[Resolved] J Dilla Donuts Vinyl Me, Please Format Issues (Disaster)

The following appears as the format for J Dilla - Donuts:

Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Limited Edition, Mispress, Mixed, Numbered, Reissue, 180 Gram, Clear Vinyl
Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Limited Edition, Mixed, Numbered, Reissue, 180 Gram, Clear Vinyl
Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Limited Edition, Misprint, Mixed, Numbered, Reissue, 180 Gram, Clear Vinyl

For context, Vinyl Me, Please pressed replacements and subsequently shipped those to subscribers.

Comparatively, RSG §1.1.4 states:
List any items that were initially sold as a package (by the record company) as one release, no matter what the packaging. Packaged items that are also released individually are treated as separate releases. Items where we are uncertain if they were sold as a package can be entered as separate items. Items that are obtained after the sale via a coupon or other method should be entered as individual releases.

Therefore, the first question is whether J Dilla - Donuts? If not, then should the format be changed to:
1x12" Mispress
2x12" Album, Club Edition etc. etc.

Or
1x12" Mispress
2x12"
All Media: Album, club edition, etc. etc.

Here are some URLs that show the release in question:
https://www.stonesthrow.com/news/2015/02/dilla-donuts-vinyl-me-please
http://vinylmeplease.com/record-of-the-month/j-dilla/
https://youtu.be/z4B2AMIoPQg (Youtube of someone 'unboxing' the album)

If this is a single album on two discs the Format should be 2x LP (12", 33RPM = LP); or At best LP, Misrpess + LP and the separately, after the face shipped, LP be its own Release.

The Misspress and replacement shouldn't be in the same Release I don't believe.

The Format currently there is a disaster, though.

Thanks for your post cellularsmoke

cellularsmoke
The Format currently there is a disaster, though.

I absolutely agree (for what it's worth, it appears that the disaster was created by a who does not even have a copy!).

cellularsmoke
If this is a single album on two discs the Format should be 2x LP (12", 33RPM = LP); or At best LP, Misrpess + LP and the separately, after the face shipped, LP be its own Release.

I think you're right about the second part. However, I have a copy of the regular version and therefore am fairly certain the discs are actually 12"s (if you look at the durations, you'll see that it's a really short album in of time).

To clarify, do you feel that there should not be an All Media added to the format? The reason for my question is that everything is a club edition, both are 33 ⅓, and etc.

Also, do you have thoughts on the FTF?

Yes duration is too short to make an LP, that's a more loud cut, so 12"

Thanx to open this thread, I'm very interested by this case,

Don't forget there's a misprint (C/D)
Also there was a regular fixed (2X12") released after the replacement of the first one (I'm ing mip, owner, to know more about this.)

'the disaster was created by a who does not even have a copy!'

I don't care about having any copy to do an edit based on public and relevant informations. See release history, I always do this kind of edit as a proposal, discussing with owners.

The so called 'disaster' was here before, this entry was listing a replacement 12" (in notes and runouts) but with no existence at all in the format (no more in database) ...
+Is this really a disaster considering a simple revert should give you the step backward you're so ok with?

No disaster really, just pushing things forward...

(please remind that there was 6 runouts and only 2X12" entered before my edit)

maoxiung: do you have an opinion on how the format should be fixed or do you think that it is correct as it is?

Let's be clear - Discogs has 2 definitions of LP that's used;
One is technical for microgroove
One is shorthand for "12", 33RPM" length is irrelevant.

cellularsmoke
Let's be clear - Discogs has 2 definitions of LP that's used

The Guidelines actually require the opposite. For example, RSG §6.6 states that "Common usage has lead to this term being synonymous with 'album', and whilst most LP's are albums, the should be used distinctly on Discogs for accuracy. .... By listing a record as an LP, we imply it has a 12" diameter and close together grooves."

From what I can gather there should be two versions, one with the "whoosh" and one without.
http://www.shouldibuythisbox.com/?p=1156

The copy I had was the corrected one (I guess), as I don't recall receiving a corrected version.
There is a VMP forum thread, http://forum.vinylmeplease.com/index.php?threads/march-2015-j-dilla-donuts.851/ but no official explanation of how the error was corrected.

Thanks andygrayrecords — super glad that you posted because you actually have a copy.

Based on your post, it sounds like 6784565 was initially hijacked by hesby's submission comment by over-editing the format.

andygrayrecords
From what I can gather there should be two versions, one with the "whoosh" and one without

I absolutely agree with you and think you are spot on.

Therefore, the question appears to be whether the present entry for the album should be fixed so that it's the version you received? If so, then is it possible for you the the runout info (I believe maoxiung posted a question about this in the history)?

If not, then a) perhaps you can submit (or assist someone) in submitting the non-defective version and b) do you have an opinion regarding how to fix the format for the defective version?

I actually sold my copy.
The format for the defective version imo should be
2x12", Reissue, Mispress, Club Edition, Numbered, Clear

I don't think "Limited Edition" is correct, other than it's limited to x amount of copies.

The websites show limited, but I agree that it's overkill. However, shouldn't the extra disc be included in the format?

andygrayrecords

I don't think "Limited Edition" is correct, other than it's limited to x amount of copies.

Not to be too big of a pedant, but isn't that the definition of “Limited Edition” per RSG §6.11.1?

…or if this terminology is used by a reliable source in the promotion and marketing of the release.

I may be completely wrong though.

Thanks for your post senordanimal. The websites referred to it as limited edition, so I think it's ok, but it's also overkill, so it could go either way. However, the limited edition tag is the least of the problem with the format and therefore any suggestions would be appreciated. For example, should it be reverted to the non-messed up version or, if not, then should it show something like:
1x12" mispress
2x12"
All Media 33 ⅓ Club edition, etc. etc.

or
1x12" Mispress
2x12" album
all media 33 ⅓ club edition clear etc. etc.

or something else?

Also do you have thoughts on the FTF?

Basically, even if the limited tag were removed, it would still be a mess, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

It seems like the Format should be simplified for sure.

For me, and I ittedly have a newbie experience with Discogs, I wonder why it wouldn't be 2x12” and then have two variations. I can see it not being two releases, but with multiple Matrix/Runout codes it feels like variations with a single format line. The three format lines is a mess. I would say goto one format line to describe the releases and then put the M/R codes at variation 1 & 2. Put notes describing what happened and it should be clear.

Maybe I’m not seeing all the issues though.

senordanimal
Not to be too big of a pedant, but isn't that the definition of “Limited Edition” per RSG §6.11.1?

Yes you're right...I assumed the limited tag had been added as it was numbered...but yes it was d as limited edition, my bad

senordanimal
I wonder why it wouldn't be 2x12” and then have two variations.

Because they are different pressings.
One was mispressed with a "whoosh" sound.

andygrayrecords
senordanimalI wonder why it wouldn't be 2x12” and then have two variations.

Because they are different pressings.
One was mispressed with a "whoosh" sound.

Okay, but how is that different from something like Pink Floyd - The Wall? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just genuinely don't get the difference. It's obvious that the variations there weren't pressed at the exact same time same time like here, but some Matrix/Runout data is duplicated across variations. Some of the J Dilla discs have the woosh sound but you can't tell them apart when you’re holding two sealed sets, right?

If there's that much worry about the woosh and the fixed versions then maybe they should be a release and a repress release.

Separate them and be done with it or keep them lumped together, but don’t carry on that awful format mess no matter what. It doesn't make sense for a single release.

Edit to add: Another question I have about why these shouldn't be two releases: what happens when someone try's to sell a version of this here? Currently there is one release for a mispressing and a correct pressing. That doesn't seem right in that someone might buy it and get the wrong idea about what they're buying or not receive what there expectations are based on the release data. Clarity should be the rule and having three format lines and essentially two different versions in one release is about as unclear as we can get.

If this is not going to be reverted to the non-messed up version, then this is what I think the format should probably look like:

2 × Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Mispress, Numbered, Gatefold
Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM
All Media, Album, Club Edition, Reissue, 180g Clear (and possibly Limited Edition)

And the replacement disc should be submitted as a new entry.

However, because I do not own a copy nor did I edit the release, I do not feel comfortable making the changes absent a consensus being reached here (I also think my first suggestion is still a mess, just one that's slightly less of a disaster). Therefore, it sounds like the best course of action is to cast another NMC vote to flag the release page as one with issues and link to this forum.

maoxiung — I know this is not ideal for you because you were only trying to help, but I strongly suggest taking a on this edit so that another can give it a try.

Sorry to muddy the waters further, but there are four different variants of this, each with different centre labels on the discs. From the listing (can't link to it as you need to be a member to see it):

Custom donut center labels (4 variations)
Foiled numbering for each label variation

Based on this, it looks like there are four sets of numbering, one for each set of centre labels. So say if someone d number one for sale, that could be one of four different unique records. They are described on the VMP site as variants A to D. It seems likely that the variant you have is indicated on the sticker on the front at the bottom after the cat. no. (the image in the Discogs entry for this says STH2126 A). They can be bought on demand, so there has to be some way of differentiating between them without unsealing them.

Does this mean that here could potentially be eight entries for this? Four for the mispressed variants and four for the replacements?

Thanks for your post SeagullVinyl!!

I think I get what you said, but just to clarify, you're saying that there are four label variations that are numbered. According to andygrayrecords, some were not mispressed. So there are:
2x12" Label Variation A
2x12" Label Variation A Mispress
2x12" Label Variation B
2x12" Label Variation B Mispress
2x12" Label Variation C
2x12" Label Variation C Mispress
2x12" Label Variation D
2x12" Label Variation D Mispress

And that there are potentially four replacement 12" for the first disc.
1x12" Replacement A
1x12" Replacement B
1x12" Replacement C
1x12" Replacement D

Although it's not the best comparison, here's what nik wrote about another release (for context, it was issued as a 2xLP, but the record label included either a poster, or one of a few different 12"s inside the jacket):

nik
RSG §1.1.4 seems quite clear on this:

"List any items that were initially sold as a package (by the record company) as one release, no matter what the packaging."

IMO the release needs unique versions for each variation.

andygrayrecords
leave the extra tracks off the submission.

That is not representing what is on the release though.

Is it possible to tell which bonus 12" is included with the album, when it is sealed? I don't think that should affect making unique releases for each version, but it is going to make it impossible to sell a sealed version with a bonus disc, the release would need to be opened to discover which bonus is included.

nik
nik 6 months ago

berothbr
what sort of release would trigger/fall under the "Packaged items that are also released individually are treated as separate releases" part of the rule?

Perhaps that isn't clearly worded and you are misunderstanding it. This means that when, let's say, an LP is available by itself, and a 12" is available by itself, AND they are both available as a packaged unit (LP + 12"), that means there are three submissions to Discogs:

LP
12"
LP + 12"

Does that help?

If I understood you correctly and nik correctly, then there should potentially be the following entries for the Vinyl Me Now club edition:

1) 2x12" Label Variation A
2) 2x12" Label Variation A Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation A
3) 2x12" Label Variation B
4) 2x12" Label Variation B Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation B
5) 2x12" Label Variation C
6) 2x12" Label Variation C Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation C
7) 2x12" Label Variation D
8) 2x12" Label Variation D Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation D
9) 12" Replacement Variation A
10) 12" Replacement Variation B
11) 12" Replacement Variation C
12) 12" Replacement Variation D

The format for each type should probably be as follows:
Copies that were not messed up:
2x12" Album, 33 1/3, Club Edition, Numbered, FTF: Clear, Gatefold

For the messed up sets:
2x12" 33 1/3, Mispress, Numbered, FTF: Gatefold (assuming the replacements were not also shipped in a gatefold)
12", 33 1/3
All Media: Album, Club Edition, FTF: Clear

For the replacement 12":
1x12" 33 1/3, Club Edition, FTF: Clear

Does that make sense/sound right?

OK, I realise I'm jumping into the middle of this, but I'm going to use two examples of mispressed records that I have owned myself:

http://discogs.versitio.com/The-Afghan-Whigs-Do-To-The-Beast/master/671305

http://discogs.versitio.com/Faith-No-More-Angel-Dust/master/15659
(scroll down to 2013)

The Afghan Whigs record could initially be bought with the mispressed disc. If you had a mispressed copy, you could Sub Pop (if you bought it direct from them) or the place you purchased it from (if it wasn't direct from Sub Pop - this is what I did. In Europe the release was being handled by PIAS and that is who the store I bought it from ed) and get a replacement. When the problem became known, copies could be bought with the correct discs (I don't know if they were shipped out by SP / PIAS with replacements or whether replacements were shipped to the store for them to send out with future purchases and the store would return the mispressed disc).

The FNM record was sold with a mispressed disc. The label never shipped out replacements to stores (at least for the blue copy; I suspect that it's the same for the mispressed black variant). If you wanted a properly pressed copy, you had to return yours to the label for it to be replaced. However, when the problem was initially spotted the label did not ask for the disc to be returned, so some people got to keep theirs.

The FNM record has an entry for the mispressed album, the correctly pressed album AND the mispressed disc on its own:

http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=4771469#latest

The Afghan Whigs record does not have an entry for the mispressed disc on its own even though you could keep the mispressed disc after it had been replaced. I had all three discs at one point and I sold it to someone with all three discs.

Anyway, the way I see this myself (based on the two examples above) is (a potential) eight entries. Four with mispressed discs and four without, looking like this:

1) 2x12" Label Variation A correctly pressed
2) 2x12" Label Variation A Mispress
3) 2x12" Label Variation B correctly pressed
4) 2x12" Label Variation B Mispress
5) 2x12" Label Variation C correctly pressed
6) 2x12" Label Variation C Mispress
7) 2x12" Label Variation D correctly pressed
8) 2x12" Label Variation D Mispress

It is possible (based on the FNM entries) that you could also add four more entries for the mispressed discs on their own, but they may not be considered essential for the database to be correct.

These would have to be submitted (as all submissions have to) by people who actually own the specific variants. Seeing as this is nearly a year old and there are no new mispressed copies being bought (I hope!), we may struggle to find people who can submit all the variants.

I agree with 99% of what you wrote. However, my question is how do you see the runouts for the two versions of the first disc being added to the entries for the mispress versions? Here's what I mean:

Subscribers first received
12" Mispress Sides A/B: Runout #1 v1/Runout #2 v1
12" Sides C/D (ok/no issue)

Then subscribers received:
12" Replacement Sides A/B: Runout #1 v2/Runout #2 v2

Similarly, even though it's two versions of the the first disc, the mispressed version consists of a total of 3 discs — two are ok and one is messed up.

On the other hand, i think the way that you proposed is much more coherent/sensible and would take care of the other format issues. However, I'm also not sure if it conflicts with what nik wrote about RSG §1.1.4/etc. or whether it's something totally different.

Comparatively, I think it can go either way, so I am willing to whatever the consensus thinks is the best way to fix it.

Perhaps it's worth asking a staff member to weigh in?

berothbr
Perhaps it's worth asking a staff member to weigh in?

If anyone is still following this thread, I initiated a request and will post Discogs' response (unless a staff member responds directly to this thread).

berothbr
If I understood you correctly and nik correctly, then there should potentially be the following entries for the Vinyl Me Now club edition:

1) 2x12" Label Variation A
2) 2x12" Label Variation A Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation A
3) 2x12" Label Variation B
4) 2x12" Label Variation B Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation B
5) 2x12" Label Variation C
6) 2x12" Label Variation C Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation C
7) 2x12" Label Variation D
8) 2x12" Label Variation D Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation D
9) 12" Replacement Variation A
10) 12" Replacement Variation B
11) 12" Replacement Variation C
12) 12" Replacement Variation D

The format for each type should probably be as follows:
Copies that were not messed up:
2x12" Album, 33 1/3, Club Edition, Numbered, FTF: Clear, Gatefold

For the messed up sets:
2x12" 33 1/3, Mispress, Numbered, FTF: Gatefold (assuming the replacements were not also shipped in a gatefold)
12", 33 1/3
All Media: Album, Club Edition, FTF: Clear

For the replacement 12":
1x12" 33 1/3, Club Edition, FTF: Clear

Does that make sense/sound right?

Yeah. That sounds about right. Sometimes reality is way more convoluted than we'd like, but we have to reflect what exists.

Thanks Diognes_The_Fox —I guess this was less of a mess than I thought it was. I made the edits because I assumed you guys were too busy.

For future reference, for releases that are received/distributed separately like this one, e.g., a disc, tape, CD, etc., is defective and then subsequently replaced by a label/company, then those are "items that were initially sold as a package (by the record company) as one release, no matter what the packaging." under RSG §1.1.4 and not something that was "obtained after the sale via a coupon or other method should be entered as individual releases."?

I'd treat them as individual releases. There's always a chance people may not have sent in for replacements or never gotten them delivered.

Been cleaning my emails....and found this email from VMP regarding this issue.

We heard a "whoosh"
While giving ‘Donuts’ a final listen prior to shipping we noticed a faint “whoosh” sound on the first two tracks of Side A. We sampled multiple records in hopes that it was an isolated case, but found that while the surface noise varied in intensity from copy to copy, it was nonetheless noticeable on the majority of the records we pulled.

Since we'd been assured by the plant & our production partners that our pressing was good to go, this made us pretty angry...like really angry...

Angry

We immediately got together with Stones Throw Records & the pressing plant, rooted out the source of the defect and got about the business of sending you a whoosh-free A/B side of ‘Donuts'.

This defect was caught while the last batch (approx 10% of the total order) was still being pressed -- they were held while the defect was remedied and will be slightly delayed (will be shipping the week of Mar 23rd.)

For those of you not affected by the delay, a replacement disc (A/B side) is being pressed as you read this. It will be shipped to you with your April Vinyl Me, Please record free of charge. If your hip ends prior to April, your replacement will ship by itself in the same method and timeline as active .

If you have questions, we've set up a dedicated thread regarding this issue at the VMP Forum.*

We've been doing this for just over two years now and have noticed that delays and production mistakes are widely accepted in the record industry as just a part of doing business - we think think this is a weak excuse. We're doing our part to improve things as we believe you deserve the best possible pressing of each album we send and we won’t stop working until you have it.

Baking donuts,

The Vinyl Me, Please Team

*Sadly the link to the forum thread doesn't work.

Thanks Diognes_The_Fox's post (as opposed to the entire thread), but I guess that's not an option, so I updated the link. I think the format is more or less where it should be, but I know the release notes along with the master release notes could use some improvement, so I encourage anyone else to take a stab at that. Likewise, it would be helpful if someone can submit at least another one of the label variations to show that there's more than one version of that vinyl me please release.

I know its been 5 months since a post in here, I at the very least created a release for those that received only the corrected press version of the album (which I did). My question regarding the numbering on the variants, does the numbering start over at 1 for each variant? If so then I agree that there should eventually be separate releases for each variant though I wonder how to easily display the difference. However, I think if the the numbering does not start over with each variant then it should remain as the two releases (mispress and those that only received the corrected press)

vinylenoch
My question regarding the numbering on the variants, does the numbering start over at 1 for each variant?

Thanks for your post and the submission. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you referring to the numbering printed on the release or something else?

It has been mentioned in this discussion and on the Vinyl Me, Please site that there are four variants [A, B, C, D] (four different center labels). My question is, is Variant A numbered 1-100 and Variant B numbered 1-100, etc. or is Variant A 1-100 and Variant B 100-200, etc. (I don't the exact numbering of each variant)?

vinylenoch
My question is, is Variant A numbered 1-100 and Variant B numbered 1-100, etc. or is Variant A 1-100 and Variant B 100-200, etc.

Ok now I understand. I don't know. However, as far as the release pages are concerned on Discogs, it shouldn't matter.

I would question whether the variants should be separate releases if the numbering is a continuation

vinylenoch
I would question whether the variants should be separate releases if the numbering is a continuation

The numbering scheme is irrelevant. If, for example, 1 version had a black cover, 1 version had a pink cover, and 1 version had an orange cover, but all three were sequentially numbered, the fact that the numbering was sequential would not matter. It's the same thing here.

I noticed someone began the process of adding the separate variations, question, what if the replacement disc that was sent is a different variation from the variation originally received?

As this thread is old, I'm pinging some folk in case they don't have notifications switched on:
senordanimal.

Right, I've finally had the chance to add some of these as proper variants (properly pressed rather than mispressed). A variant: J Dilla - Donuts.

I am going to suggest that this gets altered to become the D variant. I can add a cover image of the D variant, but I don't currently have label images.

Also, I think substantial changes would need to be made to the RN, particularly under RSG §1.5.4. In hindsight, under that Guideline I could have talked about the mispressed versions in RN as there is only a generic mispressed version in the database. I don't agree with many (proabably all) of the long time s on how RSG §11.3 should be interpreted (see elsewhere in the forums), so I'm not touching them without input from others.

Edited to add a parenthesis and because I can't spell hindsight.

11.3 seems quite straightforward to me.
Anything duplicated in lccn goes unless it is expanded on.
Anything not already in lccn, that belongs in lccn goes to lccn and is removed from the notes (unless it is expanding on the credit).
hyperlinks do not belong, neither does promotional/hype speak, lyrics/liner notes or standard copyright text.

I don't have any input on this, I sold my copy a long time ago.
I just recall that there was a problem with the initial pressing. I have no idea which one I received.
But from memory there is the initial "whoosh" pressing, then there is a corrected version without the whoosh and I guess in between the two, they just sent a replacement record to those s who had already received the "whoosh" copy.
What is the D variant for?
Am I right?

Not really sure what I could add here, but if you're asking about what to put in the RN; a clear, concise, paragraph of the variants & mispress wouldn't be wrong.

There's two questions. The RN is one of them.

The other concerns the generic entry I linked to. Is it OK to change that to the D variant or is that considered hijacking?

SeagullVinyl
I think substantial changes would need to be made to the RN, particularly under RSG §1.5.4.

This is a great idea. It's impractical/confusing to describe not-yet-submitted versions in the release notes, so now that there are submissions for some of those, we should definitely do this (and possibly update the MR notes too).

cellularsmoke
a clear, concise, paragraph of the variants & mispress wouldn't be wrong.

+ linking to the other variations. However, I actually think adding some quality images of the labels to the release pages would be more effective than updating the notes.

vinylenoch
I noticed someone began the process of adding the separate variations, question, what if the replacement disc that was sent is a different variation from the variation originally received?

Just to clarify, what you're saying is that:
1) Received 2x12" mispress variation A
2) Received 12" replacement variation Z

Your copy is now:
2x12" Mispress variation A
12" replacement variation Z

And you want to know if it belongs with:
2x12" mispress variation A
12" replacement variation X

Unfortunately, you would have to submit your copy as a new/unique version.

SeagullVinyl
The other concerns the generic entry

I would PM the OS of that version if no one response to your comments.

However, I also have some concerns about these because I now see that there are the following variations:
8820229
Format: 2 × Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Reissue, Clear, 180g
8820087
Format: 2 × Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Reissue, Clear, 180g
8675165 (purportedly the correct version)
Format: 2 × Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Numbered, Reissue, Clear vinyl
6784565 (the first version that was submitted and is how this thread began)
Format: 2 × Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Mispress, Numbered, Gatefold
Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM
All Media, Club Edition, Reissue, 180 Gram, Clear

Main concerns are as follows:
1) If the first two are for mispressings, then the format needs to be updated to conform with what was discussed here.
2) Hard to differentiate between the first two.
3) 'vinyl' should be removed from the FTF for the 'correct' version.

berothbr
8820229
Format: 2 × Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Reissue, Clear, 180g
8820087
Format: 2 × Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM, Album, Club Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Reissue, Clear, 180g

berothbr
1) If the first two are for mispressings, then the format needs to be updated to conform with what was discussed here

The first two are not mispressings. They are the A and C variants I just submitted.

berothbr
2) Hard to differentiate between the first two.

They have different Catalog Numbers. These numbers are on the stickers on the shrinkwrap. There are images of them in the Image section of the listing.

berothbr
I would PM the OS of that version if no one response to your comments.

This is vinylenoch. You have been responding to his comments in your last post. I am hoping he will return to the discussion.

This is what you suggested the database should contain. It was ed by a Staff post:

berothbr

1) 2x12" Label Variation A
2) 2x12" Label Variation A Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation A
3) 2x12" Label Variation B
4) 2x12" Label Variation B Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation B
5) 2x12" Label Variation C
6) 2x12" Label Variation C Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation C
7) 2x12" Label Variation D
8) 2x12" Label Variation D Mispress + 12" Replacement Variation D
9) 12" Replacement Variation A
10) 12" Replacement Variation B
11) 12" Replacement Variation C
12) 12" Replacement Variation D

1) is here: J Dilla - Donuts
3) is here: J Dilla - Donuts
5) is here: J Dilla - Donuts

I have 7) and can submit it, but the question I am asking is should we convert this entry: J Dilla - Donuts to become 7) or is that considered hijacking the entry.

Only people with the mispressed copies can enter 2), 4), 6), 8) and 9) to 12). I do not have them, so I cannot enter them.

I am also looking for consensus on what to write in the Release Notes.

berothbr
3) 'vinyl' should be removed from the FTF for the 'correct' version.

This needs to be done, but I am waiting to se what to do with the entry before making any edits.

SeagullVinyl
I have 7) and can submit it, but the question I am asking is should we convert this entry: J Dilla - Donuts to become 7) or is that considered hijacking the entry.

If the current release page doesn't have enough information to distinguish as a specific version, and the Submitter has not come forth with specific information as to what version it is there are only two choices:
1) Add details that make it a specific version
2) merge it with the next closest variant

It should not remain as a generic, informationless, version.

cellularsmoke
If the current release page doesn't have enough information to distinguish as a specific version

It doesn't.

cellularsmoke
the Submitter has not come forth with specific information as to what version it is

I've pinged them twice here. I want to give them some time to respond.

cellularsmoke
Add details that make it a specific version

I shall do this before the end of the week unless developments here mean that's not the right thing to do.

I am not sure which versions I have and disagree with having all the variations listed separately as I think it is more confusing and causes more problems than it solves, with that said the version I created can be changed to fit the consensus thinking

vinylenoch
disagree with having all the variations listed separately as I think it is more confusing and causes more problems than it solves

I know it just makes everything denser, so I agree with you on that point, however, this is not an option as it would directly conflict with the guidelines ( here).

SeagullVinyl
I shall do this before the end of the week unless developments here mean that's not the right thing to do.

I actually think it's probably safer/advantageous to submit your copy as a new version and merge the non-RSG §1.4.2-compliant version instead. The main reasoning for this is that a duplicate can always be merged very easily and resubmitted just as easily, but a hijacked release is usually difficult to untangle (plus, at least for me, it's a lot easier to just start from scratch when submitting a complicated release like this one).

berothbr
I actually think it's probably safer/advantageous to submit your copy as a new version and merge the non-RSG §1.4.2-compliant version instead.

Agreed.

D variant submitted and merge initiated.
https://discogs.versitio.com/release/8820239-Donuts/history?utm_campaign=release-merge&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest

Since we are creating a release for each variation, then this should be the releases:

1) 2x12" Label Variation "A"
2) 2x12" Label Variation "A" Mispress
3) 2x12" Label Variation "B"
4) 2x12" Label Variation "B" Mispress
5) 2x12" Label Variation "C"
6) 2x12" Label Variation "C" Mispress
7) 2x12" Label Variation "D"
8) 2x12" Label Variation "D" Mispress
9) 12" Replacement Variation "A"
10) 12" Replacement Variation "B"
11) 12" Replacement Variation "C"
12) 12" Replacement Variation "D"

The replacements/repress probably shouldn't be listed with the mispress as I don't think they sent "A" repress variant to "A" variant mispress, "B" repress variant to "B" mispress, etc. I could be wrong. If we have to list the repress with the mispress then we would four releases for mispress "A" (one for each repress variant), four releases for mispress "B" (one with each repress varinet), etc and get rid of 9)-12) on the list above.

I still thinks this is dumb to do, but that isn't the consensus.

Personally, I think 8 listings complies with the Guidelines. Four for the original mispressed version plus the replacement disc and four for the copies sold later with the correctly pressed side A. I don't think that the replacement discs should be listed on their own as they were never available to purchase as seperate entities. I think RSG §1.1.4 covers it, though I acknowledge the possibility of debating that because of the word 'initially'.

It's a moot point though as it doesn't appear anyone out there is going to add the correct four entries for the mispressed copies let alone the stand alone replacement discs.

SeagullVinyl
It's a moot point though as it doesn't appear anyone out there is going to add the correct four entries for the mispressed copies let alone the stand alone replacement discs.

+1 /9-12 should really be submitted individually too regardless of whether those were unavailable for purchase because those were subsequently released separately to replace messed up discs. However, I agree —it's all dependent on individual contributors taking the time to submit their copies. However, there appear to be quite a few active vinyl me please s, so we'll see what happens.

vinylenoch
I still thinks this is dumb to do, but that isn't the consensus.

The consensus is that that was posted and reposted 6-7 months ago, I recommend reviewing that post and the ones that precede it because it basically covers everything.

I did review that list, I made changes to it and explained why, that was the point of paragraph below the list.