Pre-Order Thread
- Thread starter Captainfog
- Start date
ELE2 - Vinyl
Extinction Level Event 2 Vinyl. Track List: 1- E.L.E. 2 Intro feat. Chris Rock, Rakim & Pete Rock2 - The Purge 3 - Strap Yourself Down 4 - Czar feat. M.O.P.5 - Outta My Mind feat. Bell Biv Devoe6 - E.L.E. 2 The Wrath of God feat. Minister Louis Farrakhan7 - Slow Flow feat. Ol' Dirty Bastard8 -...
ele2.bustarhymesuniverse.com
ELE2 - TAPE
Extinction Level Event 2 Tape NOTE: This Is A Pre-order. Expected Shipping Date: Late January This ship date includes any non-preorder items that you may have included with this order, unless you make 2 separate orders. If you're ordering multiple pre-order items, ALL items will ship on the...
ele2.bustarhymesuniverse.com
Featuring Ty Dolla $ign Neon Purple Vinyl
Featuring Ty Dolla $ign Neon Purple Vinyl. Expected to ship in 10-12 weeks.
shop.dollasignworld.com
Featuring Ty Dolla $ign Black Vinyl
Featuring Ty Dolla $ign Black Vinyl. Expected to ship in 10-12 weeks.
shop.dollasignworld.com
Russ I
Well-Known Member
Saw this on bandcamp and was kinda hooked by the one song available to listen to.
Music - Six Shooter Records - Online Store
Purchase music, merchandise, tickets, and special bundles from Six Shooter artists.
People defending limited and moaning about other people getting a chance to share in the fun?
I think you’ve got it twisted. The subject is accountability and integrity NOT limited runs. Keeping a company honest is important, and absolutely something we all on this forum have united over when talking about “you-know-who”. It’s simple really, I expect a company to keep its word and I feel betrayed as a customer when they don’t.
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I always had the impression that MoFi has always repressed their records as many times as they sell out before their license expires. I didn't realize anyone bought MoFi records for the limited number honestly. I'm not sure if their copy has changed in that regard or not. I'm more upset that they expect people to pay $15 more for a different plastic than a new pressing of a surprisingly sold out Costello/Bacharach album.
Gouging prices is worse to me personally in terms of integrity than a repress. I guess if they promised they would never repress it is one thing (did they?), but even so, always assume a repress is coming in a few years in general unless it doesn't sell.
Last edited:
My understanding is that if they intend on making it a limited run then they’ll state how many they are pressing. If they don’t state it then it will still be numbered but not limited to a certain amount. I imagine it has something to do with the licensing choices being either by a certain time period or by a certain amount.
Both my Johnny Cash and Blues for Allah were limited runs, I would have bought them either way, but again... if you say it’s limited to a certain number then hold true to your word. It’s the exact same logic as if you were to find out a company said something was AAA and it turned out to be digitally sourced.
Anyways, the whole case with Mofi is a moot point since they did change something up (even if it was a rather lame change) in order to justify an additional run. If anyone wants to be upset with anybody over limited runs then be upset with the companies who decide to make their runs limited. They’re the ones doing it. I’m not making it limited, I’m just holding them accountable.
Last edited:
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I guess to me the number just always means that's how many in that run. I don't expect them to leave money on the floor when they underestimate demand. I guess I would spend a lot of time being upset at a lot of different labels if that upset me. I mean it is a black reissue. There's gonna be another black reissue of that album some day, why not MoFi?
I see where you're coming from but to me it only really matters if they state very explicitly that this will never be repressed. Even then people go back on that all the time and I find I can't really blame them. I realize that there are people who rank the limited number high on their priority list for collecting vinyl, but I can't personally relate to that. Genuinely sorry if it's a bummer to you, it seems very common all around these days.
Yeah, I see it a bit differently. Here’s how Mofi shows the difference between what is a LIMITED run and what is an OPEN run.
They’re all numbered, that’s irrelevant. But the ones that say they’re limited should not be numbered past what they say they will be (which to my knowledge hasn’t happened, so this actually corroborates)
VMP shows this, if you got your copy and it was number 764/1000 would you see a problem with that? Even if you personally didn’t care how many were pressed, don’t you think the deception and straight lie would be a violation of consumer trust?
Last edited:
I‘m NOT a fan of super limited pressings but I tend to agree here. If a company says it is limited to xxx # then they are making a statement of intent a buyer should be able to count on. They can still do other pressings unless they specifically say they will never repress a title. Just not an identical version.
So in practice there are infinite ways to weasel around the simple limited claim while still being true to their original statement. 45rpm, new artwork, colored versions, etc...
In this case MoFi changed the vinyl formulation so they are really pressing a new version. They just need to be more clear about it. Do they intend to repress other sold out limited versions with new vinyl form? I hope so.
Last edited:
LordKel
Active Member
Hopefully, a U.S. version will be announced soon, or at least it'll show up on Amazon prime.
Nope I absolutely understood the conversation! With limited I hate it so much that if after a period of time they go back and do another run but with a small difference, new colour, slightly different weight, even just new numbering, I jump up and down and say well fucking done. Let music fans have what they want in their hands. Artificial limitations are a cancer on this hobby and feed flippers, music fans first, collectors meh! I’m an absolutist on this and always have been pretty consistent about it over both forums.
Melt Face Molly Drop
Well-Known Member
Think we might be the same person. This back when CDs were $18.99
wynn72
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, as satisfying as it is to have some items worth a good bit in my collection, I got into this because I love music. Flippers are the worst part of this hobby and limited pressings just attract and encourage them.
I have a complete collection of VMP RHH and Classics, and my collection worth will take a serious hit with VMP seemingly going back on their word and repressing, and I don't mind a bit. Get the albums into the hands of the folks who want 'em.
Again guys, you’re turning it into an issue of flippers and investing. This is unfair because suddenly I find myself framed and placed into a box with flippers and price manipulators when all I wanted was to say A COMPANY SHOULD DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY’RE GOING TO DO, A COMPANY OUGHT NOT LIE TO IT’S CUSTOMERS.
Yes, flippers suck. Yes, price manipulation sucks. So why should practices enabling this be championed (that’s exactly what these companies are doing) instead of condemned. If you wanna make everything an open run, great, flippers won’t be interested and everyone can get one. But lying and deceiving your customers isn’t the move.
Yes, flippers suck. Yes, price manipulation sucks. So why should practices enabling this be championed (that’s exactly what these companies are doing) instead of condemned. If you wanna make everything an open run, great, flippers won’t be interested and everyone can get one. But lying and deceiving your customers isn’t the move.
Last edited:
Dead C
Well-Known Member
The reason this matters should be obvious. Scroll through this thread and see how often somebody is posting about how the pre-orders are killing them. That's because of the understandable belief that, if they don't pre-order something immediately, it could be too late for them to ever own it. That's how these "limited" releases wind up with 600 variants and so many customers wind up purchasing something they didn't end up wanting, because they didn't know what was coming next. To advertise something as limited pushes it higher up the FOMO/priority list. So, to deceive your customer base isn't just about tricking them into thinking what they got was extra "special" or "valuable," it directly influences their spending habits and, when they have compulsive tendencies, gets them to spend money that they otherwise might not have, and/or spend money at less responsible times for them financially. Beyond that, it forces people who would be less interested into "taking a chance" on something they either have never heard of, or are only moderately interested in, for fear they might be missing something. Once they have it, you've inadvertently put a title into someone's hands that has resale value and that they don't necessarily want after all.
If it's limited, that's cool. I get that angle feels almost necessary to companies that weren't selling much vinyl and were simply trying to stay in business before all of this culture took a shift. If everything else is limited and yours isn't, then you're falling back on that priority list for purchases. But, it's like a game of double dutch now trying to jump into these ropes, and that's for everyone from the retailers and labels to the customers. If they announce something as limited, it should be. If it's not, then it's false advertisement and it's still a deceptive practice, at best.
Space Wanderer
Well-Known Member
This is probably the best argument for why anyone should actually care about this, but I still find it unpersuasive. If advertising a run as a certain specific number got me to make a purchase that I otherwise wouldn’t have made and don’t really want out of FOMO, and the run does in fact sell out, then it’s likely that I have this record that I don’t really want at the expense of someone who really does want it. If they decide to press and sell more copies, in my opinion the good that does for the fans who actually want the record and would have otherwise missed out greatly outweighs whatever harm I might think they’re doing to me.
This is interesting on an ethical level, let’s extend on to a macro level a bit. Do you believe it is permissible to lie if it benefits the greater good? What are the potential challenges and pitfalls you can see if it is fact permissible? Might that practice be a slippery slope?
I believe that lying to benefit a greater good is permissible only if the reason for lying cannot be seen as self serving. If the reason for lying can be theoretically construed as self serving then it moves to being impermissible. Companies should not lie to their customers when the reasoning can be affirmatively argued to monetarily benefit themselves.
Last edited: