Elvis' Christmas Album --> Mystery No More?

Hi there!!

Actually Doc, one chevron (stripe) indicates the rank of private E-2. If Elvis were a private 1st class (PFC) E-3 he would have one chevron with a rocker beneath it. Here are the ranks Elvis held during his military career;

E-1: private (often referred to as buck private)
E-2: private
E-3: private first class (PFC)
E-4: specialist 4th class (often referred to as spec4)
E-5: sargeant (often referred to as buck sargeant)

I'll leave it up to the more informed to provide the dates when he achieved each rank.

I´m actually a NATO OR-7 or an U.S.A Senior Chief Petty Officer, so Sergeant Elvis Presley salute! . Bye for now .

Mike Windgren.

I am a OF-1 (Alférez or Second Lieutenant) on the CIMIC Battalion on the Spanish Army on the voluntary reserve. I am about to promote to first lieutenant.

Hi there!!

Actually Doc, one chevron (stripe) indicates the rank of private E-2. If Elvis were a private 1st class (PFC) E-3 he would have one chevron with a rocker beneath it. Here are the ranks Elvis held during his military career;

E-1: private (often referred to as buck private)
E-2: private
E-3: private first class (PFC)
E-4: specialist 4th class (often referred to as spec4)
E-5: sargeant (often referred to as buck sargeant)

I'll leave it up to the more informed to provide the dates when he achieved each rank.

I´m actually a NATO OR-7 or an U.S.A Senior Chief Petty Officer, so Sergeant Elvis Presley salute! . Bye for now .

Mike Windgren.

I am a OF-1 (Alférez or Second Lieutenant) on the CIMIC Battalion on the Spanish Army on the voluntary reserve. I am about to promote to first lieutenant.

Comooooooo? jo vaig anar a la mili ... 3 setmanes i fora ! Epileptico! segons ells ...

Hi there!! .

Hi there!!

Actually Doc, one chevron (stripe) indicates the rank of private E-2. If Elvis were a private 1st class (PFC) E-3 he would have one chevron with a rocker beneath it. Here are the ranks Elvis held during his military career;

E-1: private (often referred to as buck private)
E-2: private
E-3: private first class (PFC)
E-4: specialist 4th class (often referred to as spec4)
E-5: sargeant (often referred to as buck sargeant)

I'll leave it up to the more informed to provide the dates when he achieved each rank.

I´m actually a NATO OR-7 or an U.S.A Senior Chief Petty Officer, so Sergeant Elvis Presley salute! . Bye for now .

Mike Windgren.

I am a OF-1 (Alférez or Second Lieutenant) on the CIMIC Battalion on the Spanish Army on the voluntary reserve. I am about to promote to first lieutenant.

Hola compañero de armas, aquí un suboficial de carrera desde Philadelphia trabajando para la Armada española bajo mandato NATO. Un saludo .

Mike Windgren.

As we pursue the release date of LPM 1951 -- circa Nov 1959 or 1960? -- another myth needs to be dispelled.

---

LOC 1035 -- the "deluxe" edition of Elvis' Christmas Album -- was apparently NOT deleted by RCA in 1958. Or 1959. Or ... 1963.

In fact, it is distinctive on Billboard's chart as late as December 1967!

It is clear now that RCA saw the "deluxe" package as able to coexist at retail with the stripped-down, new cover art version (LPM 1951). Fans could choose the edition they wanted from Santa at least until 1963, perhaps even until four years later.

---

A little more Christmas history, starting back in early 1958:




Billboard - January 13, 1958
Elvis' Christmas Album - LOC 1035 hits #1 on the LP charts. Yay Elvis!





Elvis and the Colonel Holiday Greetings, Billboard December 21, 1959
Nowhere in this or any 1959 [i]Billboard is any mention of LPM 1951.[/i]

Billboard Dec 08 1962 p2.JPG

Billboard - December 8, 1962
Here we see Elvis' Christmas Album - LOC 1035 re-entering the charts at #143.

Elvis also hits #27 (Girls! Girls! Girls! - LPM 2621), #47 (Pot Luck - LPM 2523), and #118 (Blue Hawaii - LPM 2426).
Also, on the STEREO listing, Girls! Girls! Girls! - LSP 2621 appears at #36.

Billboard Dec 29 1962 p2.JPG

Billboard - December 29, 1962
Again we see Elvis' Christmas Album - LOC 1035 on the charts at #59.
Girls! Girls! Girls! - LPM 2621 is now at #5.



Some may feel that Billboard was making a mistake with the catalog number, or that LOC 1035 actually the album reissue using the original cover art, but history shows us something else:





Billboard - December 7, 1963

11 - ELVIS' CHRISTMAS ALBUM, Elvis Presley, RCA Victor
LPM 1951 (M) and/or LOC 1035 (M); (No Stereo)

Here we see Elvis' Christmas Album - LOC 1035 and LPM 1951 BOTH being cited as available!





Billboard - December 28, 1963
Again we see Elvis' Christmas Album - LOC 1035 and LPM 1951 BOTH being cited as available!



At Christmas 1964 and 1965, RCA pushed the reprocessed stereo version of LPM 1951.
No mention of LOC 1035:




Billboard - December 5, 1964





Billboard - December 2, 1965



In Nov 1966 there was a new holiday 45, along with LPM 1951 / LSP 1951e
No mention of LOC 1035:




Billboard - Nov 26, 1966



The following week Billboard cited only LPM 1951 / LSP 1951e:

Billboard Dec 03 1966 p56.JPG

Billboard - December 3, 1966



At Christmas 1967, both LOC 1035 and LPM 1951 are highlighted!
Could this be correct?

Billboard Dec 02 1967 p8.JPG

Billboard - December 2, 1967



There was also a radio show for the 1967 holidays:



Billboard - December 2, 1967



Finally, right after the phenomenal 1968 TV Special, RCA once again only offered LPM 1951 / LSP 1951:

Billboard Dec 07 1968 p82.JPG

Billboard - December 7, 1968

---


From all of this, it seems we cannot count the deluxe LOC 1035 out of the picture until at least Christmas 1964.

What do YOU think?

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Last edited by drjohncarpenter on Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wow! If it was available all those years, then can it possibly be less rare than it is assumed to be? Did any copy exist with monaural at the bottom of the label or do all copies say Long Play?

It's really amazing that LOC-1035 was only available in Canada for the 1957 Christmas Season, as it seems now that it was still available, for many years after in the U.S, rather confusing to say the least, odd that RCA Canada would not keep importing the the LOC 1035 cover with the photos, and continue pressing the record in Canada as they did in 1957.

The 1967 entry looks like a mistake by someone at Billboard since it is exactly the same, mistake and all (LPM 1961 instead of 1951), as the 1963 entry. Someone copied and pasted the wrong entry?

It also tells me that Billboard made no distinction between the original and the reissue.

They considered it one in the same album.

So my theory about one album canceling the other out is wrong because Billboard would add

both sales up and count it as one, since they really are the same album, just different covers and numbers.

I don't think that original LP was in the stores 10 years after the fact.

Soon the camden budget LP would be out, which is a different album, and it would compete.

It also tells me that Billboard made no distinction between the original and the reissue.

Billboard made GREAT distinction between the two, one of the core points of my previous post.

Last edited by drjohncarpenter on Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, i think in 1963 charts listed both numbers bracketed together as though they were one disc.

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

Makes you wonder why

Jerry Hopkins
Peter Guralnick
Ernst Jorgensen
Roger Semon
RCA publications
and other authors in print or internet

are all wrong

to infer that all copied one another is insulting to all of them

It's not nonsense, because I don't think they did. When referring to one, they were referring to both.

There is no pattern.

You really believe LOC -1035 foldout cover made the charts in 1967? You are reaching.

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!

Anybody have the monthly Schwann Catalogue from October/November/December 1958, 1959 and 1960 to find out when LPM-1951 was released?

It also tells me that Billboard made no distinction between the original and the reissue.

Billboard made GREAT distinction between the two, one of the core points of my previous post.

Then you don't even know what you are posting. because that came from your post.

A mint (without splits on the spine etc) copy of LOC-1035 is very hard to come by and fetches quite a bit of money when it does. If in fact it was available through 1967 it shouldn't and wouldn't be so hard to find plenty of excellent (condition) copies. My take on that. Overproduction in 57'?

A mint (without splits on the spine etc) copy of LOC-1035 is very hard to come by and fetches quite a bit of money when it does. If in fact it was available through 1967 it shouldn't and wouldn't be so hard to find plenty of excellent (condition) copies. My take on that. Overproduction in 57'?

My feeling is the 1967 entry is incorrect, but that LOC 1035 remained a retail item through Christmas 1963.

Again, another neat wrinkle in the Christmas album history.

A mint (without splits on the spine etc) copy of LOC-1035 is very hard to come by and fetches quite a bit of money when it does. If in fact it was available through 1967 it shouldn't and wouldn't be so hard to find plenty of excellent (condition) copies. My take on that. Overproduction in 57'?

My feeling is the 1967 entry is incorrect, but that LOC 1035 remained a retail item through Christmas 1963.

Again, another neat wrinkle in the Christmas album history.

Thanks for info Doc.

Thanks for info Doc.

You're welcome!

How can anyone not love the DOC? It's impossible!!

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

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!

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.

Cashbox or Billboard in the 50's?

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.

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.

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?