Addition to guideline: Mis-applied labels

There still seems to be some confusion regarding labels that have either the same label both sides or completely missing a label on one side or both. I have been under the "assumption" that these are manufacturing casualties. However, it's not really laid out specifically. Can a line be added somewhere as the definitive guide? Seems that nik have leaned toward the mfg error ...

Misprint - Print Indicates that there is an error in the printed material on the release (labels, CD booklets etc), for example, indicating wrong track listings etc. There must be a corrected version of the release for this tag to be used.

https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/722904#7177260
Probably more ..........

Okay!

How does this sound:

RSG §1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, labels mis-applied to incorrect sides, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc., would not constitute a unique release.

+1 AWESOME !!!

Diognes_The_Fox
, labels mis-applied to incorrect sides

would that only cover the correct label but on the wrong side or would that also apply to a label from a completely different release?

Missing or mis-applied. Missing is 'missing' in the draft 1.4.4 above...

hafler3o
Missing or mis-applied

+1

Diognes_The_Fox
labels mis-applied to incorrect sides,

Can you re-word it so it is more comprehensive and directs us to figure it out in the forum when in doubt. Example:

... mislabelings such as, labels misapplied to incorrect sides, two of the same labels, or missing labels, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc., would not constitute a unique release. If in doubt, ask in the forum database topic.

FWIW: Ever since you helped me Example #2).

berothbr
Can you re-word it so it is more comprehensive and directs us to figure it out in the forum when in doubt. Example:

Yes, sounds good to me.

velove
would that only cover the correct label but on the wrong side or would that also apply to a label from a completely different release?

Only when the correct labels are misapplied. Not sure how to word that in without it being confusing though. Any suggestions appreciated.

RSG §1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, mislabelings such as, (correct) labels misapplied to incorrect sides, two of the same labels, or missing labels, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc., would not constitute a unique release. If in doubt, ask in the database forum.

TopCats45s
If in doubt, ask in the forum database topic.

"Database forum"

DonHergeFan
TopCats45sIf in doubt, ask in the forum database topic.
"Database forum"

:) .... correct .... copy draft

TopCats45s
RSG §1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, mislabelings such as, (correct) labels misapplied to incorrect sides, two of the same labels, or missing labels, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc., would not constitute a unique release. If in doubt, ask in the database forum.

I'm for this!

These updates look helpful as a reference.
+1

Diognes_The_Fox
Only when the correct labels are misapplied. Not sure how to word that in without it being confusing though. Any suggestions appreciated.

This would be an example of 'if in doubt, ask in the forums'

Bumping & pinging Diognes_The_Fox

TopCats45s
RSG §1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, mislabelings such as, (correct) labels misapplied to incorrect sides, two of the same labels, or missing labels, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc., would not constitute a unique release. If in doubt, ask in the database forum.

I'm back. This looks good for me.

Any last minute comments / objections? If not, I'll try and get this out later on today.

Diognes_The_Fox
If not, I'll try and get this out later on today.

Thanks!!!! No substantive objections (language looks good to me), but tiny suggestion: it might be a little easier to read if the 'for example' text block is broken up either on individual lines (like how you did in RSG §6.10) or with in-line guideposts like, e.g., For example: a) Ex.1; b) Ex.2; c) Ex.3 [etc. etc.]

RSG §1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release.

For example

a) different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition
b) manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color
c) mislabelings such as
d) (correct) labels misapplied to incorrect sides
e) two of the same labels, or missing labels
f) unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc.

would not constitute a unique release. If in doubt, ask in the database forum.

RSG §1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example
a) Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition
b) Manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color
c) Mislabelings such as: (correct) labels misapplied to incorrect sides, two of the same labels, or missing labels
f) Unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc.
If in doubt, ask in the database forum.

+1 and Tweaked a bit

TopCats45s
RSG §1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example
a) Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition
b) Manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color
c) Mislabelings such as: (correct) labels misapplied to incorrect sides, two of the same labels, or missing labels
f) Unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc.
If in doubt, ask in the database forum.

+ 1 please

And up, for Diognes_The_Fox. :-)

https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/356624?page=1#7304374

Bam!

Sorry about the delay with this. It's been a little thick recently.

Let me know if there's any adjustments I need to do!

Diognes_The_Fox
Bam!

Thanks!!!!!

Diognes_The_Fox
Let me know if there's any adjustments I need to do!

Could you link "Database forum" like in RSG §1.1.3.a.?

Diognes_The_Fox
Bam!

Terrific and Thanks!

Diognes_The_Fox
Let me know if there's any adjustments I need to do!

I, personally, think the first example is still a little to vage:
" Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition"

I know what is meant, but it might confuse s or ignite discussions still.
E.g. when a (vinyl) record is pressed by the same plant, with the same cover and labels and otherwise identical, but featuring a new unique stamper manufacturing date. Obviously this is a repress done at a later time, but according to recent discussions, it should be listed as a variation.
Same for CD plants that use later glass mastering dates on their releases.
I would suggest to somehow trying to include this for reference.

DonHergeFan
And up, for Diognes_The_Fox. :-)

Diognes_The_Fox
Let me know if there's any adjustments I need to do!

Documented full runs with misapplied labels should be allowed as unique.
Example (as already used several times in previous threads):
Werktag Play Alex Buess And Antoine Chessex

loukash
Documented full runs with misapplied labels should be allowed as unique

That's covered by the 'when in doubt ask in forums'

DonHergeFan
Could you link "Database forum" like in RSG §1.1.3.a.?

Done!

Dang ...... What about when the label doesn't get printed on at all? Cause its not a "correct" label.
https://discogs.programascracks.com/Deane-Waretini-2-With-The-Rising-Stars-The-Bridge/release/8429086

TopCats45s
What about when the label doesn't get printed on at all?

Looks like a one-off manufacturing variation to me, not a unique release.

loukash
Looks like a one-off manufacturing variation to me, not a unique release.

That's the way I've been treating them.

loukash
Not a unique release

...

Diognes_The_Fox
That's the way I've been treating them

Then I will too. Thanks!