SDEtv / Pink Floyd: vinyl reissues


Check out this video as SDE Editor Paul Sinclair shows off the new Pink Floyd vinyl reissues which are out today…

Compare prices and pre-order

Pink Floyd

The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn [VINYL]


Compare prices and pre-order

Pink Floyd

A Saucerful Of Sectrets [VINYL]


Compare prices and pre-order

Pink Floyd

More [VINYL]


Compare prices and pre-order

Pink Floyd

Ummagumma [VINYL]



Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Wren

Ha! Seems like me earlier post today has done the trick in prompting a new thread by Paul about the massive 1965-1972 box release…………………


Too bad they didn’t make LPs of the mono mixes of Piper and Saucerful. Piper is better in mono, e.g., without the ridiculous panning on Interstellar Overdrive.

John Hirst

Quite happy with the black inner as it gives me somewhere to retain the sticker from the front of the shrink wrap.

eric slangen

My mistake. There was no obi, only stickers.

eric slangen

ok, i ask once again.
What happenend to the fake obi and hypestickers.


Got my copies yesterday. Very impressed with crisp and clear print quality of album covers. Just started listening to “Saucerful…”. Sound is bright, warm and extremely well balanced. Minus point for the fact that the back of the albums are just scans of the fold overs. NO authenticity here like the Beatles mono reissues. A shame.


They all look just ok. Golly, for £14.50 I’d expect an actual saucer with some authentic secrets.

Perhaps track down a cheap original LP and use it to house your pristine new copy…

Paul Wren

Surely there could have been expanded versions of these albums, ie gatefolds all round, booklets, additional demo/alternative tracks etc. Whilst I haven’t checked, my guess is that these all must have been reissued over the years countless times and therefore readily available to buy in the marketplace. Where is the added value here?


I’d guess that the Harvest-logo-on-a-t-shirt is OK because a logo on a t-shirt is not the same thing as the logo appearing as the label on a vinyl record.

As someone else pointed out, Harvest is an actual ongoing record label, so they would probably have an issue with anyone using the Harvest label on an album that’s not actually on Harvest! It’d be like Samsung producing a TV set with a Sony logo.


I’ve been thinking about this “Harvest logo” licensing issue. Many have suggested that “Harvest was simply not available to the Floyd to use.”.
Can someone then explain why they are using it on the “Ummagumma” t-shirts they are offering as bundles with the Lps on the official site ? Check here:

I’m being really puzzled at the moment.

John Cronnolley

The link is to the American website.

On the European website unless I’ve missed it, that T-shirt isn’t sold.

Perhaps the Harvest logo might not come under the same licensing in the States as it does in Europe?


If it were me reissuing these, i’d have included facsimiles of the original press releases, the instore advertising posters, newspaper adverts (which were different from the ad posters) and perhaps an assemblage of press reviews for each lp. Nothing too difficult in that and it would have added somewhat to these releases without bumping up the price.

Daniel Wylie

The biggest disappointment for me is Ummagumma, not having the original green Harvest label. It’s an iconic part of the original to have that label. They should have paid some cash for the use of it.


I agree. Biggest minus point of these reissues is indeed the Ummagumma labels. Big shame.


Kevin thanks for the review regarding sound. Although packaging is important, sound is my main concern since I pre-ordered 3 of the releases through AmazonUK and 1 through Amazon.com that will be here today. I’m not willing to spend the asking prices for the originals so hopefully these will suffice.


I’m going to be in a minority here, but I would have preferred updated packaging than “faithfully” reproduced cheap packaging from the late 60s. All these albums should have been upgraded to gatefold, with period photos, lyrics and additional artwork in there. And if you really want fidelity, at the very least they could insert a removable booklet with additional visual material, something that makes it a nicer object.

Here, paying 20€ for a single vinyl wtih a black inner sleeve, frankly I’ll pass and stick to my CDs.


And yet the latest vinyl reissue of Wish you were here DOES have the small Harvest logo on the labels.
Thank you so much Paul for the videos. I will buy the first three, but not Ummagumma because the labels are too far away from the yellow/green originals.
It’s a shame really because that means I won’t be buying “Atom heart mother”, “Meddle”, “Obscured by clouds” either, since those were with Harvest labels too. :(
I understand the licensing issue, but they could have come up with something a bit more “harvest-like” interms of colours. (Thinking about the Bowie reissues here where the PHILIPS, MERCURY and RCA VICTOR labels were “almost” recreated, with the word BOWIE in the same lettering.


@Andrew R

The Harvest name and logo are owned by Universal (via the Capitol Music Group), who have resurrected the label and signed people like TV on The Radio, Morissey, Olms, etc to it.

Harvest was simply not available to the Floyd to use.

Anyone thinking of buying these records, ignore this person. Aside from the “fake flipbacks” (a pretty minor thing, when all said and done), these first four reissues, which I got today, are very good (well-pressed, well-printed and decently-mastered), and an excellent alternative for those looking to acquire Floydian vinyl without having to pay absurd prices for mint originals.

Marshall Gooch

I’m looking forward to picking these up. Good copies of the original issues here in the States are nearly impossible to find and cost a fortune when you DO find them. Also, note they restored the “Gigi” soundtrack cover to the front of Ummagumma. That’s cool!


andrewR: The missing Harvest labels is obviously a licensing issue, why would you think it was anything else?

David Rubin: You must be referring to US originals, because the UK ones did not have a pasted sleeve with a white border.

I’ll say it again, the lack of real flipback sleeves is disappointing, but what they did still looks good — glossy front and that gloss carries over to the “flips” on the back (well at least it looks good in the video).

Compare the quality of these to the 2014 Who reissues, which are all printed on cheap paper and mostly look like poor scans. I think the artwork here appears to be on the same level as the Bowie reissues, i.e. not an exact reproduction of the original but still done with care.

David Rubin

When you said great care was taken, did you mean in the quality of the photos? Because they sure got cheap with with fake flaps. And the originals were pasted sleeves with a white boarder around the front cover saying MONO or STEREO.
I hope more care was taken with the sound quality.


Fake flipbacks ? hilarious then go to all the trouble of getting the columbia labels correct
on the 1st three then don’t use Harvest green /yellow labels for Umma!!! If this is “utmost care ”
on P.F. ‘s part god help the rest of the reissues. Avoid.


…forgot to mention that other than the labels, Ummagumma looks spot-on. The glossy sleeve and matte gatefold exactly match my original. If anything, the original looks a bit washed out in comparison. And it will be nice to finally play this album without all the ticks and pops on my 40+ years old copy!


It’s disappointing that they didn’t recreate the flip back sleeves, but what they did do still looks pretty great. I can’t wait to get them.

Also, I think the original record labels for Ummagumma were on Harvest, so the ones used here are new. I guess this is some licensing restriction for Pink Floyd Records or whatever they’re called. That’s a bummer since it means the next few albums will all miss the correct Harvest labels.


What a shame about those flaps. Obviously what we have here is NOT a facsimile regardless of the labels, since the front and back of Piper has removed all sign of EMI. (Compare with the version shown in discogs.com.) Ditto the back of ASOS. The front of More retains the Columbia logo but has removed the EMI logo and moved the Columbia logo up into its spot. Once more on Ummagumma (which Waters pronounced OOOma GOOOma incidentally) the EMI and Harvest labels are omitted from the front, with I assume some photoshop to fill in the gap unless they have hold of the original Hypgnosis photos. (Somebody look REALLY CLOSELY at the corner to see?) Yes, Judy’s still there on the inside, phew. Again the EMI material has vanished from the inside, where it partly obscured a couple of photos of Nick — more photoshop? These are the UK versions incidentally, since the back of Ummagumma doesn’t list the four sections of ASOS. But gawd knows what those labels are. Still, this is PF on vinyl, not reproductions.

Rob Deighton

Looking forward to picking some of these up.


The price comparison widget doesn’t appear to be working properly. SDE says they are £14.50 each yet when you go to the site they are £16.99 direct from amazon?

eric slangen

No fake obi with hypestickers??