Electric Ladyland

* Note that with Track and Polydor releases some stamper detail is expressed as: 

> = an upside down triangle in all stamped matrix detail for the Track Record's and Polydor Record's pressings 

% = a diamond

^ = a triangle  

Track Record Electric Ladyland 613 008/9, 2657 001, 613 010 and 613 017. 

While this piece is not bent on eviscerating all that has gone before, it is designed to trim down and move past simple opinion and any unsupported leaps in faith regard this 1960’s issued record. While it will support some previous comment it will hopefully dispel some of the records surrounding myths.

Tim Greenhall has over the years turned up some several interesting variations to the Electric Ladyland release, from Track Records. 

(To be a) Blue or White Text? It’s an old question I feel I first heard it in a Shakespearian performance way back when! It has been argued that the colour of the inner gatefold text signified if the copy was a first, second or even later pressing. Touted as rare and a first press often by a seller looking to boost the value of a sale. The truth is simple and can be supported, the all blue text, the all-white text, the blue and white text and even the variation of the Noel and Mitch picture size on the inner gatefold sleeve, well they were all printed at the beginning of the run. Take a look at the following pictures and they clearly show the small Noel / Mitch pictures. Often quoted as being from the later pressings, these pictures clearly show the white text covers and so helps to dispel the myth of the error blue text copies being utilised for display purpose. 

Fig. 1-3, promotion of the album, Lord Kitcheners, London 14th November 1968. Fig. 4 another out shot from the cover photo session.

Those error print sleeves that had the blue or blue and white text on the inner gatefold clearly were utilised for the release, though maybe it remains to be seen if they were utilised for shop available records or simply for pressing plant employees and the like to buy at a discounted price. While there are fewer covers with this error they are by no means rare to the market so that would suggest that some at least made it to retail outlets. Track Records after all were never a big budget enterprise so waste would have been kept to a minimum. If it was usable it would be. The biggest question of course is how the error arose in the first instance.

It is obvious that the error printing are from the first print run, maybe that is what confuses some. It is worth noting that from those differing first printed sleeves there are some other noteworthy points; be it catalogue number layout, picture size, along with the text colours. They also carry some common ground across the variations; same catalogue number [Track Record 613 008/9] these early printed copies all have the picture of Jimi on the inner gate’ to the right hand side when the sleeve is opened with the front cover facing upward. That latter point would change along with the catalogue number at a later date.

So, just how can a “first press” be identified? Only by the run out matrix detail in the dead wax of each record and for that we need to know at least a minimum of two genuine first press records for reference. To that end I was able to consider a “dual” label copy which I had access to and was able to present the detail against a set of records that was presented to the BBC pre-release of the record.

Inner sleeves can give a valuable indication as to when a record was made available for sale but again it cannot be accurate in showing if we have a genuine first press or simply from the early pressed records. Plus a word of caution here, second hand records may not be housed in or have the actual inner sleeves they originally came with. See Note #1, below.

Putting aside, at least for the moment that this record had differing pressed side matching [though we will cover that in due course as it is a telling fact in this tale], an early run pressed set of records will contain the following, per side:

61300[scratched out digit, possibly 8, hand etched 9 added] A//1

61300[scratched out digit 8, hand etched 9 added] B//1

61300[scratched out digit 9, hand etched 8 added] A//1

61300[scratched out digit 9, hand etched 8 added] B//1

This will indicate a “first press”, or to be more accurate from the first run of records pressed at the plant. For an actual first off the press record, the remaining detail must match the following, exactly.

61300[scratched out digit, possibly 8, hand etched 9 added] A//1 1 [partly stamped 2] 4

61300[scratched out digit 8, hand etched 9 added] B//1 1 [partly stamped 2]

61300[scratched out digit 9, hand etched 8 added] A//1 1 4

61300[scratched out digit 9, hand etched 8 added] B//1 1

If any record does not match be it different numbers, extra numbers, missing numbers then it is likely not first off of the press. With so many records produced initially, more than one set of lacquers would have been cut to meet demand, See Note #2, below. Also reference the update #1 at the end of this article.

Beside this double LP we also have a second issued run of records that carries both a different catalogue number and also differing matrix detail, at least on some sides. These clearly show details of fresh lacquers cut and also demonstrate the mix and match approach to pressing plates for this title. 

6130[stamped 08 scratched out, scratched 98 crossed out] [//7 added above crossed out stamped 0] A//1 169018

613009 A >2 420 11 12

613009 B//2 420 11 3

613008 B >2 420 1 [incomplete 2?] 11

The first side of this “second press” utilises the plate cut for the “Electric Ladyland part 2” single LP and note it is also from the “first run” set of lacquers. The following three sides are unique as they are newly cut lacquers for this later set.

We also need to check the matrix dead wax detail for the “Electric Ladyland part 1” release, if for no other reason than to show that these are also “first run” pressings as this single record was issued on the same day as the double record set, Friday 25thOctober 1968.

613010 A >2 420 1 [part stamped 2 and part stamped 6]

613010 B > 2 420 12 11

A unique set of lacquers for Part one while the later issued Part two of this double set utilises the earlier used plate numbers, clearly showing detail from other lacquers cut from the outset of this record.

Despite best efforts, I have yet to determine an accurate release date for this second volume, though it was not issued until the following year, 1969. See Note #3, below.

6130[stamped 08 scratched out, scratched 98 crossed out] A//1 [//7 added above crossed out stamped 0] 1 [part stamped unknown number] 12

[Hand etched 613017 B-1] [Scratched through stamped and part etched 61300 [scratched out 8, hand etched 9 A, stamped B] //1 1 19 The matrix also contains another mark that looks like a letter P on its side.

So again, simply repurposed plates from those initially cut with lots of mixing and matching. In many respects, it demonstrates that the stamper claims for these is not as confusion as has been claimed. There are a very limited set of numbers used, just lots of replaced detail to suit an issue and matching of plates. Of course, that was hugely impacted by the call to have the sides deliberately mis-matched so as to play sequentially on an auto exchange record player.

So rather than [and as can be seen with the very first pressings] side matching of A/B and C/D [I’m not forgetting the numbering system, that will be covered later] we get sides of A/D and B/C. Of course it can’t be all that simple and we now have the issues regard the labels to consider. So a slight return to the printing matter.

To help confuse matters, Track Record’s utilised two different printers for this title, be it a double or as one of a pair. Earnest J. Day, sometimes shown as E. J. Day and McNeill Press Ltd. Right from the outset of this release, both printers were used by Track. With Day printing the naked ladies gatefold cover and McNeill Press taking care of the futuristic part 1 cover.

Notes:  

1. Inner sleeves for records: At least those that came with this and other Track Records records have what appears to be a print / manufacture date code. Specific to the double LP we have here [this was also viewed against “first press / single labelled / blue text found on line that was for sale] we have inner sleeves with 098 and 108 printed to one side, lower right, shown. These appear to indicate dates of September 1968 and October 1968. This is in line with the actual release date on November 1968. See Fig. 

2. Lacquers and stampers, a general broad view. “Electric Ladyland” as a whole is four sides, requiring four lacquers to be cut. Each lacquer could / would (?) eventually go on to make up 100 usable stampers, while each lacquer can in turn produce 100,000 sides. So we get from a single set of lacquers a fraction of the required double record sets required for the 1960’s market. Give or take, a single set of lacquers would produce 100,000 double LP’s.

3. Friday, 25th October 1968 saw the release of Electric Ladyland and Electric Ladyland Part 1. While Part 2 was not to appear until the following year. While looking for a specified date I did notice that other Track Records issued titles with catalogue numbers close to 613017 all came out at various stages of 1969.

The Who 613 013/4 “Tommy” 17 May 1969

Murray Roman 613 015 “A Blind Man’s Movie” 1969

Compilation 613 016 “The House That Track Built” 1 September 1969

While this offers no guarantee of any date or year for that matter, in the case of Part 2 it does support previous thinking that had been concluded to of a later issue date.

Fig. 1-3: From the double LP set, from Volume 1, from Volume 2.  Fig. 4 showing inner sleeve dating.

To help in our confusion, the labels that appear on Ladyland Part 1 are reversed. It was noted that both part 1 and part 2 of this set omits the “THE” that precedes Jimi Hendrix Experience on the label as can be seen in the comparison of the double set issue. See above for dead wax matrix detail.

While McNeill press supplied part 1, Track reverted to E. J. Day for part 2.

Fig. 1-6 album sleeves and labels for Parts 1 and 2. 

While on the topic of the single albums for this title, a little side note but one of both interest and reference. Note 1 below shows how these records generate stories, mostly simply to help the sale and often based on some facts and a lot of guess work.

This single record is Part Two but housed in Part One sleeve, in error or convenience? Fig. 7-9 shows cover / album and the hand written / amended label details. Crossed out catalogue number (613008) is detail that fits with the dual label pressing of the mismatched plates, sides A/B. So again clear indication of something off of the presses at the initial press stage of mismatched plates. Not, as is suggested in the sales pitch on Popsike, that of being “developed” and not even close to the suggestion of a “rough test pressing”. It clearly shows as an original test pressing from the initial plating. It does appear to have been repurposed to fit the record that was to come later, that being Part Two. The first and second sides of the double LP, “And The Gods Made Love” and “Little Miss Strange” sides.

1. Popsike links: The single issued part 2 as a white face test press and incorrect sleeve, https://www.popsike.com/JIMI-HENDRIX-Electric-Ladyland-Vol1-LP-1968-TEST-PRESS/330331767748.html

There appears to be a direct link between the blue text that appears on the inner gatefold on the error printed run of sleeves and that of the blue text that appears on the rear of the later printed part 2 single album release. It comes as no surprise, both are E. J. Day printed sleeves, originally.

Clearly, there was a lot of conflicting information passed onto the printers. In effect three albums with one being a double. The real question for me at this point is; Is this simply a case of too much variation, misinformation being passed between the printer(s) and Track Record or is there more to than that?

Looking at the “ghost” text from the inner sleeve of an error printed copy, these clearly show what was “over printed”.

What can be seen is that, for whatever reason Track Records had decided to alter the running order per side for the LP. If it had not been corrected the running order would have been as follows:

Side 1. Still Raining, Still Dreaming / House Burning Down / All Along The Watchtower / Voodoo Chile (Slight Return)

Side 2. Rainy Day Dream Away / 1983 (A Merman I would Turn To Be) / Moon, turn the tides …. Gently, gently away

Side 3. And The Gods Made Love / 9Have You Ever Been To (Electric Ladyland) / Crosstown Traffic / Voodoo Chile

Side 4. Little Miss Strange / Long Hot Summer Night / Come On / Gypsy Eyes / Burning Of The Midnight Lamp

I think I’m safe in saying, Mr Hendrix would been far from pleased if this had been the case!

Given that the Part Two issue of the record is from E. J. Day as is the gatefold and given that Part Two is blue text as with the error run of gatefolds, also the overlaid white text matches the running order of Part Two it is clearly more than coincidence. It does raise a serious question, was Track Record’s looking to deliberately make this an amendment? If so, was it to ride the tail of the hit single by way of “All Along The Watchtower” and have it out on Part One of the singles option?

Of course, they managed to get that hit single out on the first issued single album regardless, simply putting sides three and four of the double LP out as Part One. Whether this was to achieve getting that single out or just that this was considered the strongest release with the more commercial side [4] presented on the first single LP is debatable. 

There is the minor issue of the different colour logo that appears with the blue text gatefold. We have both a blue and a white one presented with the blue text, both can be found with the larger pictures of Mitch and Noel.

These two printed covers, when inspected closely [I did not get to handle either of these and can only reference the various pictures I could find on the internet] both present the inner sleeve card to be cut a fraction short and the bottom [beneath the logo] do not match, with the inner pulling up short. It is interesting to note, I found this sleeve error on all of the early copies I encounted, be they physically or virtually. Keeping in mind, Part Two of this set which has blue text also shows the logo in blue.

While on the topic of variation, I am left wondering if any uncorrected sleeves with white text exist. Showing the incorrect running order and if so just what the records contained within would be? Now that would be a rare find indeed.

Fig 1. showing the blue text with variation on logo colour. Fig. 2 and 3, the ghost text and Fig. 4 the blue text.

Labels and what a mess this is, yet it likely gives us some of the more important indicators we require to pin down what and when a record was pressed. 

I’m at a loss as to who printed the labels, Day or McNeill or was it in house as it is today? What is patently clear, the printers of those labels struggled with the labels as much if not more so than the pressing plant did with identifying and matching the sides of the recording.

The positive from this is that it presents us the ideal opportunity to help identify a genuine “first off of the press” record set. The error labels all appear with the early pressings that contain a full set of matching matrix detail. But be aware, some of the pressings hide the error labels beneath a second label, these dual label records are providing the most telling of detail.

Jimpress #’s 88,89 and 95 has some critical detail from Tim Greenhall. Here is a summary of some of that detail as it presents us with so much detail we can reference:

We have a single sleeve naked ladies sleeve which housed sides 3 and 4 from the double set but has the Part 1 labels, Fig. 1 and 2. Noting of course that besides the labels being reversed per side it shows Voodoo Chile and not Voodoo Chile (Slight Return). Minor detail but is worth repeating and noting as we will see! Further, the catalogue number shown on this nude single sleeve promotional copy shows 613008, while the real Part 1 carries 613010. Though we do have a consistency here with the Part 1 album as it displays “side 1 / 2” on the labels. 

We also have a wonderful letter from Track Records to the BBC for reference, Fig 3.

The single sleeved disc has a manufacturer property sticker applied, Fig. 4 and was supplied to Robin Scott at the BBC with an accompanying letter, fig ??. Robin was the then BBC controller based at Broadcast House, Great Portland Street, barely a mile from Track Records base at Chesterfield Gardens.

The Letter:

Dear Robin,

As we discussed, here is the first record from the new Hendrix offering, called Electric Ladyland, which is due for release next month. The second record should be with us soon, unfortunately we had some problems with the packaging company, but hope to have a final one any day now. When they arrive I will get one sent to you.

The final version will be a fold out cover but you have a mock-up we had done of the front cover. Your friends at the BBC will no doubt spill their teas when they see it.

[Signed as Kit]

Yours sincerely

Christopher Lambert

A blue ink note, from Scott to Brenda, presumably his PA / secretary, cautions that this record be put in an envelope before forwarding on within the BBC.

As already alluded to there exist “dual label” copies of this double LP, all of course have that run out matrix detail in full. It is these dual label copies that have been sourced to ascertain what constitutes an actual first press / first off of the press Electric Ladyland double LP. This labelling error and correction remains the single most important indicator in reviewing the goings on with regard to this pressing.

Copies of this record labelled sides A/B and C/D show it can be difficult to see the circular stamper lines around the spindle hole, it can also be difficult to see that a second label has been applied to the disc. Slowly these record are cropping up but it remains a mystery not to just how many were originally produced but also just how many have survived. Regardless, they will command high value as they can be shown to be genuine first off the press records., at least those that are both complete as a set and in very good plus condition both records and sleeve. Both a collectors dream as well as a listeners.

The pictures shown in Fig. 1 and 2 below show the labels as they appeared before the second label was applied, those shown here are the ones that appeared with a blue text copy of the record. They clearly show the numerical side listing used rather than that of the more commonly seen alphabetical. It leaves me wondering if the blue error text copies that have uncorrected labels were only available to pressing plant employee's and never actually issued for sale?

 Included here are a selection of photographs that tell their own story. Matched label shots and matrix detail per side. Easy to see just how difficult those circular inner rim lines are difficult to see on this copy. 

Fig. 3-7  Shows the first side top and as much as the bottom label as possible and Fig. 8 presents the dead wax matrix for that side. Fig. 9-11 showing the second side labels, Fig. 12 is the dead wax detail for that side.

Fig. 13, 14 show the third side labels with Fig. 15 showing the appropriate matrix detail. Fig. 16, 17 show side four labels and finally, Fig. 18 showing the matrix run out for that same side.

So, it seems the only way to ascertain a first pressing is to ensure that it carries the matrix detail as previously shown in full and to ensure it is from that very first pressing batch it will either show a duel label or the labels will be side  / listed numerically. 

While it does appear the staff at the pressing plant had initial issues with matching the sides for this record, those very first pressings show sides as A/B and C/D [not as A/D and B/C]. Of course, if you have a dual label copy [and assuming you can see detail on the lower label] it will have the original label as 1 / 2 and 3 / 4 [as opposed to the later 1 / 4 and 2 / 3] showing that the matching of the plates had yet to be determined for the pressing plant.

Far from me to be telling anyone how much they should sell / buy a record for but it is clear that values of some of these records are a little over cooked. There are plenty of blue text copies as there are plenty of white text copies, both with the larger printed pictures of Noel and Mitch yet they are offered up as rare, a simple sales presentation of course. There are some records that can carry the tag of rare, here with dual labels or with single labels showing the numbering system are indications to something worthy of that tag. An in the region value of £500 for a dual label is reasonable but then, try and buy one at that price point and you will likely be disappointed as these have been known to exchange at twice that valuation, considering condition of course.

Of course we cannot overlook the Polydor Records issue of this title as a double or in fact as a pair of single albums as issued here in the U.K. We at least need to look  at these from the perspective of those matrix numbers and symbols and an overview of labels and covers.

Polydor utilised the same covers for both of the double and single issued records, simply rebadged and renumbered. Printing details are as follows:

McNeill Press for Part 1 (Polydor 2310271 Super)

E. J. Day for Part 2 (Polydor 2310 272 Super)

While the two copies of the Polydor double (2657 012 Deluxe double) I have to hand show, E. J. Day Group for the early issue and Howards Printers (Slough) Limited for the slightly later [mid 70’s?] pressing. I have referenced for simplicity reasons, the early pressings as a first press and the later pressing as a second press. How accurate that is debatable but shown here the difference in plate matrix detail in the relevant run outs.

Early [1st press] Polydor double matrix detail.

First side: [feint hand scratched on metal plate 2310 269 A] [313008 with a line through] A//2 >420 11 14 04

Second side: feint hand scratched on metal plate 2310 269 B] 613008 B//2 >420 1 [part stamped 2] 22

Third side: [feint hand scratched to metal plate 2310 210 A] [613009 with a line through] B//2 420 12 10

Fourth side: [feint hand scratched on metal plate 2310210 B] [613009 with a line through] A >420 12 5

Later [2ndpress] Polydor double set.

First side: 2310269 A//2 420 04 1 [2 part stamped]

Second side: 2310269 D//2 420 04 1 3 1

Third side: 2310270 C//2 420 0412 10

Fourth side: 2310270 B//5 420 04 13 3

Polydor Part One.

First side: [feint hand scratched to metal 2310271 A] [6 dropped out of line] 13010 A >2 420 06 10

Second side: [BILBO above a set of numbers] 6310271 B//3 420 0 04 12 2

Polydor Part Two.

First side: [feint hand scratched to metal 6310271 numbers crossed out A] 6310[8 crossed through, 17 above, hand scratched 8 and 9 scratched out] A//1 16 90 111

Second side: [feint hand scratched to metal 2310272 B] [613017 with line through] B//3 >420 11 10

There is of course a degree of fine detail that remains just out of our grasp. The as already viewed test pressing, if only we had direct access to this, likewise, a test pressing for the other record would provide detail too.

The mixing and matching of Track Records and Polydor sleeves [and visa versa] does not add any value to a record, quite the opposite, mentioned as I have come across these for sale and priced as if they were an actual issued set!

Fig. 1-4 Part One, Fig. 5-8 Part Two.

Recently a record came up for sale on our favourite auction site, presented as “Misspress Jimi Hendrix Experience Electric Ladyland Part 2 Only”. 

It turned out to be simply the first record from the double LP with no cover. Not in the best shape with the B side showing signs of wear due to a misaligned or worn stylus. The record did play well enough in parts of the second side and most of the first side to display the much finer detail that these early pressings present.

The album plays “And The Gods Made Love” / “Little Miss Strange” sides. The record itself has the double label on the A side with the B side second label now missing. It clearly did carry a second label at some point as the adhesive marks can clearly be seen.

Dead wax run out gives us:

61300[8 CROSSED OUT] [HAND SCRATCHED 9] A//1 1 [POSSIBLY PART STAMPED 2 OR 5]

61300[8 SCRATCHED OUT] [9 HAND SCRATCHED] B//1 1[PART STAMPED 2] 1

With the label missing from side B we do get the opportunity to fully check what that original label was / is.

Fig. 1-3 the label shots of this latest turned up double lable record.