There exists a common consensus among record collectors, well more than one actually. The one that seems to be of interest to almost everyone is the idea that first pressings are far superior to any subsequent reissues. Everyone seems to have an opinion on this, so let me give you mine.
First of all there is no simple answer. For some records the first pressing is definitely more desirable, yet for others the first pressings are no better than subsequent ones(sometimes they're even worse). The arguments are essentially threefold: 1) first pressings have the original mix and master, and therefore sound better; 2) first pressings have the original artwork and aesthetic presentation, thus look better; and finally 3) first pressings are more valuable. I'll explore these each individually.
1) Not always true. Many reissues retain the original mix and master, and are simply just the same record pressed again after the original sold out. Remasters are a different story and approach with caution. Stay away from digital remasters, these are usually just code for compressed and brickwalled pieces of shit. That said, some remastered records sound great. Particularly if the original master was done cheaply, in a rush, or by someone who maybe wasn't quite so talented or misunderstood the vision of the album. Refer to the last post and the Assassin album, it's a reissue/remaster and it sounds great. I also have this reissue, which is not remastered and sounds just as good as the original.
2) A lot of this can simply be personal preference. Yes many reissues have different artwork and come in different packaging, but is this always bad? The answer depends on whether you like the original or not. For instance Type O Negative's live album, "Origin of the Feces" has a cover that is literally the asshole of front man Pete Steele. I just don't care to see once, nor every time I go to play the record; the second pressing has a much different cover. There is also the example of these two records, first pressings in my collection.
Megadeth's debut, "Killing Is My Business...And Business Is Good" and Dark Angel's deubt, "We Have Arrived", only have the artwork shown on the first pressings. The Megadeth album has some goofy looking cgi and the Dark Angel album is just a plain black cover with the band's logo. I much prefer the above versions to the subsequent pressings. Aside from poorly done versions of artwork(like those of the early Back On Black reissues), it really comes down to preference.
3) Almost always yes. First pressings are generally put out in limited numbers or only pressed for a certain amount of time, thus meaning they can become quite rare. There is also something valuable about being the "first", which I can't quite put my finger on. Barring reissues that come as part of boxsets, picture discs, or something else that adds to the value, first pressings are more valuable. Now that also means that you'll pay more for these, sometimes a ridiculous amount more. The records originally put out by Deathlike Silence in the early 90s fetch huge sums(hundreds, sometimes more), while other pressings can be had for reasonable prices.
So should you get the first pressing? It all depends and everything above mentioned. I hope this was enlightening, and good hunting.
First of all there is no simple answer. For some records the first pressing is definitely more desirable, yet for others the first pressings are no better than subsequent ones(sometimes they're even worse). The arguments are essentially threefold: 1) first pressings have the original mix and master, and therefore sound better; 2) first pressings have the original artwork and aesthetic presentation, thus look better; and finally 3) first pressings are more valuable. I'll explore these each individually.
1) Not always true. Many reissues retain the original mix and master, and are simply just the same record pressed again after the original sold out. Remasters are a different story and approach with caution. Stay away from digital remasters, these are usually just code for compressed and brickwalled pieces of shit. That said, some remastered records sound great. Particularly if the original master was done cheaply, in a rush, or by someone who maybe wasn't quite so talented or misunderstood the vision of the album. Refer to the last post and the Assassin album, it's a reissue/remaster and it sounds great. I also have this reissue, which is not remastered and sounds just as good as the original.
2) A lot of this can simply be personal preference. Yes many reissues have different artwork and come in different packaging, but is this always bad? The answer depends on whether you like the original or not. For instance Type O Negative's live album, "Origin of the Feces" has a cover that is literally the asshole of front man Pete Steele. I just don't care to see once, nor every time I go to play the record; the second pressing has a much different cover. There is also the example of these two records, first pressings in my collection.
3) Almost always yes. First pressings are generally put out in limited numbers or only pressed for a certain amount of time, thus meaning they can become quite rare. There is also something valuable about being the "first", which I can't quite put my finger on. Barring reissues that come as part of boxsets, picture discs, or something else that adds to the value, first pressings are more valuable. Now that also means that you'll pay more for these, sometimes a ridiculous amount more. The records originally put out by Deathlike Silence in the early 90s fetch huge sums(hundreds, sometimes more), while other pressings can be had for reasonable prices.
So should you get the first pressing? It all depends and everything above mentioned. I hope this was enlightening, and good hunting.
