Mercury Records Collection: Column: Mysteries of “Cannonball Adderley Quintet In Chicago” (Page 4 of 6)

Now we have enough prerequisites for exploring actual copies. Let's start examining actual copies I have already collected. On this page, I will focus on stereo edition (mono edition on next page).

At the time of this writing, I have four stereo copies. Of course, all four are SR-60134. Let's call each copy as [S1] [S2] [S3] [S4] here for convenience' sake.

Labels

This type is very typical and fairly common among Mercury stereo LPs since 1959.

Most titles in similar period have this label design. So it is highly probable that this label type is the earliest one of SR-60134. BTW this type was still used on some discs even after the introduction of red Mercury label (starting from 1963 or 1964).

Next one is the label on [S3] disc. Basic design is similar to [S1] and [S2]. However,

BTW Refugee-san have the copy with this label type. His copy has DG (deep-groove) on Side-A, while no DG on Side-B. He also confirmed the existence of another disc with this label, and with DG on both sides.

The last one is the label on [S4] disc. This is the copy I firstly obtained in 2001.

Interestingly, these three labels have different letters from each other. And it must be noted that [S3] label has different label colour (not black, but dark gray).

The label of [S1] and [S2] type is fairly common among many Mercury releases in this era. Furthermore, both [S1] and [S2] have deep-groove. So this type may be the oldest variation among three. BTW what the hell are such irregular designs like [S3] and [S4]? At least, it must be true that [S3] and [S4] label papers were printed at different printing plant from [S1] and [S2].

As a matter of fact, I have ever seen similar label designs like [S3] type. Most of them are so-called “best-selling albums”. Anyway, the label paper is NOT black but dark gray (or very dark green?). Here, as an example, is a scanned image of the label of MG-20448 (it's mono issue). Furthermore, I have some other copies with similar label types in 20600-20700 / 60600-60700 series.

All above facts will lead us to a highly-probable hypothesis - The discs [S3] and [S4] were pressed at a different plant (from [S1] and [S2]). It is probable and natural that Mercury had more than two pressing plants in the US (further details are under invesitgation), and sometimes Mercury might temporally used different plants in a state of emergency. Some plants pressed DG labels, while others pressed non-DG labels in the era.

Matrix information

What about matrix stamps/inscriptions, which always give us more fruitful information than the label paper itself?

Label and matrix stamps on [S1] [S2] discs
Side-A: SR 60134-A-MS5 FF
Side-B: SR 60134-B-MS5 FF
Imprints emphasised in red, inscriptions in light blue, respectively.

This is the matrix info found on the [S1] and [S2] discs (both had the very same matrix information). This matrix imprint/inscription is very common type in most Mercury releases except Living Precence. Until 1959, Mercury's all stereo discs were pressed at RCA Victor Indianapolis plant, but in 1959 most Mercury discs (except Classical Living Presence series) were moved to the other plant than Indianapolis. Matrix imprints are stamped in line with narrow letters, and there is an inscription of FF (F written over another F), which possibly indicate an initial of cutting/pressing engineer. Unfortunately, this era's discs don't have any other information than lacquer number (MS5 in the above example), so we cannot determine mother numbers nor stamper numbers. This is why it's very hard to find out the earliest discs (which we suppose sounds best).

My copies, [S1] and [S2] discs, both have MS5 postfixes. To tell the truth, there was yet another copy I nearly was buying (but I didn't). The copy also had MS5 postfix... All three copies I have ever seen have the same matrix postfixes MS5 ! This may suggest either of

I will continue investigating this question. Anyway in my humble opinion, I guess pre-MS5 discs did exist but I don't know for sure. I will keep looking for such copies.

Label and matrix stamps on [S3] disc
Side-A: SRC60134-A-MS4 I I
Side-B: SRC60134-B-MS3 I I

Next example is the disc [S3]. The most significant difference we can find is the imprint C between SR and 60134. Actually, most of [S3] type label copies have such strange matrix prefixes as SRC, MGC or MGT. This fact may also suggest that discs with [S3] label type were pressed at a different pressing plant from Mercury's usual plant.

It's not still certain what the handwritten part (I I) actually mean - it may be mother/stamper numbers, or it may be engineers' initials, but we need more strong facts and many more examples of the matrix stamps to determine.

BTW, I said on the past pages that Refugee-san has the disc with [S3] label design (with DG on Side-A). As for the matrix info, his copy has MS2 on Side-A. Side-B doesn't have DG, and matrix stamps is the following [S4] type. Both sides of his copy have different characteristics each other - it is interesting, and it may suggest his copy was pressed sometime in a certain transition era (from DG to non-DG for example).

Label and matrix stamps on [S4] disc
Side-A: SR 60134 A M2 C IIII
Side-B: SR 60134 B M1 B IIII

Here is the last example I have, from [S4] disc. The postfix of matrix stamp was changed from MS + numeral to M + numeral. This change was common in entire Mercury discs in the era, and throughout my research I have concluded that this transition of MS -> M stamps was made sometime in 1961 or 1962. This may be the strong proof of [S4] being the last-pressed disc among these four examples I obtained this time.

Another distinctive point can be found on the dead wax - C imprint (which suggests mother sequence?) and handwritten IIII (which suggests stamper generation?). Such stamp/inscription cannot be found on [S1] [S2] discs (I mean, the ordinary pressings by Mercury at the time), which also suggests [S3] and [S4] were pressed at a different plant.

Inner Sleeves

Inner sleeves are most unreliable and most untrustworthy accessories (imagine original owners accidentally swap a sleeve with an another without an intension). So we have to keep in mind that the inner sleeves coming with SR-60134 may not lead definitive evidence (and we must not blindly believe the sleeves). Anyway, as for the inner sleeves, three out of my four LPs came with the sleeves. There are two versions available as seen below.

LEFT: inner sleeve which came with [S1] and [S4] copies. Usually this is common in 1961 releases.
RIGHT: inner sleeve which came with [S2] copy. Usually this is common in 1962-1963 releases.

Comparative auditioning the actual discs

All vinyl discs, even though pressed from the very same stamper, may not sound the same. The very first pressed copy and the very last pressed copy (just before the stamper being worn out) sounds very different. And we must know these are all second-hand used LPs - seldom-played disc and well-played disc do sound different. So, we must keep in mind that it is very dangerous and must be avoided to judge the freshness of each disc just by sound itself, but anyway here we go for comparative auditioning every disc I have collected.

Some of the early stereo discs of Mercury Popular/Jazz series sound great - very vivid, crisp and sharp, natural stereophonics. Of course, the famous Classical subsidiary Mercury Living Presence easily beat the good-sounding Mercury Popular/Jazz titles, but they are still sounding very nice. Here, for example, please look for and take a listen to very early copy of SR-60029 or SR-60118 - I have both of them, and they sounds very impressive!

Unfortunately, stereo edition of the “Quintet In Chicago” LP is not one of such good examples - typical left-to-right stereo mixing which was much common among early stereo era of many labels. According to an engineer's note “Hi-Finformation” found on the back cover of SR-60134, you can see the below description:

The strongest emphasis on this note is on minimizing crossover and off-microphone echoes. The engineer tried to record the session fully in “on-microphone” setting. On the other hand, most impressive point of Mercury's early stereo recordings are, without any doubts, refreshing stereo presence, transparent atmosphere, even making fully use of crossover echoes in multi-microphone Jazz/Popular sessions. This album, SR-60134, has poor stereo presence and mixing - Cannonball on the left channel, Coltrane on the right channel, Cobb's drumming heard on the both channels as if he had long long arms (or he were an incredible titan). Not a good-mixed stereo album.

After I auditioned all four copies, I definitely concluded that the [S1] copy sounded the best among four. The frequency range of on-microphone tenor/alto saxophones is a bit narrow, but otherwise this copy reproduces very good sound (except poor mixing). Good bottom-range as well as crisp high-frequency range. Chambers' pizzicato can be clearly heard, while hi-hat cymbal sounds have very good transiency as well as clear reverberations. At the same time it's not a gentle sound at all - very powerful sound what most Jazz fans like. It can be filed under “Mercury's sound”. In other words, this may be a sound of Telefunken U-47 microphone, which Mercury's engineers frequently used in various sessions from Classical music, Jazz to Popular music.

Next, the [S2] disc - it has the very same matrix information (which proves [S1] and [S2] were pressed from the same lacquer), and actually it has very similar sounds. Unfortunately, the entire sound is full of distortion and warp. The [S2] disc might be pressed using the worn-out stamper. The “deep-groove” part of [S2] shows a bit crackling, which probably proves the use of worn-out stamper. As for the “most unreliable accessory” inner sleeve, [S2]'s sleeve was later type than [S1]'s sleeve. It could be one of circumstantial evidence of late pressing.

[S3] disc sounds rather different: it reproduces rather rough sound compared with [S1] disc's sound. Also, reverbrations sounds instable. The frequency range of tenor/alto goes narrower, and bass drum sounds strange and “dry”. Do these differences prove that [S3] was pressed at a different plant from [S1] and [S2] plant?

[S4] disc's sound differs more from [S3]: it has modest and gentle sound. No frequency peak at high range, naturally flat. That is to say, a comfortable sound for ears. I guess this sound is probably the effect of equalization. However, [S4] sounds too different from such sound as [S1], which has rich and abundant sound information. Also, [S4]'s cutting level is rather lower than other three discs, which in turn causes a bit loud surface noise.

By the way, the first reissue LS-86009 from Limelight label sounds very similar to [S4] disc. But LS-86009's cutting level is as high as [S1] thru [S3], so it makes me realise LS-86009 sounds better than [S4]. However, [S4] don't have natural and powerful sound as [S1] have.

By such comparative auditioning, it is again highly probable that [S1] disc was the earliest pressing among these four. If we can find a [S1] disc with MS1 matrix postfix, it will definitely be regarded as the very early pressing. And it's obvious that [S4] is the last pressing among these four, simply because the postfix starts with M, not MS.

So how about the [S3] disc? It may be later than [S1] and [S2] disc upon these facts and surmises, but it is also possible that [S3] type was available in conjunction with [S1] and [S2] type ... What is the real story?

Mysteries of “Cannonball Adderley Quintet In Chicago”

Exploring/auditioning actual copies (stereo edition)

Labels

Matrix information

Inner Sleeves

Comparative auditioning the actual discs

visitors to this page since November 15, 2004.

Last Updated: (none)