posted like I’ve done a hundred times.
On 2014.03.26 at 4:32 pm Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
aha, i see what happened.
arthur, i assume they took DPRO-12694 and put that in the matrix code, but that all the rest is missing.
even if they copied the whole thing – very unlikely – this is still clearly a fake to me. just look at the cd, man! it’s not what it’s supposed to look like. (and it’s not like they made different official versions of this. well, not until 2002.)
in 1996 a lot of people were probably already aware that a cd without DPRO-… in the matrix code was fake, so the bootleggers thought they would be smart, and put that release code in the matrix code. (i guess it was actually quite smart.)
On 2014.03.26 at 4:43 pm jawn till dusk wrote:
The official 1994 had no barcode, this one hasn’t either. It’s a boot for 99.9% sure, but I had asked for the matrix code of the CD (the official matrix code is ‘DPRO12694-2 MO L4A17N Y 2-1-2 EMI JAX’) to be absolutely sure. Hence the text "under investigation". The contributor did not reply yet, though.[/quote:1jbi2fda]
My copy seems to replicate your info,Arthur.
I just noticed that the matrix code is printed backwards on mine.Is this always the case?
Also,looking at the ‘boot’ version,it is also different to mine as the disc artwork is continuous from spindle centre to outer edge,where mine goes from spindle centre to outside of inner ring,then about 2mm of no colour,then continuous from here to disc edge.Does that make sense?(probably could have explained it easier!).
Another thing I noticed was,on the back of the case artwork.At the very bottom where it has the ‘Virgin’ logo and the p&c 1994,the ‘p’ on mine is kinda distorted just like the boot.
Is everyone elses similar to this?
On 2014.03.26 at 8:52 pm Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
probably could have explained it easier![/quote:g3ryh5n3]
you could have linked to the spfreaks entry: http://www.spfreaks.com/?page=COLLDETAILS&item=284
On 2014.03.26 at 8:55 pm Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
the (p) does indeed look a bit off. that’s normal. (i have three copies, and they all have it.)
On 2014.03.26 at 9:03 pm jawn till dusk wrote:
the (p) does indeed look a bit off. that’s normal. (i have three copies, and they all have it.)[/quote:3gad7jcc]
You could have just said this.
On 2014.03.27 at 7:57 am Cool As Ice Cream wrote:
but that wouldn’t have covered inner rings or mirrored matrix codes.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.