Atten: Java Dave

If it's sealed OG it's rarer/more valuable than you might think.

Good thread, OP.

~ snicker ~

Hey LCL, nice conversation piece.  
 

Ateix is correct that being a sealed copy makes it more rare and more valuable.  The tricky part is knowing which edition it is without being able to see the label.  
 

Their first LP has gone through a bunch of reissues since it's 1967 debut.
 

Some things we can tell without opening it.

It's a stereo pressing.  This was their only album to be commercially released in both mono and stereo.  Your copy says "Stereo" on the cover, so it's one of those.  If it was a mono copy, it would be easy to tell if it was a first pressing, because here in the U.S., mono pressings only were released in 1967 (via 3 different Warner Brothers pressing plants, in Terre Haute, Indiana, Pitman, New Jersey and Santa Maria, California), and again in 2011 by Rhino.  The 2011 Mono reissue was a 180 gram pressing, so you could identify it by weight even if it was sealed, as the originals would be on 120-140 gram vinyl.  The 2011 reissue would also mention Rhino somewhere in the fine print on the back cover, so you wouldn't have to get out your scale.  
 

The mono version also was released in the U.K. (in 1967 and reissued in 1968), and in Canada (in 1967).

Your copy is a Stereo, and presumably a U.S. pressing.  This we can also ascertain by reading the fine print on the back cover.  It will say "made in the U.S.A." somewhere if it's a U.S. pressing.

The U,S. Stereo version is the one that Warner Brothers kept reissuing periodically through the years, so you have to be able to see the label to tell which one of these you've got for all but the 1980's reissue which has a barcode on the back cover.  All of the other Warner Brothers pressings will not have a barcode, and will look identical from the outside.

You say your other open copy has a green label.  That makes it a 2nd or 3rd pressing. 
 

The 1967 1st pressings have a gold label, both the stereos and monos.

The 1968 stereo 2nd press has a green label with the Warner Brothers Seven Arts logo at the top, which is a blue W-7 symbol inside a red box.

The 1970 3rd pressing is also on a green label, but it has a different logo at the top, the Warner Brothers shield logo, which is a shield with a red background with WB superimposed in blue.

Around 1973, Warner Brothers changed their label to what is called the Palm Trees label.  The first version of these has no address in the perimeter print at the bottom of the label.

Sometime around the end of 1974, a 2nd Palm Trees label was issued, now with both an address and the WCI (Warner Communications Inc.) logo in the perimeter print. 
 

Around 1977, a 3rd Palm Trees label was issued, nearly identical to the 2nd Palm Trees label, but featuring a different zip code in the label address.

Around 1979, a beige label with horizontal lines from top to bottom was issued.  
 

Your copy, as long as it doesn't have a barcode on the back cover, could be any of these.  Grateful Dead records were consistent sellers  for Warner Brothers, and they kept reissuing them as the label went through all of these changes.

If it has a barcode, then it's from the early 1980's, when the label went to a white label with the Warner Brothers shield at the top in color and six "ghost" (colorless) shields surrounding it.

This is the Discogs page for that release, where you can find pictures of all of these variations:

https://www.discogs.com/The-Grateful-Dead-The-Grateful-Dead/master/18535

This is a link to a site that chronologically breaks down the U.S, Warner Brothers labels, including the promotional labels.  The ones I described above are the commercial labels.

http://vinylbeat.com/cgi-bin/labelfocus.cgi?label=WARNER+BROS.+(WB)&label_section=V,W,X

The only other thing I can think of that might tell you what edition you have without opening it, is if you can make out what the inner sleeve looks like.  The first album never had a lyric sleeve or a custom sleeve with pictures of the Dead, liner notes or album credits, but it would have had a Warner-Brothers factory sleeve used on all WB releases from that period, and the type of sleeve changed right along with the labels.  If you can make out the inner sleeve, this site may help:

 http://www.45spaces.com/company-sleeves-lp-inner-sleeves/45m_search.php?...

What a cool little collectible you have there!

Dave had a bit more information there than your average vinyl collector. Well done, Dave.

Ayup.
Since we are doing off-topic / noncontributive at the moment...

Tangential at best...

Bobby Hutcherson's late-'60s partnership with tenor saxophonist Harold Land always produced soulful results, but not until San Francisco did that translate into a literal flirtation with funk and rock. After watching several advanced post-bop sessions gather dust in the vaults, Hutcherson decided to experiment with his sound a bit, but San Francisco still doesn't wind up the commercial jazz-funk extravaganza that purists might fear. Instead, Hutcherson and Land stake out a warm and engaging middle ground between muscular funk and Coltrane-style modality; in other words, they have their cake and eat it too. Joined by pianist/keyboardist Joe Sample (also of the Jazz Crusaders), acoustic/electric bassist John Williams, and drummer Mickey Roker, Hutcherson and Land cook up a series of spacious, breezy grooves that sound unlike any other record in the vibist's discography (even his more commercial fusion sessions). The selections -- all group-member originals -- often skirt the edges of fusion, but rarely play it as expected; they might float some spare tradeoffs over a loping, heavy bass groove, throw in an oboe solo by Land, or -- as on the slowest piece -- keep time only with intermittently spaced piano chords. It's all done with enough imagination and harmonic sophistication to achieve the rare feat of holding appeal for traditional jazz and rare-groove fans alike. It's a shame Hutcherson didn't explore this direction more, because San Francisco is not only one of his best albums, but also one of his most appealing and accessible.

AllMusic Review by Steve Huey

San Fransisco is imbued with the essence of dreamy Californian listlessness, even the straight-up funk of 'Goin' Down South' and the jazz-rock 'Ummh' are carried by a languid stoner quality that surrounds them. The 7/8 mood piece 'Prints Tie' is the exception with its creepy paranoid ambience, meanwhile 'Jazz' is very like what Hutcherson and Land had been developing on their earlier albums, a synthesis of buoyant up-tempo and knotty. 'A Night In Barcelona' is a sleepy sea-sprayed bossa-nova smoothed over with interval-leaping unison flute and vibraphone lines and an effervescent solo by Hutcherson. The stand-out is the slowly rising and ebbing 'Procession', a meditation on the gradual unfolding of time and the evolving early morning colours and sounds of nature. Essential.

User Review by Adam Maiorano

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_(Bobby_Hutcherson_album)

San Francisco

If anyone has a sealed copy of this gem, feel free to send a Pm...

If anyone has a sealed copy of anything - keep it sealed and hide it.

Why would you keep beautiful music like the type mentioned above unlistened to, 6?

Seems pretty stupid to me.

Mr. Literal strikes again.

See the new thread, 6. No more following posting and editing like a fucking neurotic.

Let's shut the bullshit down, buddy. For all our sakes, 'k?

oh my

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were this sensitive. Seems like you were a give and take kind of guy. I guess I've been a bit rough on you and you don't deserve it. Again my apologies.

Are you going to edit all of your messages today 6, or just the ones that you direct at me (you know... all of 'em)?

https://vivalazone.org/other-stuff/sixer

Good luck man. I feel bad you're probably gonna start another GBZ thread once Judit emails you. I was just trying to help a cool older brother Head out.

But I learned editing skills from you, brother. Thanks for that. I treasure all the "pre-edit" messages you directed at me.

Just checking the listings on that Discogs link, there are only three sealed copies listing worldwide that are not the 180gram reissues, the picture disc edition or a European (probably bootlegged) reissue.

Of those three, two copies are the 1980's reissue with the barcode.  The other copy, the owner thinks is the late 70's reissue.  

This should give you a picture of how rare a sealed vintage copy is. They all want at least $50 for their copies.  If your's is a 1968 or 1970 2nd or 3rd pressing it would go for higher.  If it was a sealed 1967 1st pressing, a stereo copy would fetch a pirate's ransom, and a mono would be in Holy Grail territory.

This thread inspired me to pull out my copy and have a look.

1st US press, gold label, monophonic.

Record and jacket both G. No splits in the jacket but lots of surface and shelf wear. These types of laminated paper on cardboard style jackets really don’t hold up well to handling over decades. No deep scratches, skips, or warps on the vinyl but lots of small, mostly inaudible scuffs. sounds grate!

might pick up a cheap reprint though. I probably should retire this one.

That 2011 Rhino reissue is supposed to be an excellent pressing with reference disc-quality mastering. The diminished quantity of those in the wild, however, mean that that modern reissue is going to command a few bucks.

You're right, Bss, in that a really clean second or third pressing should do the trick for like half the price.

>> 4 copies of Skullfuck

You guys have your priorities in order and I salute you for that

Thank you for sharing a cool story.

... and I (sort of) remember Jordan Marsh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL4IaFQQA0Y