Namlook selling rare FAX on Discogs

[drone on]

For those unaware, Pete Namlook has been selling a bunch of FAX rarities on Discogs.  They are all new, sealed, "from my personal archives." The rarer ones ain't cheap (although compared to what I've seen them go for on ebay and Discogs, fairly reasonable).   Although it's probably hypocritical of me to say this (because I bought some), if some of these releases were really "sold out" (and many of them subsequently reissued on the Ambient World sublabel of Fax), how have these copies miraculously emerged after 15 years?  Is it "ethical" (maybe too strong a word) to sell albums as a "limited edition," but then keep 10 or 20 to save and make a killing later on?  I can't recall an artist/label owner doing this before (especially with their own music), so if you can think of one post it here...Just playing devil's advocate here, I'm not necessarily saying it's right or wrong, but just posing a question...

[jdh]

Where can I find this or a link,too much data on Discogs to filter to Namlook as seller.
Plus,I think that when Namlook put out certain editions,like the original 500 runs,though perhaps a marketing thing,I do not think in 1993 he could know that in 1998 or 2002 or 2010,his originals would be in such demand.After all,it is is his music and label.I have some 100 Fax titles,including many of the original 1993,94,95 copies bought in those years and I have kept them as I enjoy them but hey,maybe I should start selling and compete with Pete.

[drone on]

seller name is "nmlk."

[Austere]

DISCLAIMER: one of us sent this to the other to edit/post. It's kinda funny w/some interesting facts and questions.





Warning: semi-snarky, totally sarcastic but making a cuppa tea points ahead.











To answer drone on - yeah mate, labels that sell out or even don't for awhile will save or find copies then make a killing.

We know two labels (at least) that hold back 10% of their releases so when ppl try to sell what they (the label owner(s) - and in one case, musicians, 50/50 split on "seconds") worked hard and put up $$$ to put out, try to sell for 10-100x the original price on Ebay or Discogs.com, they can get in on that action. Wethinks that's kinda smart. And if you find a pile in the closet (lord knows we have) then why not sell them off at the going rate (which can be $0.01 on Amazon, mind you. Just search for "Austere" in the "Git Musick" section.)

In Namlook's case, we'd actually question if these "new, sealed, from personal archives" CDs are even original editions? How can you tell?

We can have a CD made that says "copyright 1998" and let it get dusty, then (if our musick interested people) sell it to fanboyz/girlz for outrageous sums when they sell out and we repress 100 of them. And if he does/did, good for him! Part the fools from their dosh.

When iTunes took over the world, and P2P networks/BitTorrent became the norm, "musick rarities" became an oxymoron for oxy-morons. Like we couldn't download all those "rarities" in FLAC/APE lossless in about five minutes? We are very sad at the loss the the 12" LP "album" as a work of art and both suffer collectoritis, but when CDs came along, aside from a few special releases (Robert Rich's "Echo of Small Things" box set, for example) - we stopped caring. Not to mention needing the reading glasses for the liner notes.

<snark>
Oh, but then it wouldn't have that "Fresh Namlook Smell!" Which is why anyone who buys these should put them in freezer bags and stuff'em in the icebox ASAP! Sniff them while they still smell "Petey"!
</snark>

Let the hazing begin....

[sanvara]

Let the hazing begin....

Coming in late here, but common sense says that if Namlook was repressing original Fax releases and selling them as originals when they are repressed copies, he would press the rarest of the rare and every rare release would be available for sale. So I'd say your theory defies logic and common sense.

To address the original post in this thread, as an artist myself, I'd say it's totally normal to keep a stash of releases. A band I was in had a record released. It's never going to be worth big bucks but I have a small stack of them in my closet. If someone were to tell me they felt it wasn't right for me to sell what I own at market value I'd give that opinion no weight. That's just nonsensical. If I had bills to pay and I could sell the stack of records in my closet for $1000 each I'd do it in a second.

I disagree that we stopped caring. People that really love their music will always value having physical media over a digital copy, especially if the item was limited. You mention Robert Rich's boxset as an exception for you. I personally have lukewarm interest in Robert Rich so I'd be happy to have a digital copy and would never spend any money to buy his boxset.

To illustrate my point: A female friend loves a certain old TV show. I recently asked her if you could download the show for virtually no cost or own the DVD box set, but you'd have to spend a lot more money for the box set what would you do? She said she would buy the box set because she loves it so much.

People buy art that they love if they can afford it. They download what they like or don't care about or can't afford.

[drone on]

I don't think I insinuated that Namlook was RE-PRESSING old albums.  I know for a fact he doesn't do this.  My point was that titles that were declared "sold out" years ago emerging 15 years later for sale at $80 a pop means they weren't REALLY "sold out" back then. 

[APK]

Yep, label owners tend to hold on to a few copies ... just in case.

[drone on]

Well if they're selling them now they didn't really need them after all, right?

[sanvara]

I don't think I insinuated that Namlook was RE-PRESSING old albums.  I know for a fact he doesn't do this.  My point was that titles that were declared "sold out" years ago emerging 15 years later for sale at $80 a pop means they weren't REALLY "sold out" back then.  

Yes, I know you didn't insinuate or say that, but Austere did. This is what I was responding to:

In Namlook's case, we'd actually question if these "new, sealed, from personal archives" CDs are even original editions? How can you tell?

We can have a CD made that says "copyright 1998" and let it get dusty, then (if our musick interested people) sell it to fanboyz/girlz for outrageous sums when they sell out and we repress 100 of them. And if he does/did, good for him! Part the fools from their dosh.

I still don't get how it's a good thing for someone to repress old releases and sell them as originals. To me that's highly unethical.

My point was that titles that were declared "sold out" years ago emerging 15 years later for sale at $80 a pop means they weren't REALLY "sold out" back then.  

I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to expect a label or artist to not keep a certain quantity of their releases as a personal archive. Every label and artist does this.

Well if they're selling them now they didn't really need them after all, right?

Maybe Peter had bills to pay and that's why he is selling his stash? If you have a child that need things suddenly saving those copies aren't so important anymore.

[sanvara]

Slightly off topic is there a Fax discussion forum and/or fan based Fax website that is up to date? Everything I am seeing that I used to refer to has not been kept up the past few years.

[runningonair]

My point was that titles that were declared "sold out" years ago emerging 15 years later for sale at $80 a pop means they weren't REALLY "sold out" back then. 

They're sold out once you decide you don't want to sell any more.  I think it's completly fair after all most artists aren't going to have any money to pay into a pension fund.