Page 2 of 2

Re: Why I Paid $37,100 for One Record

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:32 am
by edisonplayer
My mom used to say,"They're only worth what you'd pay for them"If I found that Paramount at,say,a flea market or garage sale for a $1,I'd sure as heck snap it up!edisonplayer

Re: Why I Paid $37,100 for One Record

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:44 pm
by beaumonde
Interesting (and disappointing) that that record is not included in the huge Third Man Records Paramount set.

Re: Why I Paid $37,100 for One Record

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:33 pm
by victorIIvictor
Adam wrote, "Interesting (and disappointing) that that record is not included in the huge Third Man Records Paramount set."

Disappointing, perhaps, but not surprising. John Tefteller owns both known copies of Tommy Johnson's "Alcohol and Jake Blues," and paid $37,100 for this copy because it is it better condition than the one he already has. Moreover, he regards the Third Man/Revenant Paramount Records set as a "bootleg."

http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=i ... et&P=25275

Or see ARSClist for October 2013 and read Steve Ramm's message from 23 October under the heading "Paramount Box Set Review."

While I am looking forward to John Tefteller reissuing this selection himself for next year's Blues Image calendar, when you get right down to it, "Alcohol and Jake Blues" is just another version of "Canned Heat Blues," which Tommy Johnson recorded for Victor in better fidelity and in better voice. For these reasons, the Victor is a much better record, but in the crazy world of record collecting, the better record would not fetch five figures at auction.

Re: Why I Paid $37,100 for One Record

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:55 pm
by STARR-OLA
Excellent story,thanks.

Re: Why I Paid $37,100 for One Record

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:37 pm
by kirtley2012
Article #2) "How I dropped a $37,100 record" :lol: