Nursery Cryme vs Fragile

Yes Gomah, it's curios, 34 years,,,,wow that's a life time!!!!!!!

BTW: Lets tell Micky not to place a bid, because the final price of that item was 183 POUNDS (Not 8 pounds), so that item he saw must be fake, nobody would sell in 8 pounds something that costs 183 Pounds.

If you get a diamond ring for 10 cents probably you'll get a ring that's not worth a dime!!!!!!

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Yes Gomah, it's curios, 34 years,,,,wow that's a life time!!!!!!! BTW: Lets tell Micky not to place a bid, because the final price of that item was 183 POUNDS (Not 8 pounds), so that item he saw must be fake, nobody would sell in 8 pounds something that costs 183 Pounds. If you get a diamond ring for 10 cents probably you'll get a ring that's not worth a dime!!!!!! Iván

Popsike collects data on finished items. I don't know where Micky found that deal, but if it is on eBay there is a high chance that price goes up by the time bid finishes.

BTW: I emailed the guy from whom I provided a quote earlier in discussion:

As for 'Fragile', again, the original issue UK red/plum (Atlantic; 2401-019), released Nov. 1971 is killer. You've not heard The Fish or Heart of the Sunrise unless you've heard this one. Contrary to popular belief, the red/green UK (Atlantic K50009) version was not released until Aug. 1972. The first US pressing is (Atlantic SD7211). Here is an oddity....

And he is going to send me a photo of 1971 LP. Here is what he wrote to me:

This one is easy. All four of my red/plums have 1971 printed right on the
label. I will take a picture and send later. Plus there are a couple of
unofficial discography compilations which give the 1971 date. But, one
cannot get official than the label.

Hope he sends it along with sleeves pictures, then we will see what new argument you will bring. You've already started that PRESSING DATE arguement !

I wrote yesterday :

3.- As I told you on a PM, when I helped in a radio, they used to get special albums one, two or even three months before the release, with great covers and sometimes wonderful booklets full of interesting photos and info that were never released to the public. This albums (According to Peruvian Tax law, Foreign releases pay 36,6% of tax except when for critic or cultural purpose)  given to the radios had no serial N° and a big black advice that said: "Solo para uso de la crítica......Prohibida su venta"  (Only for critic purpose, not to be sold)

Just tell me something honestly: Do you you believe all Yes publications, every Yes official site and ever Yes member official site is wrong and your friend is right?

Your friend is talking also about unofficial editions that mention 1971, and again if it's not clearly stated in any official and reliable source that it was released in 1971, you can't trust.

That 1971 in the album can be anything from press date to recording , but not an official release date, because if you don't trust in official sources, well, you can trust less in unofficial sources 

As Atkingani proved you, not even the charts in 70's are reliable Gomah.

ivan_2068 wrote: Just tell me something honestly: Do you you believe all Yes publications, every Yes official site and ever Yes member official site is wrong and your friend is right? Iván

Honestly, from the begining I had no problem with the fact that OFFICIAL release date of Fragile is 4 Jan 1974. But what I am saying is the FIRST UK release is Nov 1971.

Just a side not: This is from Judas Priest web site:

Gull Records through many subsiduary companies are releasing sub standard re-hashes of these 1st two albums under different guises. If for instance anyone out there has bought their "JUDAS PRIEST - THE BEST OF" - Insight Series, then they would find that 50% of the album consists of a mindless interview with John Hinch an ex-drummer with Priest who we had to let go because he was musically inadequate. The interview is not only misleading but full of rubbish and false information.

Not remotely the case, Jusdas Priest is talking ABOUT A COMPILATION, even your friend has mentioned unofficial compilations by Yes.

No Yes member ever tried to release an unofficial compilation.

Fragile is their turning point, an official release OWNED BY ATLANTIC RECORDS, do't try to mix different things.

And tihis is from Allmusic:

There is much consternation between the band and their original label, Gull Records, and due to legal wranglings, Judas Priest does not formally recognize Genocide (or other similar greatest-hits packages from this era) as an official release from the band.
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:5ddnvwpi a9ik

Yes didn't had any problem with their publishers, they even share the rights with later Yes companies like Yessongs Ltd and Topographic Music Ltd.

Judas Priest was having a trial with Recall Records!!!!!!!! Something never happened with Yes, they even make an agreement about who will keep the name if the band split (Talking about Yes), different case with absolutely no relation or similarity.

And Juda's Priest issue is  mentioned as causing MUCH CONSTERNATION!!!! No site talks about consternation in Yes releases, Yes members never had troubles with their ex members before the 80's, and when they had, the ex members decided to use another name (Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman Howe) and you knoew why????

Because Yes made their contracts perfectly and spablished the conditions, so their info is 100% reliable.

Don't compare again.

By this I am not saying that there has been a problem between Yes and recoding companies, I am just suggesting that you should think twice when talking about official information.

For God's sake, I've mentioned 6 OFFICIAL SITES from Yes and Yes members plus an OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, not one of them has a difference, all give the same date, what more do you want?????

Only sys Phonogram 1971. something we all know.

CHECK THAT THIS PHOTO IS COMPLETE, noi white blank space between the photo and this comments.

Check that this photo is incomplete, a white paper has been placed over the copyright and serial number of this second photo, that's why a huge blank space can be seen under it!!!!!

What a shame!!!!!!!!!

May I ask you WHY DID DAVID CUT THE SECOND PHOTO EXACTLY WHERE THE DATE OF COPYRIGHT APPEARS IN THE COVER????? I HAVE 5 FRAGILE COPIES AS YOU KNOW, AND EXACTLY UNDER THE ATLANTIC SEAL YOU CAN FIND THIS NOTES.

Anyone here can check his copy (despite the edition) and find that the date has been covered.

This has been done to hide it was copyrighted in 1972, something impossible in an album suposedly released in  1971?????

This album has liner notes (as every album), THE FACT IS THAT THE PHOTO HAS BEEN MUTILATED TO HIDE THIS NOTES  

We doin't even know if this is the cover of the vynil you show!! BECAUSE THE SERIAL NUMBER OF THE COVER HAS BEEN ERASED PLACING A WHITE PAPER OVER IT, THAT'S WHY YUO CAN SEE A BLANK SPACE BELLOW THE ATLANTIC SYMBOL

Please Gomah, you can do better than that.

David who provided these photos said:

Nowhere on the LP cover or liner notes does it give a date other than it was
recorded in September 1971. On the LP, itself, is the date 1971 - which would NOT occur had it been released in 1972. I can assure you that this LP
was released in 1971.

Not even in the liner notes??????? All the Fragile albums that I have indicate at least copyrighted in 1972, but of course the photos are complete, not mutilated exactly where the copyright date apprears.

BTW: Helped you to open the link, It only says (P) = Phonogram 1971, that is not RELEASED IN 1971.

You showed an exact picture last year.

Thanks David

I think I am done with this thread!

Gomah wrote: David who provided these photos said: Nowhere on the LP cover or liner notes does it give a date other than it was recorded in September 1971. On the LP, itself, is the date 1971 - which would NOT occur had it been released in 1972. I can assure you that this LP was released in 1971. Not even in the liner notes??????? All the Fragile albums that I have ibndicate at least copyrighted in 1972 BTW: Helped yoou to open the link, It only says (P) = Phonogram 1971, that is not RELEASED IN 1971. You showed an exact picture last year. Thanks David I think I am done with this thread!

Sorry not enough for anybody, we all know it was recorded in September 1971, that's third or fourth hand news. We know it has a Phonogram of 1971 (Fifth hand news) but according to EACH AN EVERY reliable source it was released in 1972.

You're guessing it was released that year, but there's no express indication that it was released in 1971, except David's opinion.

By the contrary I posted 19 express quotes  by Yes and Yes members that it was released in 1972.

(Thanks Jon Anderson, Chris Squire, Steve Howe and Bill Bruford )

If I have ti choose between believing David (?????) and Yes, I GO WITH YES and I'm sure any person will.

Iván

I'm also done with this thread.

I posted the picture as somebody casted doubt about the date being 1972, as the previous picture was not clear. You try to scape the vital facts by paying too much attention to side facts:

So it wasn't David who send you the photos, but it's a picture copied from your previous post???????

So this is not a new argument, but a photo posted by you on 2005 and a mutilated cover with incomplete date?

And yes I pay attention to side facts, because i don't mutilate evidence and cover partially a photo to hide the copyright date.

If you're so desperate to win even hiding part of the Fragile (Cover album) photo to hide information, then go on, I won't worry anymore about this thread.

Then what's new since your first post?

1. There is a Fragile LP released 1971, no one releases such a thing in 1972 and put 1971 on the label.
2. That (p) means copyright, NO DOUBT, look at all other LPs you have.
3. There is no other copyright not on that LP. ( Just tell me why in the second photo you or David had to cover part of the Atlantic seal and the place where the liner notes are?)

   

   Check the blank space between your photo and this writting (It also appears in your post, just in case you want to accuse me of changing), this means a part of the photo has been covered by a white paper sheet, something I never did, all my info was quoted in it's integrity. FOR GOD'S SAKE, EVEN THE ATLANTIC SEAL WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER ATTACHED IS INCOMPLETE......SHAME ON WHO DID IT!!!!!!!

4. Yes actually DID release an LP without (C) for lyrics, etc. (IMPOSSIBLE, lawyers study 4 to 6 years depending of the country, and a big company like Atlantic would never hire an idiot who will allow an album be released with copyright)

5. Again look at KTA lyrics, note that 1971 for Roundabout.

Now you are the laywer, go figure why it has happened, but don't deny that it HAPPENED.

Done!

What a shame!!!!!!!!!

May I ask you WHY DID DAVID CUT THE SECOND PHOTO EXACTLY WHERE THE DATE OF COPYRIGHT APPEARS IN THE COVER????? I HAVE 5 FRAGILE COPIES AS YOU KNOW, AND EXACTLY UNDER THE ATLANTIC SEAL YOU CAN FIND THIS NOTES.

Anyone here can check his copy (despite the edition) and find that the date has been covered.

This has been done to hide it was copyrighted in 1972, something impossible in an album suposedly released in  1971?????

This album has liner notes (as every album), THE FACT IS THAT THE PHOTO HAS BEEN MUTILATED TO HIDE THIS NOTES  

We doin't even know if this is the cover of the vynil you show!! BECAUSE THE SERIAL NUMBER OF THE COVER HAS BEEN ERASED PLACING A WHITE PAPER OVER IT, THAT'S WHY YUO CAN SEE A BLANK SPACE BELLOW THE ATLANTIC SYMBOL

Please Gomah, you can do better than that.

I posted the picture as somebody casted doubt about the date being 1972, as the previous picture was not clear. You try to scape the vital facts by paying too much attention to side facts: