It's crazy how much they've increased in price. I remember when the Beatles online store had everything including the box set for 50% off. Then Amazon had some of the individual LPs for dirt cheap, like AHDN was $15 or so for the longest time. I think they're still worth getting even at the current prices...maybe not Sgt Pepper tho. If someone's gonna pay >$100 they might as well get an original UK Mono. I've got both and the OG still edges it out, though the 2014 plays super clean
The Beatles
- Thread starter dbarila
- Start date
It's crazy how much they've increased in price. I remember when the Beatles online store had everything including the box set for 50% off. Then Amazon had some of the individual LPs for dirt cheap, like AHDN was $15 or so for the longest time. I think they're still worth getting even at the current prices...maybe not Sgt Pepper tho. If someone's gonna pay >$100 they might as well get an original UK Mono. I've got both and the OG still edges it out, though the 2014 plays super clean
lonestarlahr
Well-Known Member
I'm in the same boat. Still kicking my past self for not dropping the $350 at my local when I had the chance.
MikeH
Well-Known Member
Has anybody compared the MFSL Beatles box to the Beatles in Mono box? At this point, I've seen the MFSL box set for cheaper than the Mono resale...
AnthonyI
Well-Known Member
I've noticed that as well, and it gets tempting, but I think it would be cheaper for me to fill the holes one at a time at this point. I know the packaging is very different, each album has a generic jacket with the image of "Master Tapes" on it, the book that comes with it has all the album art in it and it does come with the GeoDisc.........I would assume they sound like the stand alone's I have, and would most likely be pressed in the same fashion. I really like the way the ones I have sound, but also really enjoy the mono box.
I'm assuming we're talking about this box:
The Beatles - The Collection
View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1982 Vinyl release of "The Collection" on Discogs.
www.discogs.com
MikeH
Well-Known Member
Yea--that's the one. I've seen some tempting prices as of late with them...meanwhile the Mono box is usually over $1,000 easily. I'm so bummed I missed out on buying the mono box. I have been buying some older MoFi pressings in general and only noticed the prices dropping on the MoFi box because of that. I don't have any Beatles MoFi albums though as they typically are pretty expensive to buy. I also threw on the White album box set yesterday as I was reorganizing my collection and it sounds real good on my system.I've noticed that as well, and it gets tempting, but I think it would be cheaper for me to fill the holes one at a time at this point. I know the packaging is very different, each album has a generic jacket with the image of "Master Tapes" on it, the book that comes with it has all the album art in it and it does come with the GeoDisc.........I would assume they sound like the stand alone's I have, and would most likely be pressed in the same fashion. I really like the way the ones I have sound, but also really enjoy the mono box.
I'm assuming we're talking about this box:
The Beatles - The Collection
View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1982 Vinyl release of "The Collection" on Discogs.
The MFSL is a bit different not just because its Stereo but some of them used later generation tapes for mastering (I forgot most of the specifics but you can find alot of the info on the Steve Hoffman Forums. I do remember Abbey Road being from a Capitol tape not the original master). The album lineup is different too since a few are not included in the Mono box (Abbey Road, Yellow Sub, Let It Be).
IMO the MFSL is fun to listen to, but it seems they played around with the EQ so its not an entirely accurate presentation. To me the cuts from the 70s BC-13 blue box sound better, the midrange is intact. The best thing about the MFSL to me is the box/case, I really wish the Mono Box came in a case like that one. But I hate that they didn't use the original cover art, especially since the individual releases did use them.
From a sound quality standpoint I think the Mono box can't be beat, you can tell they put alot of care into accurately reproducing from the tapes and they used a good source for each LP. The box is too flimsy for the amount of heavy LPs going into it but outside of that the packaging is fantastic, its like they were compensating for giving us shitty packaging with the 2012 stereo box. I've seen people say you should get the original UK monos instead of the 2014s at the current prices, but I think the reissues are better in that they are super quiet. All of the OG UK monos I've had played with at least occasional surface noise, even if VG+ or better.
So I guess to sum it up I would say:
- If you are looking for mono pressings, get the 2014 mono box.
- If you want Stereo, get a BC-13 blue box.
- If you are a completionist, get them all!
Last edited:
MikeH
Well-Known Member
Thanks! This is very helpful. I have only been sort of eyeing the MFSL box since the Mono seems impossible to find at this point and I don't want to spend $1,000 on a box set. I have a lot of OG pressings from my parents' collection but they are definitely not in great shape. I'm definitely not a completionist (and not rich to afford both haha) but I might check out that blue box sometime down the road since the others are so expensive. I have seen the blue box for around $250.
Yes I'm still surprised how much the Mono box went up in price. I was lucky to get one a few years ago for a great price. The blue box is a great value from an SQ standpoint. If you do get one just make sure to inspect the sleeves first, the packaging is flimsy and the records are thin so they tend to get bad seam splits if the owner was careless, or if it wasn't packed well for shipping.
Selaws
Well-Known Member
Hey team, wondered if anyone could give me a bit of help here. I'm a self-confessed Beatles novice. I like a lot of their songs and have a ton of their records, but really only picked them up because they were cheap (I've never paid more than £1 on a Beatles album - and only ever bought from carboot sales). During this lockdown period, I decided to have a spring clean of my records and sell off a load. I have a 1984 pressing which I am selling, but also have this copy which I think I will keep. I have looked online and believed it MIGHT be this pressing here - miss-aligned pressing?
I imagine the reason the apple section is cut out is because of the misalignment?
Anyway, if someone that's a bit more clued up could take a look that would be fantastic, although please don't take up too much of your time. I spent 30 odd minutes trawling Discogs and I'm still not sure I found the right one....
I imagine the reason the apple section is cut out is because of the misalignment?
Anyway, if someone that's a bit more clued up could take a look that would be fantastic, although please don't take up too much of your time. I spent 30 odd minutes trawling Discogs and I'm still not sure I found the right one....
You're lucky where you are that you can get Beatles albums that cheap! In the states everything is marked up even some of the awful US pressings.
For the one you have pictured, it looks like it is laminated (the laminate is 'bubbling'), and also the draincover is shown, so it should be an early pressing. It wouldn't be possible to tell if it's the misaligned apple sleeve unfortunately because somebody cut out that entire area, and the remaining part of the sleeve matches other variants (ie. 'Her Majesty' is not on the sleeve, but is on the label). Based on the subtle details of the labels, I think it might be this one:
The Beatles - Abbey Road
View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1969 Vinyl release of "Abbey Road" on Discogs.
www.discogs.com
For the version you linked, if you look at the pics of the labels you'll see 'Mfd. in UK' sits right on top of 'SIDE 1' and 'SIDE 2'.
On your labels and the one I linked there is more space between them, and everything else appears to match. Also the '33 1/3' is aligned to the left in the linked version, on your labels it is aligned in the center.
But even then it's hard to say for sure because there were so many variants, and occasionally there are some that are not on Discogs at all. I've collected a lot of UK presses and had to list my own a few times. The UK variants sometimes have really small differences so it can be challenging to spot them. You can get a better idea on this site, IMO it's more accurate than Discogs but it still doesn't have everything. For example I don't see a label that looks exactly like yours. The Discogs one I linked is the closest.
Selaws
Well-Known Member
Thanks so much for this. The pressing you linked was one I had as an option so looks like I managed to narrow it down to the correct region at leastYou're lucky where you are that you can get Beatles albums that cheap! In the states everything is marked up even some of the awful US pressings.
For the one you have pictured, it looks like it is laminated (the laminate is 'bubbling'), and also the draincover is shown, so it should be an early pressing. It wouldn't be possible to tell if it's the misaligned apple sleeve unfortunately because somebody cut out that entire area, and the remaining part of the sleeve matches other variants (ie. 'Her Majesty' is not on the sleeve, but is on the label). Based on the subtle details of the labels, I think it might be this one:
The Beatles - Abbey Road
View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1969 Vinyl release of "Abbey Road" on Discogs.
For the version you linked, if you look at the pics of the labels you'll see 'Mfd. in UK' sits right on top of 'SIDE 1' and 'SIDE 2'.
On your labels and the one I linked there is more space between them, and everything else appears to match. Also the '33 1/3' is aligned to the left in the linked version, on your labels it is aligned in the center.
But even then it's hard to say for sure because there were so many variants, and occasionally there are some that are not on Discogs at all. I've collected a lot of UK presses and had to list my own a few times. The UK variants sometimes have really small differences so it can be challenging to spot them. You can get a better idea on this site, IMO it's more accurate than Discogs but it still doesn't have everything. For example I don't see a label that looks exactly like yours. The Discogs one I linked is the closest.
As you said, there's so many it's pretty overwhelming! Thanks for the Beatles Collection link, I will do some more digging!
Thanks so much for this. The pressing you linked was one I had as an option so looks like I managed to narrow it down to the correct region at least
As you said, there's so many it's pretty overwhelming! Thanks for the Beatles Collection link, I will do some more digging!
To the dead wax (I hate reading dead wax
)
Selaws
Well-Known Member
It did narrow it down a bit, but still ended up with a crazy long listTo the dead wax (I hate reading dead wax
Having heard a bootleg of the Glyn Johns “Get Back” album, we aren’t missing much. It really isn’t very good.
Gavaxeman
Well-Known Member
Someone’s stuck the “Let it Be” movie in full on YouTube...it’s also not very good , but a bit of a curio. I have to say I feel sorry for Paul ..he’s desperately trying to keep a totally disinterested John on board , a sulky George in the frame and having a frankly weird Yoko floating around ... saying nothing with words but everything with expressions. Even Ringo looks bored .... it was the right thing to split imo
Hard disagree. Paul is the least sympathetic of them and pretty much everyone hating him is the reason they imploded. Also to be fair they did get back together after all of this and record Abbey Road so maybe good that they didn’t split right away!
Lots of the issue was that all but Paul wanted Allen Klein to be their manager. Paul wanted his father in law Lee Eastman.
This is true. That’s the one thing he did right in hindsight looking at the stones as the Klien example. But to be fair I think that George at this stage was pretty much ready to murder him over how he was still putting down his songs, which by that stage had got pretty damn good, and all three were sick of his close relationship with George Martin and how they had to spend day’s on recording even the least of his songs before he’d look at anyone else’s. He’s also not known as the tightest man in music without cause.
And of course a lot of it is that if you live in the pocket of even your closest friends for 8 or 9 years that every little niggle and personality flaw becomes amplified. The bands that last the long term tend to learn how to take band breaks and come back refreshed, The Beatles were pretty much non stop for those years they were active.
BOOKS ARE FOR SUCKERS!So big new announcement e-mail...
...it’s a fucking book...
...that doesn’t come out until August 2021
