tintin said:

For those trying to download the digital files, the correct URL is:

https://redemptions.warnermusic.com/wr

Wait...you forgot to include the ACTUAL codes...

Has anyone downloaded the files yet? When you guys to, definitely report back on the fidelity of especially the remastered album tracks! This will be our first true preview when it comes to assessing the sonic changes of this remaster

ForceofNature said:

Has anyone downloaded the files yet? When you guys to, definitely report back on the fidelity of especially the remastered album tracks! This will be our first true preview when it comes to assessing the sonic changes of this remaster

sorry. we're no longer discussing the boxset, this is now a kerning thread.

so kern away.

lustmealways said:

ForceofNature said:

Has anyone downloaded the files yet? When you guys to, definitely report back on the fidelity of especially the remastered album tracks! This will be our first true preview when it comes to assessing the sonic changes of this remaster

sorry. we're no longer discussing the boxset, this is now a kerning thread.

so kern away.

Good thinking. We should all post our top five kerned Prince album covers.

dadeepop said:

lustmealways said:

sorry. we're no longer discussing the boxset, this is now a kerning thread.

so kern away.

Good thinking. We should all post our top five kerned Prince album covers.

Now we're talking!

Starting with the first five …

For You is an easy one. Monoline, monospaced font means no special kerning needed. Anyone can get this right! ---- 10/10 … however … the unspaced en-dash (rendered the same width as a hyphen in a monoline font) fails in its intended role as a separator, and instead visually CONNECTS words inappropriately – 'Prince-For You', when something like 'Prince – For You' would have been more truthful. I can see why they've done it for the sake of a denser, more logo-like impression, but really … marked down ---- 8/10

Prince is a little non-standard. This looks like hand lettering, not a font, so letterspacing is done in the moment – probably without much editing afterwards. I'd say the calligrapher has done just OK with the tricky task of nestling the 'r' under the 'P', but the serif-like lead-in stroke (occassionaly called an 'ear') on the 'r' forces the lowercase letter further from the initial cap than I would like! The rather steeply sloped bottom of the bowl on the 'P' compounds the issue. The rest of the lowercase is pretty evenly handled, though the connecting stroke between 'i' and 'n' generates rather too much air. This gets filled a little by the heavy heart on the top of the 'i' (which I'd never noticed before). That extra weight rather exacerbates all the fresh air under the bowl of the 'P'. Balance is disturbed. ---- 6/10

Dirty Mind doesn't have the album title on the cover! Never noticed that either. So let's look at 'PRINCE'. Squint (NB, this always helps) and I think you'll see that the 'P' and 'R' are too far apart compared to 'R' and 'I'. In the latter pair, the tail of the 'R' visually fills in some space. In the former, where the P is essentially an 'R' with no tail, the gap therefore looks wider, even though I suspect they are mathematicaly identical. 'C' and 'E' may be a little close, too. ---- 7/10

Controversy again lacks it's own title in a normal sense, but does have the word in the background of fake newspapers. Although the word is small, I think we can all agree that it's quite well done, with the exception of the space either side of the 't' (esp in the versio closest to Prince's right eye). As for the word 'PRINCE' in top right, somebody please rein in the 'E'! It's making a break for freedom like Vanity … ---- 7/10

1999 Well, when one constructs an 'N' out of one's own trousers, traditional analysis will always prove futile ---- 10/10

[Edited 8/28/20 16:33pm]

[Edited 8/28/20 16:35pm]

[Edited 8/28/20 16:44pm]

bwaaatch said:

Just got mine (#1140), so thought I would add some notes …

• .... not convinced thet teh font is exactly right, and certainly eithe rits metric or it's setting is not the same.

ABOVE = 1987

ABOVE = 2021. Some slight differences in typeface, and a HORRIBLE job of kerning the 'Fa'. Note, these are from the exact same spot on the sleeve, but pixelation of my source for the old one (plus different printing settings) make it hard to be sure the font is wrong.

I love this post! I think the font is different -- look at the negative space in the 'a' and 'e'. It's a slightly different shape (larger) in the 1987 font. And the serifs on the 'F' 'a' and 'c' look different too. (Not sure if they are called serifs for the 'a' and 'c' but I think you know what I mean.)

jone70 said:

bwaaatch said:

Just got mine (#1140), so thought I would add some notes …

• .... not convinced thet teh font is exactly right, and certainly eithe rits metric or it's setting is not the same.

ABOVE = 1987

ABOVE = 2021. Some slight differences in typeface, and a HORRIBLE job of kerning the 'Fa'. Note, these are from the exact same spot on the sleeve, but pixelation of my source for the old one (plus different printing settings) make it hard to be sure the font is wrong.

I love this post! I think the font is different -- look at the negative space in the 'a' and 'e'. It's a slightly different shape (larger) in the 1987 font. And the serifs on the 'F' 'a' and 'c' look different too. (Not sure if they are called serifs for the 'a' and 'c' but I think you know what I mean.)

Agree they look a little different, but I am not certain. If you look at the cover of UGTL, we get much larger versions of these glyph and, when printed with that extr afidelity, you can see the he shaping of the 'e' is much more like that on the 2020 version. My image of the 1987 back cover above is just a google grab, and could have been through a number of scans and photos before reaching us, as well as the distortaions of whatever printing process and press was used at the time. It's also super lo-res.

So I think you might be right, but my best guess is that we spotting differences in distortion thorugh reproduction, not in the source font

bwaaatch said:

dadeepop said:

Good thinking. We should all post our top five kerned Prince album covers.

Now we're talking!

Starting with the first five …

For You is an easy one. Monoline, monospaced font means no special kerning needed. Anyone can get this right! ---- 10/10 … however … the unspaced en-dash (rendered the same width as a hyphen in a monoline font) fails in its intended role as a separator, and instead visually CONNECTS words inappropriately – 'Prince-For You', when something like 'Prince – For You' would have been more truthful. I can see why they've done it for the sake of a denser, more logo-like impression, but really … marked down ---- 8/10

Prince is a little non-standard. This looks like hand lettering, not a font, so letterspacing is done in the moment – probably without much editing afterwards. I'd say the calligrapher has done just OK with the tricky task of nestling the 'r' under the 'P', but the serif-like lead-in stroke (occassionaly called an 'ear') on the 'r' forces the lowercase letter further from the initial cap than I would like! The rather steeply sloped bottom of the bowl on the 'P' compounds the issue. The rest of the lowercase is pretty evenly handled, though the connecting stroke between 'i' and 'n' generates rather too much air. This gets filled a little by the heavy heart on the top of the 'i' (which I'd never noticed before). That extra weight rather exacerbates all the fresh air under the bowl of the 'P'. Balance is disturbed. ---- 6/10

Dirty Mind doesn't have the album title on the cover! Never noticed that either. So let's look at 'PRINCE'. Squint (NB, this always helps) and I think you'll see that the 'P' and 'R' are too far apart compared to 'R' and 'I'. In the latter pair, the tail of the 'R' visually fills in some space. In the former, where the P is essentially an 'R' with no tail, the gap therefore looks wider, even though I suspect they are mathematicaly identical. 'C' and 'E' may be a little close, too. ---- 7/10

Controversy again lacks it's own title in a normal sense, but does have the word in the background of fake newspapers. Although the word is small, I think we can all agree that it's quite well done, with the exception of the space either side of the 't' (esp in the versio closest to Prince's right eye). As for the word 'PRINCE' in top right, somebody please rein in the 'E'! It's making a break for freedom like Vanity … ---- 7/10

1999 Well, when one constructs an 'N' out of one's own trousers, traditional analysis will always prove futile ---- 10/10

[Edited 8/28/20 16:33pm]

[Edited 8/28/20 16:35pm]

[Edited 8/28/20 16:44pm]

Wow! Very impressive and on *point* (a little font pun humor). I was halfway joking, but my degree is in art and I actually do geek out to this stuff. I forget that several of his albums don't actually have the album title. Great break down of these covers. I wonder if it was intentional to not make the "I" equal distant from the R and N:

andrewm7 said:

They should release Cosmic Day on 7" (with the Clare Fischer orchestrated version on the bside)

give us something else to put in the box

Agreed. The triple inclusion of Hot Thing (Remix) is just assinine, and I'd have much preferred to get Cosmic Day at least once, if not also with the Fischer string arrangement. Or even just Cosmic Day b/w Forever In My Life (Early Vocal Run-Through).

dadeepop said:

bwaaatch said:

dadeepop said:

Wow! Very impressive and on *point* (a little font pun humor). I was halfway joking, but my degree is in art and I actually do geek out to this stuff. I forget that several of his albums don't actually have the album title. Great break down of these covers. I wonder if it was intentional to not make the "I" equal distant from the R and N:

Close call on that one. It is it usually correct for two straight sided letters to have a mathematically larger gap than the other kernes pairs, to compensate for the negative space created by the curves of other letters. So yeah, deliberate and pretty well done.

Interesting. Makes sense. You're like the kerning guru.

bwaaatch said:

Just got mine (#1140), so thought I would add some notes …

• The box is not square (looking at it top down. H and V dimensions are different.
• The 7" sleeves are not square either. mine are about 180 x183mm. All my other 7"s are vintage 80s ones, and a quick scan reveals that they vary in size but do tend to be squarer (ranging from 180 to 182mm). Unsure if non-square 7" sleeves are the normal these days
• Anyway, all that might seem a bit pointless BUT …The records only fit in the box in ONE direction, you can't spin them 90 degrees AND, the orientation of the BOX FRONT is NOT the same as the orientation of the SLEEVE FRONT. so … you open the box with the top at the top and you find that your records are rotated 90 degrees … Odd …
• Others are speaking of getting one postcard. I guess I lucked out, as I have the whole set of 6, plus the download code.
• 7" sleeves are printed on matt card stock, whereas I think most of the 1987 releases where glossy, and on thinner stock. They generally look good, but the switch to matt does dull the colours a little. I don't have any of the originals to hand to compare. Print quality generally good, and at first I suspected that they had access to the orginal artwork files, rather than just scanning 1987 editions. But then I did some digging and looked at 1987 edition of U Got the Look in online pics. It becomes clear that the new boxset contains some rebuilding of the artwork, at least for UGTL but probably for all. Evidence presented below, but some of the text on the back does not line up quite as in the orginal and – shame on the designer - the kerning settings are not the same (see the word 'Face' – they clearly know FA about typography!). By reconstructing it, it does mean the text reproduction is very crisp. Unsure excatly how the production porcess might have worked in 1987 (analog v digital), but typesetting could have been digital and some files could have been saved. I think it's unlikley, and that this is a complete rebuild. not convinced thet teh font is exactly right, and certainly eithe rits metric or it's setting is not the same.
• The postcards are very glossy, blank on the back, and a bit knocked on their corners in transit.
• The download card is matt, printed both sides.
• Record are that mottled, almost tie-dye effect you often see on colored vinyl. I would have prefered a nice solid peach, this looks dirty to me.

Overall very happy, but notes and oddities always interesting to me!

ABOVE = 1987

ABOVE = 2021. Some slight differences in typeface, and a HORRIBLE job of kerning the 'Fa'. Note, these are from the exact same spot on the sleeve, but pixelation of my source for the old one (plus different printing settings) make it hard to be sure the font is wrong.

Full set of cards. Very glossy.

[Edited 8/27/20 6:05am]

[Edited 8/27/20 6:11am]

[Edited 8/27/20 11:07am]

I do graphic design for a living, and this kind of stuff drives me nuts. It's the little things that make all the difference!

LoveGalore said:

tclifton said:

Why is that?

Presumably you own all of this music, so you're not buying it just to hear the music. You're buying it because it's a collectable. Just like everyone else. You hope they appreciate in value at some point.

I bought as many as I could. They're on ebay now, paying for themselves and then some.

Goofballs buying copies to flip them ruin the party every time. The artists don't like it, the fans don't like it, the people buying the shit at inflated prices don't like it. But fuck everyone else's drag, right.

Let me ask you, why do you think people are interested in buying limited editions of music that they already own?

What's the appeal of a 'limited edition', if not resale value?

tclifton said:

LoveGalore said:

Goofballs buying copies to flip them ruin the party every time. The artists don't like it, the fans don't like it, the people buying the shit at inflated prices don't like it. But fuck everyone else's drag, right.

Let me ask you, why do you think people are interested in buying limited editions of music that they already own?

What's the appeal of a 'limited edition', if not resale value?

For me, as a Prince fan, it's the satisfaction of owning something that's limited/exclusive. It's not rocket science. Not everyone looks at purchases in terms of resell value. And it's more than buying the same songs again. It's the entire *hand-numbered* package -- art and all.

tclifton said:

LoveGalore said:

Goofballs buying copies to flip them ruin the party every time. The artists don't like it, the fans don't like it, the people buying the shit at inflated prices don't like it. But fuck everyone else's drag, right.

Let me ask you, why do you think people are interested in buying limited editions of music that they already own?

What's the appeal of a 'limited edition', if not resale value?

The appeal is having a tangible representation of the music you can physically cherish that is simply beyond a standard packaged CD anyone can buy. Resale value only comes into play if someone is into flipping these releases

tintin said:

ThePersian said:

Yep got confirmation last week... and it arrived today... then I got the fed-ex invoice for import and handling.... which basically means that I paid the dollar price but in gbp...

agree with the comments about 12" releases too... or an even better idea would have been 7inch pic discs...

Assuming you're in the UK, did you order yours from Third Man or the Prince Store?

(I ordered from the latter and have only had a shipping email with a tracking number that doesn't seem to be correct.)

I ordered mine from the Prince Store and the tracking number is working OK. The package has apparently arrived in U.K. No ETA when I'll get it as yet.

Has anyone in U.K. got it as yet?

iveivan said:

bwaaatch said:

iveivan said:

I ordered mine from the Prince Store and the tracking number is working OK. The package has apparently arrived in U.K. No ETA when I'll get it as yet.

Has anyone in U.K. got it as yet?

yup, I’m in UK and got mine a week ago. Sit tight, I’m sure it’s fine. Possible it’s stuck in cistern mes though, so look out for a letter from Royal Mail / customs.

Ok, thanks for the tip. Did you need to pay extra taxes?

iveivan said:

bwaaatch said:

iveivan said: yup, I’m in UK and got mine a week ago. Sit tight, I’m sure it’s fine. Possible it’s stuck in cistern mes though, so look out for a letter from Royal Mail / customs.

Ok, thanks for the tip. Did you need to pay extra taxes?

I'm from the UK and didn't pay any customs charge.

mb71 said:

iveivan said:

Ok, thanks for the tip. Did you need to pay extra taxes?

I'm from the UK and didn't pay any customs charge.

Perfect, thanks. I'll just need to be patient.

iveivan said:

mb71 said:

I'm from the UK and didn't pay any customs charge.

Perfect, thanks. I'll just need to be patient.

There has been no mail or update on the tracking link. I happened to click on Royal Mail on the tracking site and it took me to another tracking site where it was explained a customs fee and admin charge were due. I have paid that now and selected a delivery date of Monday.

BTW I noticed that the tracking link on my order in the Prince Store doesn't work. It's different to the link in the email I received from them.

Just posting this in case it helps others in the same situation.

I must be the only one among all the 1987 ones who didn't receive yet the box. As I paid, I just received only a bill from Paypal nothing from the Estate or Musictoday. I chased twice through the site: no answer so far.

I wait a little while (as the item is a collector) before complaining through Paypal to get my money back....

bwaaatch said:

[Snip - luv4u]

No it's not. There is a dedicated marketplace forum for links to sales.

Ramzoo said:

I must be the only one among all the 1987 ones who didn't receive yet the box. As I paid, I just received only a bill from Paypal nothing from the Estate or Musictoday. I chased twice through the site: no answer so far.

I wait a little while (as the item is a collector) before complaining through Paypal to get my money back....

Did U pre-order the SOTT Singles box along with other items shipping on Sep. 23rd? If so, they won't be shipping the box until the other items pre-ordered are also ready 2 ship. That's what's happened with my singles box set. They're holding on2 them until they can send out complete orders.

MadeUpName said:

Ramzoo said:

I must be the only one among all the 1987 ones who didn't receive yet the box. As I paid, I just received only a bill from Paypal nothing from the Estate or Musictoday. I chased twice through the site: no answer so far.

I wait a little while (as the item is a collector) before complaining through Paypal to get my money back....

Did U pre-order the SOTT Singles box along with other items shipping on Sep. 23rd? If so, they won't be shipping the box until the other items pre-ordered are also ready 2 ship. That's what's happened with my singles box set. They're holding on2 them until they can send out complete orders.

U're right I ordered other items & imagined that they would of course ship it together. Other items are common (books) & not linked to SDE release. So?

connorhawke said:

I'm another who hasn't received it yet, but today received a tax bill from Royal Mail. £28 for the privilege of importing thr box set from Canada. 😂

If you pay online, be careful which browser you use. I used Safari on my tablet and it took the payment but didn't update the status of the delivery (I tried three times). It worked on Chrome and Royal Mail automatically refunded the other payments.

How did you get notified of the bill? I got no notification at all. I found out when I discovered a Royal Mail tracking link on the original tracking page.

iveivan said: