Elvis' Christmas Album --> Mystery No More?

[Barry]

No, not saying anyone is wrong or right, as it now sits, no one seems to know for sure, when it came out in the U.S.

[jbnva58]

Billboard is usually considered a reliable source as far as re-issues are concerned.
I realize that the late 50s-early 60s were not as focused on these things as they are now,but with an artist of Elvis' stature(not to mention Sinatra,etc)a new Cat. # and release,as it were,would warrent an immediate mention in that trade publication.especially what were(at that time) huge sales implications as regarding Christmas LPs.
I think the Doc is correct...

[Barry]

Memphis, most of what I have read, leans toward 1958, but the Doc states that info is wrong, on the new Elvis site that you mentioned they also lean towards 1958, click on the site, click on long play, they have some new info about the photos on the back of LPM-1951

[jbnva58]

As I posted earlier,Billboard was (is) usually correct on releases-if it was avilable in 1958,BB would have reported this,why not?
Remember the cat. # snafu that occured with the "Golden Records,Vol.3" and "Fun In Acapulco" LPs?
You can ignore me,fine,but the facts in THE trade publication(s) of the time can not be ignored...

[KiwiAlan]

Does Billboard routinely mention all reissues.....for example have

Elvis
Loving You
Elvis Now
Good Times
And the eight sountrack albums


all released in the last 12 months been mentioned, let alone reviewed..

[jbnva58]

Does Billboard routinely mention all reissues.....for example have

Elvis
Loving You
Elvis Now
Good Times
And the eight sountrack albums


all released in the last 12 months been mentioned, let alone reviewed..

A good point,but we are taliking about about a hot as a pistol rock star at that time and place,not someone who has been dead 32 years and has a virtual plethora of releases on the marketplace...
to put in in perspective,do you not think that BB would not note a re-issue of Emeniems with a new cover and Cat. #?

[KiwiAlan]

Does Billboard routinely mention all reissues.....for example have

Elvis
Loving You
Elvis Now
Good Times
And the eight sountrack albums


all released in the last 12 months been mentioned, let alone reviewed..

A good point,but we are taliking about about a hot as a pistol rock star at that time and place,not someone who has been dead 32 years and has a virtual plethora of releases on the marketplace...
to put in in perspective,do you not think that BB would not note a re-issue of Emeniems with a new cover and Cat. #?

With Elvis Christmas Album we are only talking about a change of catalogue number. Who would care.

Why on earth would that make news for Billboard worth reporting.

[jbnva58]

Does Billboard routinely mention all reissues.....for example have

Elvis
Loving You
Elvis Now
Good Times
And the eight sountrack albums


all released in the last 12 months been mentioned, let alone reviewed..

A good point,but we are taliking about about a hot as a pistol rock star at that time and place,not someone who has been dead 32 years and has a virtual plethora of releases on the marketplace...
to put in in perspective,do you not think that BB would not note a re-issue of Emeniems with a new cover and Cat. #?

With Elvis Christmas Album we are only talking about a change of catalogue number. Who would care.

Why on earth would that make news for Billboard worth reporting.

Well,it wouldnt with an artrist with less of Elvis' importance-but why then,would this not make the LP charts in 1958,or 1959,but then make an apperance in the 1960 chart?
It would seem to affirm the fact that 1951 was not released to the public until 1960.
Paul Dowling has weighed in on this,I would be interested in Neal Umphreads opinion...

[KiwiAlan]

Does Billboard routinely mention all reissues.....for example have

Elvis
Loving You
Elvis Now
Good Times
And the eight sountrack albums


all released in the last 12 months been mentioned, let alone reviewed..

A good point,but we are taliking about about a hot as a pistol rock star at that time and place,not someone who has been dead 32 years and has a virtual plethora of releases on the marketplace...
to put in in perspective,do you not think that BB would not note a re-issue of Emeniems with a new cover and Cat. #?

With Elvis Christmas Album we are only talking about a change of catalogue number. Who would care.

Why on earth would that make news for Billboard worth reporting.

Well,it wouldnt with an artrist with less of Elvis' importance-but why then,would this not make the LP charts in 1958,or 1959,but then make an apperance in the 1960 chart?
It would seem to affirm the fact that 1951 was not released to the public until 1960.
Paul Dowling has weighed in on this,I would be interested in Neal Umphreads opinion...

Elvis was out of public sight during 58/59. In Christmas 1960 he was huge with a TV show, It's Now Or Never and Are You Lonesome Tonight raising his profile to 1956 levels. Naturally his past issues were selling again.

[drjohncarpenter]

With Elvis Christmas Album we are only talking about a change of catalogue number.

Wrong.

It has been made repeatedly clear on this topic that the re-release bore a brand-new front and back cover, in addition to a change in catalog number.

If you have anything of value to add to this topic, one that encompasses the time span 1957 to 1960 ONLY, please do so AFTER having read and absorbed all the work that went into creating it.

[PetriTCB]

Maybe one day I'll come out with my gigantic WORLDWIDE ELVIS PRESLEY DISCOGRAPHY but it's now way over 4000 pages and I need a year easily just to revise and update it! Anyone know a publisher willing to pay me to complete it? Or actually I should say - would anyone out these want a huge book like this??

I surely WANT to get that book, because I need that's kind book!!! That's probably should release as book series... I mean that how one book contains OVER 4.000 pages!!! Or make that as a CD-ROM release...

It's quite easy to find out details about USA pressings. But if I want to know all variations of Blue River song's wrongly mastered variations in France (It was 4 seconds too long), then I'm so lost...

[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.

[KiwiAlan]

With Elvis Christmas Album we are only talking about a change of catalogue number.

Wrong.

It has been made repeatedly clear on this topic that the re-release bore a brand-new front and back cover, in addition to a change in catalog number.

If you have anything of value to add to this topic, one that encompasses the time span 1957 to 1960 ONLY, please do so AFTER having read and absorbed all the work that went into creating it.

Not wrong at all.

You are ignoring the real possibility that yhe first issue of LPM 1951 was firstrerleased with the same cover as the LOC issue in 1959 and at a later date was replaced with a new cover.

You going against the bulk of evidence including RCA's own discography.


Sorry to burst yoour bubble.

[3577]

LOC-1035 - released: October 15, 1957
LPM-1951 - released: October 9, 1959

[KiwiAlan]

Would Joel Whitburn be considered an expert?

Here is what he writes about Elvis Christmas Album

"originally issued LOC 1035 (red Cover) as a gatefold with a 10 page booklet of color photos( made pop charts) reisssued 1958 on LPM 1951 Blue cover......)

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=K1JLAAAAYAAJ&q=%22lpm+1951%22&dq=%22lpm+1951%22&cd=10

[drjohncarpenter]

You are ignoring the real possibility that yhe first issue of LPM 1951 was firstrerleased with the same cover as the LOC issue in 1959 and at a later date was replaced with a new cover.

For the last time, read what was posted on the first page before making future comments. The above "real possibility" has been proven impossible.

As for Whitburn, it should be plainly obvious he is parroting all the other INCORRECT discographies.

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.

Thank you. Not everyone participating on this topic is ignoring the research presented.

[Barry]

I'm really amazed that the Elvis Collectors in the U.S. cannot pinpoint a release date for LPM-1951.
I thought for sure that one or more of you would remember when you purchased it.

[Moderator2]

A FYI. This topic is generating a lot of interest from outside as well as in. Lets all be cordial in our replies etc and hope it comes to the correct conclusion.

[KiwiAlan]

Can we stop dragging the EP into this and concentrate on the LP

I am surprised that anyone can dismiss Joel Whitburn so easily.


Thr disparity in serial numbers has yet to be explained.

[Barry]

It would seem that every release date that has been published, aside from Solid Gold Elvis, is incorrect.

[Frankie Teardrop]

Can we stop dragging the EP into this and concentrate on the LP

I am surprised that anyone can dismiss Joel Whitburn so easily.


Thr disparity in serial numbers has yet to be explained.

I don't understand why a disparity in serial numbers would even be an issue considering how many examples there are of serial numbers not matching up with chronological release dates. The fact that there are few examples in Elvis' career of that happening means nothing, he wasn't a special case where RCA said to themselves "we better make sure ELVIS' serial numbers match with the chronological discography!".

[KiwiAlan]

Can we stop dragging the EP into this and concentrate on the LP

I am surprised that anyone can dismiss Joel Whitburn so easily.


Thr disparity in serial numbers has yet to be explained.

I don't understand why a disparity in serial numbers would even be an issue considering how many examples there are of serial numbers not matching up with chronological release dates. The fact that there are few examples in Elvis' career of that happening means nothing, he wasn't a special case where RCA said to themselves "we better make sure ELVIS' serial numbers match with the chronological discography!".

Can you give examples of numbers out of sequence of two years from other RCA artists?

[RonBaker2003]

Don't know about other artists, but Elvis Golden Records LSP 2765 was apparently released before Fun in Acapulco LSP-2756.

[drjohncarpenter]

A FYI. This topic is generating a lot of interest from outside as well as in. Lets all be cordial in our replies etc and hope it comes to the correct conclusion.

How exciting!!

Score another one for the DOC!!!

I'm still awaiting some feedback from a person who knows a lot.

[KiwiAlan]

In Canada---LOC-1035 was issued for christmas 1957, in 1958 it was changed to LPM-1951, with the same front cover as LOC-1035, in 1959, the cover was changed to the standard LPM--1951

This could be a key.

I have looked at the serial numbers around 1951

LPM 1948 Glen Miller
LPM 1949 George Beverly Shea..................................................First Billboard mention Aprtil 13 1959
LPM 1950 Jim Reeves.................................................................." " " " " February 23 1959
LPM 1951 Elvis
LPM 1952 Ballet Espanol.............................................................. " " " " " May 25 1959
LPM 1953 Maureen O'Hara............................................................. " " " " " July 20 1959
LPM 1954 Ames Brothers............................................................... " " " " " April 13 1959
LPM 1955 Melachrino Strings........................................................ " " " " " August 31 1959
LPM 1956 Henry Mancini................................................................ " " " " Sep 7 1959

My contention is that LOC 1035 became "out of print" first quarter 1959 and LPM 1951 was slotted in to cover orders. It might have been a marketing strategy to bring the cheaper version out.The first issues could well have the same red cover and changed to blue later to freshen sales.

LOC 1035 sale price was $4.98 and LPM version $3.98.

EPA 4340 does not require any detective work to establish a 1959 date ....just look at the first matrix number. K=1959.

The blue cover would have been made for the LP then reduced for the EP. You can't do it the other way round. This suggests that the blue LP cover appeared in 1959


So

1957 LOC 1035 EPA 4108
1958 LOC 1035 EPA 4108
1959 March LPM 1951 with red cover
1959 October LPM 1951 with cover change EPA 4340

I note that Billboard charts in the early 60's treated both versions as the one entity