The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
Pearls of Passion 1986 CD question (Not for sale)
23 replies
Staffany said on July 17, 2005 10:22:
Look at this:
http://i13.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/76/69/0c_1_b.JPG
That’s the same 1986 CD I have. The question is: why the font used for the word “Roxette” on the disc is slightly different than the font used on the sleeve? (look, the “X” is more open).
I know it’s not the bootleg. A friend of mine has the bootleg, and it’s totally different. This one has the insert folded in 3 parts. It’s not paper, is thicker (like Bristol cardboard). It includes the complete lyrics, and the stars are printed in gold tint (with some bright, not opaque/mat brown like the bootleg). Just the fonts on the CD label are different.
Well, I know it’s not the poor bootleg, but I don’t understand why the CD looks different. I’m not an expert about this.
Any suggestion?
Staffany said on July 17, 2005 11:14:
I’ve read there was 2 prints: one in 1986 and one in 1991 (it was in www.roxservice.com)
Maybe that is reason?
misteryman00 said on July 17, 2005 16:05:
Well that must be i miss used print....it happen oftenly when its made in reprint...
Staffany said on July 18, 2005 07:22:
If it’s a bootleg, do they copied the insert exactly like the original, and used the same material to do it?
tevensso (moderator) said on July 18, 2005 07:35:
What does the numbers on the hub (center circle) say, exactly?
Staffany said on July 18, 2005 07:49:
It say 7464592
The point is a friend has the bootleg, and it doesn’t look like this, definitively.
Staffany said on July 18, 2005 08:17:
I have scanned the back artwork, the front and back of the insert, the inner side of the insert and the CD, by the way.
tevensso (moderator) said on July 18, 2005 08:29:
That’s a bootleg, the center text is longer than that on the original.
Bootleg:
http://evensson.com/temp/bootleg.jpg
AntiMario said on July 18, 2005 08:38:
Well, I suppose the booklet might be from original, but CD not or we need to take a close look at bigger scans to define the truth
Staffany said on July 18, 2005 11:08:
I don’t understand, even less than before now. I used to think I have the original booklet (with the star in front of the name Roxette) with the bootled CD instead, and that was sensible.
But the photo linked at the top of this thread is not my CD. That one was for sale in eBay, and located in the UK. And it features the same CD with a different font on the label, and the same booklet with the star in front of the name Roxette. Exactly like mine. By the way, the number printed on the center circle looks different than the one posted by Thomas.
The photos linked by Antimario:
http://darkest.info/antimario/pop1.jpg
http://darkest.info/antimario/pop2.jpg
Neither of them fit the CD I have. I know the “bootleg”. As I said before, a personal friend has it. The booklet is just a piece of paper folded in the middle and all the lyrics for the 12 songs are printed there. The star is in front of the name Roxette, and it’s printed in mat brown. Totally different from what I have.
Maybe I have the original booklet and the bootleg CD. But did the same happen in the UK? Did someone place the wrong CD in the wrong case both there and here? And the CD doesn’t look like the bootleg either...
Then, I don’t have the original nor the bootleg. Just a CD no-one knows where did it come from! It’s funny! I wanna know what I have in my hands!
ATLTK said on July 18, 2005 12:50:
I wonder if I have the 91 edition
I bought it at repeat records for 400SEK and they sold it as a bootleg. but it had the 91 number,star in front accordng to the discography book. So I guess its the 91 release?
btw if anyvone want the orginal 86 I have it for sale /swap
AntiMario said on July 18, 2005 18:50:
I can’t scan inner circle of original CD at the moment, but mine is different from Thomas.
P.S. It’s getting more and more interesting :)
Udpate: here’s my inner number:
http://darkest.info/antimario/popinner.jpg
tevensso (moderator) said on July 18, 2005 19:47:
The “@ 1” is the 1986 edition, the other (mine) is the 1991.
tevensso (moderator) said on July 17, 2005 10:56:
The picture is too bad to see, but that is definitely not the Swedish CD. All the fonts are wrong.
Edit: Typo.