Classic Vinyl Bootleg Revisited: TEARDROPS ON THE CITY 3LP (continued)

At least one of the best-looking vinyl bootlegs
Upper, (what I believe) original copy; beneath, repressing

There are at least two main reasons for this Swedish 3-LP set from 1980s to be one of the most popular and sought-after vinyl Brucelegs over the decades. One is, as explained in the last post, attributable to its attractive gate-fold sleeve featuring full color and black & white live photos inside and outside, possibly taken from the actual show. Another reason is the fact that the original master tape of this Stockholm concert (May 8th, 1981) no longer exists, which means that the original pressing of the vinyl bootleg is the best possible source of the existing recording. The following is the excerpt from the booklet of the CD-R set entitled TEARDROPS ON THE CITY Revisited, released in 2002 by Piggham labels, which is purportedly remastered from a virgin vinyl copy, trying to recreate this acclaimed performance in the best possible digital format:

"... These two sets (i.e. TEARDROPS ON THE CITY and FOLLOW THAT DREAM) are sadly the only document we have from the shows since the mastertapes were destroyed during the mid-eighties by a fire in a building in the North of Sweden. This fact rendered the vinyl sets to be the only way to access the shows ever since..."  

It is of note that in January 2013, an independent recording source of this show, together with that of the previous night (May 7th, 1981), was for the first time uploaded as torrent files to relevant internet sites. On this recording, Run Through The Jungle is complete and you no longer hear annoying audience conversations during Prove It All Night and at the beginning of The Ties That Bind, although there are no improvements in the sound quality in my opinion.

As I wrote in the last post, I've seen that this vinyl bootleg is reissued in mid-1980 much like in its original form when Springsteen's popularity reached at its height. Although I don't know how many are pressed for the original release, it seems that the bootleggers repressed this title considerably many more than the original, as the reissue version has been widely circulated and frequently appeared on eBay. In fact, many websites and auctions feature the reissue mistakenly as the original pressing (for example, see this). So, what defines the original pressing or reissue?

Picture label on Side 6 and the simple hand-etched matrix
number "6" on the dead wax area

I've owned three copies in my library, of which two copies, I believe, being the original while the remaining one corresponding to the repressed copy (BTW, the last copy was acquired in the last year; see the previous post). The matrix inscriptions are identical among the three copies (simply "1" for Side 1 and so for other sides), indicating that the vinyl discs of these copies are most likely pressed from the same stampers (that is one reason why I refer it as reissue rather than pirate or bootlegged bootleg). However, based on my simple measure to distinguish early and late copies of the same title, there are obvious signatures of photocopied reproduction that are specifically associated with the sleeve of the reissue version, as listed below.

[1]  On the front cover, there is lesser margin space between the edge and texts of the album title/artist name, which has most probably arisen during the process of reproducing the original sleeve (panels A and B).

[2]  Sleeve reproduction also causes the lousy printing quality of the reissue. Images that look fine on the original appear coarse or grainy on the reissue, especially those on the front cover shot (panel C; compare the two jean jackets, for instance). Other notable examples include “MADE IN HOLLAND” printed on the bottom right corner of the rear sleeve (panel D) and “PILOT” body-printing on the ballpoint pen pictured on the right side of the interior sleeve (panel E). “HOLLAND” on the back cover is blurred and out of focus on the reissue. The “PILOT” logo is visible on the original copy whereas the interior sleeve of the reissue is darker and nothing can be read on the body of the pen. Moreover, the reissue faithfully reproduces wrinkles and folds on the sleeve of an original copy against which the actual photos were taken for reproduction (panels F and G; one of the two-pseudo wrinkles close to the spine in panel G is also visible on panel A).

[3]  The interior black & white sleeve of the reissue is laminated while that of the original one is not (panel H). The outer color sleeve of all the three copies in my possession are laminated, though. This raises a small doubt in my mind about whether what I believe the original copy is actually original or not. Could there exist a completely non-laminated version (although I have never seen such a copy thus far) ?  I'd appreciate any feedback on my thought on this topic.

— To be continued.