Subject:	introducing the beatles paste over question
Posted by:	perrybeatle on 4/27/08 10:20 AM
Here's another interesting oddball item that I own. I've seen documented in Bruce's Vee Jay book on the existance of a version 2 back cover slick that pasted over a version 1 back cover so factory could use those first covers when they changed from the Love Me Do/PS I Love You song selection to the Please Please Me/Ask Me Why selection, however, I own an original Introducing the Beatles with a version 2 back cover slick actually pasted over version 2 back cover. Now, why would this happen? I've examined the paste over job and I had thought that the reason this was done was to replace the Please Please Me with no (,) comma to a Please, Please Me with (,) a comma, but this is not the case as the original cover underneath has the comma. I can tell this because the paste over wasn't done in the exact same position, so you can see the "ghosting" underneath of the previous back cover. So, my question obviously is: Why would a version 2 slick get pasted over another version 2 back cover? anybody? thanks, Perry
[Posted by namralos on 4/28/08 4:23 PM] Printing is a very sloppy process. They goofed. I have a White Album that has the outside slick on "upside down." I've seen some Beatles albums on Capitol with NO back slick at all -- just blank cardboard. I've seen some other upside down ones. There's a whole "issue" of George's Wonderwall Music LP with the front slicks on upside down. Someone thought the album was supposed to be issued that way, and they loaded the machine with upside-down slicks. I've also seen Beatles slicks pasted over NON-Beatles slicks. E.g., a Buck Owens slick! Frank Daniels