To comment in the AC/DC forum [ Sign In | Register ]
Custom Search

ACDCfans.net

This forum is for fans of rock music, rock bands and rock concerts - and in particular AC/DC's brand of high-voltage rock 'n' roll music. ACDCfans.net brings you the latest AC/DC news and gives rock music fans and musicians a chance to meet others like them around the world.

To comment in the forum, you need to register for an account. Sign in to your account below or apply for membership.















    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Feb 21st 2017
     
    The date stamp theory looking pretty strong.

    South African Blow Up Your video. 5 22 88


    •  
      AC/DC rock music: bonlives
    • Feb 22nd 2017
     
    I should just ban you now :)

    Ok, so the date stamp theory is back on the table. However, they still don't look like dates relating to the printing of the green/purple Let There Be Rock. They weren't printed in 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 (over 5 years). There's too few of them (coming up on eBay from time to time, but not often enough for there to be thousands of them in circulation) and no plant fires up their printers for such small runs on random days over the course of 5 years. Surely?!?

    All the copies I've seen/asked about were printed by Interpak.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: bonlives
    • Feb 22nd 2017
     
    Is that 5 22 1 88 on the BUYV? Looks like a 1 in the picture
    • AC/DC rock music: angus5041
    • Feb 22nd 2017 edited
     
    I am still waiting for one to come up anywhere
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Feb 22nd 2017
     
    Posted By: bonlivesIs that 5 22 1 88 on the BUYV? Looks like a 1 in the picture


    I think that "1" is just a mark. Not part of the stamp.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Mar 3rd 2017
     
    One more.

    South African Fly On the Wall. 14 7 85 00

  1.  
    Hmmm....it's looking a lot like a date stamp again. But how do we know they left the plant like that? It could be a stamp for chart verification purposes or anything. I mean, the years are correct but BIB is either October or November 1980 depending on date format...
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Mar 4th 2017
     
    Oops. Found one more.

    South African '74 Jailbreak. 51 11 84 0

    The 51 doesn't make sense, but '74 Jailbreak was released in the U.S. in October of 1984, so 11 84 for a South African version certainly fits right in with a date stamp.

  2.  
    What about labels? I find in the web 3 diff labels, all red black style, but different in the diciture... Manufactered bla bla bla.... Someone know more about? And, all the original issue were stamped with the date on back cover?
    • AC/DC rock music: zinfernio
    • Jun 6th 2017 edited
     
    Here the 3 label i found..., which one is original? maybe all the 3?? confused........


    [URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pmsDJtHSj]

    [URL=https://imageshack.com/i/podCe7VZj]

    [URL=https://imageshack.com/i/poapz3Tlj]
    • AC/DC rock music: zinfernio
    • Jun 6th 2017 edited
     
    Help help help. : )))
  3.  
    No one... : ((
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Jun 8th 2017
     
    I'm not sure how to answer your question. Don't know how to tell from the labels. Sorry.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: bonlives
    • Jun 8th 2017
     
    zinfernio, I'm not sure what question you're actually asking.

    You've posted 3 labels, different obviously in relation to the credits around the edge of the label. The first one is pictured alongside a purple cover. The others unclear.

    Are you asking which variant of the label is associated with the purple cover?
  4.  
    All the 3 labels are taked from the web along the purple cover! From diacogs, ebay, popsike...
    But is it possible that 500 copies were press with 3 different label?!?
  5.  
    Which one do you have?
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Jun 8th 2017 edited
     
    My purple cover version looks like the first of those three pictures you posted.

    I sold a South African Let There Be Rock with the regular cover, and the label on that one looked like #3 of your pictures.

    [Link to eBay item]
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: bonlives
    • Jun 8th 2017
     
    I wouldn't place much trust in discogs - listings on there can often be a mixed bag of pictures cobbled together, not necessarily from an actual single copy. Often listings share pictures.

    I'll check my copy tonight.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Jun 8th 2017
     
    Posted By: bonlivesI wouldn't place much trust in discogs - listings on there can often be a mixed bag of pictures cobbled together, not necessarily from an actual single copy. Often listings share pictures.

    I'll check my copy tonight.


    I have done my part to make sure many of the AC/DC ones are accurate, with updated pictures. But there are so many versions of some things that it would be way to much work to check them all.
  6.  
    One up for sale at the moment on the cheap side.

    [Link to eBay item]
  7.  
    Yep, im watching it..
    That one have as side 1 label the example above num 1, than as side 2 have the second example... Are all like that? Dont think so .... I have seen copy label side 1 & 2 like the first example...
  8.  
    I finally got one for £200. Fairly ok condition but not mint. It'll do for now.
  9.  
    Make an offer: [Link to eBay item]
    • AC/DC rock music: GShootin
    • Dec 11th 2017 edited
     


    Been cataloging all my collection on Discogs and came to this one today.

    The above label image is the same as mine, it does seem odd that a so called 500 pressing would have three different label variations ... VERY suspect

    With regards the sleeve stamp. It's incredibly hard to be certain what mine says, but i'm going with 28 (or possibly 23) 7 81 (and possibly) a 5 after that. And it's located upside down at the bottom centre of the back cover
  10.  
    Hello all, and thanks for this interesting discussion. I have been wondering myself for quite a long time what this coding is. I had seen it on other SA albums - nothing exclusive to the LTBR press.

    My copy has 25 7 81 S as a number. Quite close to the Gshooting copy above. What if they were put in sleeves and pressed to order? So imagine we print 500 sleeves in this beautiful color and on a good day I decide to make 100 and send them out for sale. Once they're done, I'll make another 100 and ship the other batch. To keep track or inventory, I just put numbers on the sleeve, possibly with a date coding, so I know as a sales rep how long this album has been in stock unsold and get a glance of album rotations in the store or for a particular artist.

    I was always intrigued by the story on Facebook, but have some doubts about it. Or is the guy right, only he got blamed for manufacturing a blue background sleeve in 1977 while everyone else in the company thought it needed to be purple? So they only pressed purple ones from 1980 onwards. Ha!

    I have posted the question also on DISCOGS but without reply.

    Cheers and happy collecting!
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Sep 7th 2018 edited
     
    hi all!

    I just collect my copy of that beauty, its def like yours (last picture), label match. num is 5 6 81 5
    The '81' is the year, the other, dont know. Maybe one is the month, and another can be the number
    of that pressed cover. Like '81' (year) '5' (ID number for the ltbr) 5 6 (number of that copy). Something like that.
    All the code finish with the 5 for the ltbr? Right?

    I saw the past comment, that tell thats not a date stamp, but why the other SA press
    have the right year of release embossed on back cover? bib 80, fotw 85, jailbreak 84 (like 'inferno' figure out…).
    So imo, its not a date stamp, but its a printer code, and in my opinion the '80', 81, 82, '83', 84 are
    the year of pressing. Not sure about the 80 and 83 on ltbr. You see a ltbr with 80 or 83???
    Im also pretty sure that all the back in black SA press have the '80' impressed, cause they pressed it the same
    year as the first australian press, and never repressed.

    All that copies have the right label, with on right side the diciture "1-4 EMI brigadiers". First SA press are from 1980 or 81 (wait confirm of the '80' impressed rear code...).
    The 1977 on label state that the first press ever was done, in australia. Same (similar) label as double dynamite and 2 originals of dlp, 1979 and 1981 (dont have the impressed code! maybe cause its a gatefold sleeve??)
    The copies with purple cover and diff label than that one are normal vinyl press (reg cover) with purple cover
    (that was overpressed for sure as an error can make good money…) are made to sell it overpriced as rarity.
    Will be interesting to check the embossed number on back cover of a regular cover variation. IMO from 80-84
    let there be rock was repressed in regular cover variation, and also with purple cover error (but with diff
    label). Some purple cover have the regular label cover variation, cause the purple is worth much more and sell easy..

    Anyway, impossible that this purple cover release was made on only 500 copies.
    Its the same think as the french green cover bernett press of the ride the lightning - metallica.
    Im in the circle of metallica rare records since many years, and i see many of this green cover, thats
    impossible was limited to 400 copy as know from many collectors.
    I think that after the first 500 copies, that was sold out, SA wea factory press more copies later in the years..

    Like 'acdcbelgium' write here above, the rare purple cover, was probably repressed over the years, maybe 500
    each year for 5 year, maybe lower, dont know.
    I see that the holland splatter if you wanna blood come for sale 2-3 times each year (LTD 500)
    The purple cover ltbr pop up 10-15 times each year, so figure out itself.

    I notice also that on discogs thers 2 diff entry for the purple cover, with diff label, but thers no entry for
    the regular cover variation (later repress), so i forced a bit the release, delete purple pics and add the
    regular cover variation, with is right label. WIll look what happens on the discogs community ; )


    Its a theory, and its my opinion, can be not true. Anyway…, comment welcome.

    cheers all, dono
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Sep 7th 2018 edited
     
    Update:

    the impressed back code for ltbr, i only seen the code

    xx x(x) 81 5 or xx x(x) 82 5

    and

    xx x(x) 84 00

    never seen an 80 or 83 actually.

    any advice about is welcome.
  11.  
    Dono , think you should have left that Discogs version untouched and duplicate a new release for the 'regular' sleeve.
    I have 2 and they both have a different label and different tinge.... on is xx x(x) 81 5 and the other on the xx x(x) 82 5 format.
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Sep 8th 2018
     
    You really think that a the purple release ltd to 500 have 2 different label variation!? mmmm...
    anyway, think that on discogs someone will change the entry quite fast, im surprised that still like i changed it yesterday, dont like discogs cause everyone can change it with no garancy behind. Its comic that the real purple entry have minor 'wants' that the entry i corrected on the reg cover, as per label.

    btw, i find a lot of interpak press that have the right year code on backside, non only acdc. So still thinking why the ltbr purple dated 77 have the code 81 or 82...
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Sep 8th 2018
     
    will be interesting to kniw if all the 82 code cover have the regolar label variant, maybe from 81 to 82 change the label.
  12.  
    Hi guys, sorry I can't shed any light on this mystery. My copy has 6 9 84 00 stamped on the cover. Matrix is ATC 9671 A -3 and ATC 9671 B -3
  13.  
    I’ll check mine tomorrow.
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Sep 12th 2018
     
    well, i talk about this matter with few collectors, and the printer code on backside for the interpak press are more than probably a year code.
    so, the first aus press of ltbr its dated 77, but the SA press will be probably press some year later, after the back in black success (thats was printed the same year as australian first release, 1980, stated also on the backside code).
    so imo, the ltbr purple was printe in 3 times, 81,82 and 84,
    maybe with the 82 w diff label (still wait confirm about).
    Its just my opinion, well, not only mine in fact.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: bonlives
    • Sep 13th 2018
     
    Posted By: Donoso imo, the ltbr purple was printe in 3 times, 81,82 and 84,
    Since these numbers align with the release dates on other AC/DC albums pressed in SA, it is certainly looking like this "misprint" was pressed multiple times over 3 different years, although there's hardly enough of them in circulation to support that conclusion (although different labels would support it). That of course doesn't square with the claims of the guy who says he's responsible for the misprint before 1981.

    So either:

    * it was pressed over 3 different years (per the sleeve stampers); or
    * the guy's story is legit and there has been a monumental fuck up with the stampers (and they have no relationship to a pressing year in this particular case); or
    * both.

    Who knows? I'm not sure we ever will.
  14.  
    The sleeve could have been printed once (and wrong) but 'called' at the printer for 500 copies every year. Then they got the stamp to show what year they were pressed.
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Sep 13th 2018
     
    still thinking that sound strange that in SA pressed the ltbr in the same year as the original australian first press.
    much album was released in us, eu, in one year, and some years later pressed in country like south america, japan, etc.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Sep 13th 2018 edited
     
    Posted By: Donostill thinking that sound strange that in SA pressed the ltbr in the same year as the original australian first press.
    much album was released in us, eu, in one year, and some years later pressed in country like south america, japan, etc.


    We need everyone with South African releases of Let There Be Rock (purple or regular) to get high quality pictures of the back covers, and try to get a shot of the stamp if you've got an Interpak album. Artone Press won't have the stamp, but it would still be interesting to view those sleeves too. I'd like to see Powerage albums also.

    I'm not sure I buy the guys story anymore regarding the purple covers. And like Dono, I'm a bit suspicious that any Let There Be Rock album was actually pressed in 1977.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Sep 13th 2018 edited
     
    Gary Numan anyone?

    https://www.worthpoi...

    The Pleasure Principle
    Country - SOUTH AFRICA - 2nd issue (Interpak sleeve)

    Difference between 1st & 2nd issues......The 2nd (Interpak) sleeve has a Gold embossed 'WD' on the reverse,and an almost hidden embossed date stamp at the bottom.

    They are also totally different coloured sleeves !!
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Sep 14th 2018 edited
     
    at inferno: I'd like to see Powerage albums also.
    Got confirm about, powerage its an artone press, no code.
    can ask picture if needed...
  15.  
    Posted By: InfernoGary Numan anyone?

    https://www.worthpoi...

    The Pleasure Principle
    Country - SOUTH AFRICA - 2nd issue (Interpak sleeve)

    Difference between 1st & 2nd issues......The 2nd (Interpak) sleeve has a Gold embossed 'WD' on the reverse,and an almost hidden embossed date stamp at the bottom.

    They are also totally different coloured sleeves !!



    This is an interesting development!
  16.  
    Have found another non AC/DC album with date coding.
    Rolling Stones Undercover, released in 1983, coded 8 11 83 7, so supporting the year of pressing.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Mar 7th 2019 edited
     
    I stumbled on (and joined) a South African Audio/Video enthusiasts forum. I posted our info and some questions about the Let There Be Rock sleeve and the stamps, and things are getting interesting.

    An older gentleman on that forum worked in the industry, and is a wealth of knowledge. I'll post more as I get it.

    -Inferno

    --------

    "The embossed No. on the sleeve is more than likely the work ticket No. of the job embossed on there when the sleeves were die cut and creased, before folding and gluing. We did indeed No. work tickets with the year so it might very well be the year, not necessarily the month and date. Did this so when we did repeats we could find the existing material and use it again.

    I will contact and old colleague of mine who worked at Interpack for many years, and see if he can help, or ask someone who used to work with him if he knows the reason. All the guys that were involved are in their 70's or dead, or in their late 60's like myself.

    I never worked for either Artone or Interpack just for companies that did their scans, typesetting, origination and supplied final material for them to make plates from and then print. We used go by the handle of Process Houses, did material for ad agencies for newspapers magazines and all their stuff that used to be printed..."
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Mar 7th 2019 edited
     
    "Interpack being just the printers and originators of the record sleeves and later farming the origination out merely printed the sleeves, and had nothing at all to do with the pressings. Same with artone.

    Worked with the record industry involved in the printing side for long enough to lose my hair.
    They were cost cutters deluxe, our local record publishers. Even used to design some of their logos at no cost to them. Tight fist'd was not the word.

    I know Gallo had a record pressing plant in Rhodesia.
    And being open to correction most if not all local SA pressings came from the EMI plant in Steeldale Johannesburg.

    Some good, some bad, some awful, pressings pot luck.

    Interpack record pressings is a misnomer.

    A lot of the sleeves were not the same as overseas ones due to the fact that a lot of the time the origination material supplied to us was either rubbish negatives or just a sleeve to re-screen and take it from there.

    We used our skills to tidy up what we could, and I for one was given cart blanch to redesign the sleeves with what we had in hand, all with the various record companies final say.

    So in the respect of them being collectible some SA and Rhodesian sleeves are unique, and only printed in limited quantities. The layout and design thereof being to product of some underpaid bloke working on the light table."
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Mar 8th 2019 edited
     
    So another guy on the South Africa forum said that he checked HUNDREDS of his Interpak records and didn't find the stamp on any of them! That was shocking to me, as I even found another one on a Saxon album listed on eBay.

    Then the main guy with all the knowledge posted this:


    "Right I think I have got to the bottom of the No's.

    Spoke to an old colleague, who worked at Interpack for many years. For interest sake he is the son of our own now departed Peter Lotus the singer.

    Those no's were only put on certain record sleeves, they were reference no's, job no's for the record publisher, not the printer. That is why you do not find them on all pressings it was publisher unique. Our local pressings were published/distributed by the local record publishers, that were the de facto agents for the overseas record companies. That is why you would get two logos. A local one like Gallo, Tusk, RPM, DRG etc along with the Warner Brothers, Motown, A&M etc. All local pressings were done by EMI at the Steeldale plant, there were no other record pressers in the country, only other was the one in Rhodesia. There was a record pressing plant in Sono Cairo in Egypt. That would be about it, as far as Africa is concerned, as far as I am aware.

    So indeed the last No. is quite likely the year it was first distributed.

    Hope this helps. We are talking about things that took place over 40 years ago in some cases, lucky some of us are still around and sane enough to tell the tale.

    EMI were the only ones that had a local presence in our market, they had no need for a local publisher/distributor. They handled all their various different labels themselves like Virgin, Parlophone and HMV = until the 80's; for example.

    There was a lot of politics and wheeling and dealing among'st our local publishers, remember having to change all the publishing details on a CD booklet print for Rodriguez because of some conflict as to who had the rights to distribute and publish them locally."
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Inferno
    • Mar 8th 2019 edited
     
    This topic may not be of interest to a lot of people, but for any of you collectors reading it, I would love it if you would check any and all South African Interpak records you own (including non-AC/DC) and let us know if you see the stamp or not.
    And also who the "publisher" is. On my Let There Be Rock it's WEA Records (which became Tusk in 1986). I can't check my other records as I sold them.
  17.  
    Fascinating stuff. Glad this thread is still alive! Good job with the hunt dudes!
  18.  
    Outstanding. Good work. My “date stamp” or job number is 28 7 81 2
    • AC/DC rock music: Dono
    • Mar 14th 2019
     
    Nice job indeed, than we was right when saying its a date, really interesting think. So the ltbr was pressed first in the '80, than later in the years until' 84... was interesting also know how many where pressed, sure was limited, but how much? maybe 200-300 each year?
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: bonlives
    • Mar 23rd 2019
     
    [Link to eBay item]

    Now being sold with a “letter” by the Benjy chap who claims he created these in 1977.

    Anyone in touch with him who could get him talking with the old timers who say the number is a date reference? His story just isn’t checking out.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: benji
    • Mar 23rd 2019
     
    It’s not me before anyone asks!