Discogs and Release Identification

sjfloat

sjfloat

Super Member
I've started the long, grueling process of entering my vinyl into discogs and I have a question for those of you who use it. How careful are you about precisely identifying your releases? It seems like a really arduous processes so far and I'm seldom confident that I've gone with the right one.

This is a hobby, but it's starting to feel like a job. :(
 
LOL! I feel the same way. I started out by simply checking the first issue in discogs that came up, because all I really wanted discogs to do is keep track of what I already have to avoid duplicate purchases. In the meantime, though, I have learned a lot about different record releases, and how different they can be, both in terms of availability, desirability and price.

But being the diligent guy that I am, I now really try to pinpoint the exact release I have in hand, mostly because I have begun to look for certain releases over others, and I want to know exactly what I'm looking at. I also have paid way more money for certain releases than I should have, out of ignorance about original issue vs. reissues/represses, for example.

It's really tedious, as identifying the right issue usually involves studying the run-out groove area, and I hate to take records from their sleeves just to catalog them. Just the other day, I bought a Doc Watson album on a label that wasn't in discogs. So I took pictures of the label and cover, and entered the copy as a new release. It gets ridiculous fast, though, just as you say. It feels like a job. What I'm especially reluctant to do is sift through dozens and dozens of releases of a $1 Eagles album, just to make sure I log the exact right one.

I dunno, man... :dunno:
 
I've been cataloging records as I clean them, so in batches of about 8 at a time. The process is faster if I enter the deadwax info into the search box on Discogs but agree that it's slow going...
 
I have the folders, "SWAG", "release", and "close". If I just want to quickly get it in, I'll grab the most common US vinyl match and put it in SWAG. When I try to id it exactly but can't, I put it under "close". Direct hits go into "release". This way I have some idea how trustworthy the release data is. What kills me is that for some LPs, people have created a new release for every variation of the matrix markings. The problem then is, if mine is not one of those, I'm forced to create a new release entry.
 
sjfloat said:
I have the folders, "SWAG", "release", and "close". If I just want to quickly get it in, I'll grab the most common US vinyl match and put it in SWAG. When I try to id it exactly but can't, I put it under "close". Direct hits go into "release". This way I have some idea how trustworthy the release data is. What kills me is that for some LPs, people have created a new release for every variation of the matrix markings. The problem then is, if mine is not one of those, I'm forced to create a new release entry.
Click to expand...

This way, I can always circle back and improve an ID for a record I particularly care about.
 
I want mine to be as precise as possible. If it means entering another variant, so be it. If I then get a notice that something has changed, I go and look again to ensure all agrees.

Yes, it's tedious but worthwhile.

Forgot to add, that using the Discogs app when shopping for vinyl is also very helpful.
 
Too much work for me. If I am researching a band's discography for any reason I'll add titles to my collection. Don't really care too much about what pressing it is. But I do understand why some do, it's like collecting stamps. My interest lies in the music. Some CD's, for example, have bonus tracks, some even double the play time of the vinyl. I'll search out bang-for-buck releases on Discogs.
 
I'm an 80/20 kind of guy. I mainly just want to know what I have and where it is. They're mostly (though not all) in plastic tubs about half of which are assorted. Having a record of what tub a particular LP is in would make sorting less critical. And I have many duplicates unintentionally; I'm afraid to buy any more. I wish I could simply optionally add them without specifying a particular release. My first priority is really just knowing what titles I have. Once enumerated, I could then refine the information over time, especially for the more interesting ones. And of course, I have some specimens that just aren't worth the effort to me to bother.
 
I like looking at my "Collection Value". Sometimes I show it to the Wifey she starts rollin' her eyes I walk in with a stack...
 
I always wonder about the deadwax etch markings. Frequently, I have a copy that matches every aspect of a particular release, except a few digits or letters on the etchings are different. In those cases, I assume that deadwax etch markings can differ slightly between individual record copies, but they still belong to the same issue/release. Whoever logged that particular issue simply reported what their copy had in terms of etch markings, but that probably doesn't mean other copies would necessarily carry those exact same numbers or letters.

For example: If Discogs lists the following etching BS-2566 40001-RE-1, and my copy says, (I'm making this up), BS-2566 40001-RE-2, or BS-2566 40002-RE-1, I assume it's the same release. Is that an erroneous assumption?
 
DesertTwang said:
I always wonder about the deadwax etch markings. Frequently, I have a copy that matches every aspect of a particular release, except a few digits or letters on the etchings are different. In those cases, I assume that deadwax etch markings can differ slightly between individual record copies, but they still belong to the same issue/release. Whoever logged that particular issue simply reported what their copy had in terms of etch markings, but that probably doesn't mean other copies would necessarily carry those exact same numbers or letters.

For example: If Discogs lists the following etching BS-2566 40001-RE-1, and my copy says, (I'm making this up), BS-2566 40001-RE-2, or BS-2566 40002-RE-1, I assume it's the same release. Is that an erroneous assumption?
Click to expand...

I guess that's my point. As I understand it, there can be matrix variations for a given release. Which means these are spurious. I think you should be able to record your deadwax data without creating a new release. But once people have done that you have no choice but to enter your own release if you don't have a match. I'm tempted to just create a more *general* release in such cases, which would probably be more useful.
 
dcmfan said:
I've been cataloging records as I clean them, so in batches of about 8 at a time. The process is faster if I enter the deadwax info into the search box on Discogs but agree that it's slow going...
Click to expand...

That's smart. I tend to record them as I'm handling them for whatever reason; cleaning, listening, whatever.
 
Many popular LPs have been pressed an nth number of times. While a lot of those versions might not be that special w/r/t a particular record, sometimes they are some that are. How accurate you want to be is up to you. Just don't try to sell anything without being 100% accurate unless you want angry customers.
 
A fun trick with Discogs is to go into your Collection, then type in the name of a player your searching for, say Charles Mingus.

You will get as your results not just the albums with his name in the title, but any he also played on that you may have in your collection.
 
patient_ot said:
Many popular LPs have been pressed an nth number of times. While a lot of those versions might not be that special w/r/t a particular record, sometimes they are some that are. How accurate you want to be is up to you. Just don't try to sell anything without being 100% accurate unless you want angry customers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm a hoarder; I've never sold anything. :) But if and when I do, I'll want to be as exact and accurate as I can possibly be.
 
DesertTwang said:
BS-2566 40001-RE-2, or BS-2566 40002-RE-1
Click to expand...
That would be the wrong assumption as per your question.

Now I know your dead wax numbers are fake but with a quick look I'll give my impression of them like I would at a record store.

BS-2566 <catalogue number
40001 < Mastering Lab info
RE 2 < second reissue

Let me make two fake ones

SD-4235 MO 4332 A1 Kinda the same as yours but at a glance in the store, I'm going to start thinking this is around a first issue because of the use of the A and one
SD-4235 MO 4332 F1 As above but I'm thinking F is the fifth mastering.

While you guy's are getting frustrated most the time the last alphanumeric etching is the most important in a lot of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chaz
Side Effects of using Discogs
Replies
16
Views
430
chaz
chaz
Ken Boyd
Discog's and adding new releases.
Replies
11
Views
312
LeeVing
LeeVing
131east23
Garrard Lab 80 Revival
Replies
6
Views
1K
JHS2RT
JHS2RT
nkorah
Experiments with Quadro SQ
Replies
6
Views
286
KentTeffeteller
K
I
Stairway to (Audio) Heaven
Replies
9
Views
503
knifeswitch
knifeswitch
Back
Top Bottom