Elvis' Christmas Album --> Mystery No More?

[norrie]

Doc,this is the first time i've actualy had to PRINT off a topic from this forum just to keep
up with all the info.Your research must have took up a hell of a lot of time and effort
and is very intersting and enjoyable to read.Thanks a million.

norrie

[drjohncarpenter]

Doc,this is the first time i've actualy had to PRINT off a topic from this forum just to keep
up with all the info.Your research must have took up a hell of a lot of time and effort
and is very intersting and enjoyable to read.Thanks a million.

Bless your heart, norrie!

[jbnva58]

To add my own 2 cents worth-the Doc has presented evidence-from the most reliable trade publication-about his hypothesis.
Its obviuos that much time and research has gone into this-and remember,very few(if any) of us were record buying public at that time.
I think this stands.

[KiwiAlan]

Cashbox or Billboard in the 50's?

[Luuk]

The best source IMO to find out who is right and who is wrong is the Schwann Catalog, a monthly publication listing all new releases.

[ekenee]

The best source IMO to find out who is right and who is wrong is the Schwann Catalog, a monthly publication listing all new releases.

Maybe not, because catalogs get advance knowledge of what will be released in the near future, but if the producers pull the plug, then people ordering it would not be able to get it.

As a bit of perspective, just look at proposed release dates of CD's today and how they are always late and behind schedule.

Or remember the Mahalo from Elvis LP that took years to finally make it out after it was planned.

Elvis sessions book shows some of this type of thing.

Elvis release history shows that delays are more common than not.

[Alexander]

All this dating is coming from one source.- Billboard.

Yes, the #1 music industry magazine, especially in the era we are researching.

Please, if you have another credible publication you can locate, scan and display here, do share!

So - in other words - from 1959 or 1960 on there were 2 versions available: a deluxe set (LOC 1035) and a more budget type release (LPM 1951). So the LPM 1951 is in a certain way a pressesor of the future Camden-releases then...

Doc, what do you think about the following? The value of the LOC 1035 set was always based on exclusivity. Fans always assumed that the set was only on the market for 1957/58 and was then replaced by LPM 1951. This seems not to be true. Question is: was LOC 1035 kept in production up to 1967. If so, the deluxe set may well be less rare than we always assumed and the estimated value in the reference guides must be adjusted. How do you see this?

[elvisrecords.us]

I know I am new to this discussion, but it has been a topic of interest for me for quite some time.

First, I would like to thank the person whom started this thread. Great pics and analysis.

I also, see that there is good use of the Google books for the images from Billboard. I too have gone that route. I had recently discovered http://www.newspaperarchive.com.

Although, Billboard is a leading magazine for the record industry, I do not believe that it is completely accurate with the details for each record. In 1968, LPM-1951 is listed with LSP-1951, well unlikely since somewhere around 11/1968, when the record label went orange, that catalog would have been dropped. Same too with no mention of LOC-1035 for some years, then in others it is brought back.

Well anyway, I have made some revisions to my post LPM-1951 to correct the date to what I believe to be 11/1959.
http://www.elvisrecords.us/lpm-1951-elvis-christmas-album/

I have a December 1959, Schwann Catalog that I didn't think to reference the Christmas section as LPM-1951 was not listed in the regular POP releases. It is listed in the Christmas section. Thank you, this forum for the inspiration to look at the catalog again.

I also had found several newspaper listings from 1958 and 1959 that advertise Elvis' Christmas Album. I have pictures of those pages and closeups as well as the Newspaper names.

I have images of these scans for both LOC-1035 and LPM-1951 here: http://www.elvisrecords.us/lpm-1951-elvis-christmas-album/

Thank you for your time and I hope that I had contributed something to this discussion. Have a great day.

Disclaimer: I am NOT an expert on the Elvis Presley US Catalog, however, I am a extremely knowledgeable and an avid collector. My information on my site is only as accurate as what I can find in my research. I don't pretend that everything I have documented is 100% accurate or complete, but am willing to get it to as close as possible. The goal of my site is to serve as a reference for all collectors, to fill the void of the all text price guides, and is organized slightly different. Where price guides generally associate a specific cover with a specific label with a specific inner sleeve, this site generalizes this considerably as having been buying records, there are many variations that are not documented using that method. Sometimes, it is nice to see the image of that record you may have or are looking for.

[drjohncarpenter]

elvisrecords.us, welcome to FECC. I have sent you a PM regarding your concerns.

To your post:

I have a December 1959, Schwann Catalog that I didn't think to reference the Christmas section as LPM-1951 was not listed in the regular POP releases. It is listed in the Christmas section
...
I also had found several newspaper listings from 1958 and 1959 that advertise Elvis' Christmas Album. I have pictures of those pages and closeups as well as the Newspaper names.

If you can scan the relevant page/s in the 1959 Schwann Catalog, that would be great.

It would be nice to confirm that both EPE 4340 and LPM 1951 were issued at Christmas 1959.

Any concrete information you can scan about LOC 1035's longevity at retail, such as those newspaper articles, will also be welcome.

[MysteryTrain]

My understanding is that not only the back cover photo of Elvis in his uniform, but the front cover photo on LPM 1951 (and EPA 4340) were from the same 1959 Teldec photo session. In other words, the original photo had Elvis standing in front of blue curtains, but was subsequently superimposed on the snow covered hills for the covers of both LPM 1951 and EPA 4340.

If so, neither LPM 1951 nor EPA 4340 could have been released in 1958.

MT

[drjohncarpenter]

My understanding is that not only the back cover photo of Elvis in his uniform, but the front cover photo on LPM 1951 (and EPA 4340) were from the same 1959 Teldec photo session. In other words, the original photo had Elvis standing in front of blue curtains, but was subsequently superimposed on the snow covered hills for the covers of both LPM 1951 and EPA 4340.

If so, neither LPM 1951 nor EPA 4340 could have been released in 1958.

MT

Exactly right!

[painterboy]

Having looked at this subject over the seven pages available again,I have to agree with the Doc.How can LPM-1951 have been released in 1958, when the front cover photo was taken by the Teldec company in May 1959?.
I still stick by what I said on page 2 of this topic,that it first appeared in November 1959.



Glad to see Mystery Train agrees with my above comments.

[drjohncarpenter]

We may have confirmation soon!

[KiwiAlan]

I say again LPM 1951 could have been issued in 1958 with the original cover.

The Billboard experts Joel Whitburn states 1958

[ekenee]

I say again LPM 1951 could have been issued in 1958 with the original cover.

The Billboard experts Joel Whitburn states 1958

If so, then one would have turned up in collectors circles.

[elvisrecords.us]

Although I have scans on my site, here is the scan of the December 1959 issue of Schwann Long Playing Records Catalog, page 176. LPM-1951 is offered with no mention of LOC-1035.

1959-12-p176-lpm-1951-marked-1.jpg

Also under the Popular section the discography only lists regular release LPs. In the following order and detail.

1959-12-schwann-214.jpg

Also, a scan of RCA Victor Catalog - Records and Tapes (Current Until August 1958)
To demonstrate that there are no Christmas listings for that period, not even in the Christmas section of this book.

rcavictor.jpg

[KiwiAlan]

Very good.

Can we all now agree on 1959

[jbnva58]

That would seem to settle it then.
A question unanswered though-how long was LOC-1035 available to the public?
Furthermore,it would be hoped,even without alternate takes,FTD would release this(perhaps they could find relevant material to fill the gaps?)

[drjohncarpenter]

Although I have scans on my site, here is the scan of the December 1959 issue of Schwann Long Playing Records Catalog, page 176. LPM-1951 is offered with no mention of LOC-1035.

1959-12-p176-lpm-1951-marked-1.jpg

Also under the Popular section the discography only lists regular release LPs. In the following order and detail.

1959-12-schwann-214.jpg

Also, a scan of RCA Victor Catalog - Records and Tapes (Current Until August 1958)
To demonstrate that there are no Christmas listings for that period, not even in the Christmas section of this book.

rcavictor.jpg

Thank you so much!

1958 may be eliminated beyond any doubt, and it appears 1959 is the debut year of LPM 1951.

This has been a heck of a topic!

[drjohncarpenter]

A question unanswered though-how long was LOC-1035 available to the public?

This would be nice to confirm -- right now, it seems up to Dec 1963 is possible.

[ekenee]

A question unanswered though-how long was LOC-1035 available to the public?

This would be nice to confirm -- right now, it seems up to Dec 1963 is possible.

This would be tough issue to prove.
Since Christmas music is seasonal, it gets returned after the holidays and is warehoused.
It gets sent back to the retailers every october or so.
All you have to do is look at today's CD market and there are Christmas CD's long out of print
still making it to the stores because they still have them. Unsold stragglers could stay in the system for a long time.
We are not talking about nationwide,but certain minor markets could still have been getting that LP, for any number of years afterward. AT first I was hestitant to say 1967, and the arguement that would make the Christmas LP not as rare as originally as thought, but if you think of the comparative number available instores, is it not inconcievable that maybe a few hundreds copies were still floating around, sealed-new, during the 1967 holiday season. Or it got even be only Dozens floating around.
Those low numbers would still make the LP a desirable collectible.
I remember once, at a small record store in 1977 I picked up a new "love letters" album, that was the original label and pressing from 1971. The label had by then changed colors . That was definetely a straggler that hadn't sold.

[RonBaker2003]

Does anyone have a copy of LOC-1035 with monaural or mono at the bottom instead of long play?

[Mississippi]

Billboard April 6, 1959

Here’s the complete listing of all Elvis’ recordings on RCA - NO RCA Victor LPM-1951 !!!

http://books.google.pt/books?hl=de&id=TiAEAAAAMBAJ&q=Elvis%27#v=snippet&q=Elvis'%20recordings&f=false

JERRY OSBORNE: “The promotional LP RCA SP-33-66 “Christmas Programming From RCA Victor” was released November 1959. On the back cover you’ll find pictures of 12 RCA Christmas albums, including ELVIS’ CHRISTMAS ALBUM (LPM-1951).”

For that reason I think, the LPM-1951 was released November or December 1959.


Mississippi

[drjohncarpenter]

Billboard April 6, 1959

Here’s the complete listing of all Elvis’ recordings on RCA - NO RCA Victor LPM-1951 !!!

Great find. Here's the page:

Billboard Apr 04 1959 p28.JPG

Billboard - April 4, 1959
Again, more proof -- as if needed now -- that neither EPE 4340 nor LPM 1951 were issued in 1958.
It ALSO proves that LOC 1035 was indeed IN PRINT and FOR SALE in 1958 and 1959!

[Alexander]

For me the mystery is not solved completely because no-one was able to tell so far if this means that sales figures of LOC 1035 were far higher than assumed. Has LOC 1035 been in print LOC 1035 in print al the way up to 1967? Or did RCA Victor just get rid of old stock? Did anyone find a LOC 1035 with a MONAURAL label? Does values in Collectors Guides have to be adjusted because of the fact that the record was longer in production than assumed?

Would be happy to read some views on those questions!