Eric King's Web Site

Here are the corrections to all the editions of A Collector's Guide to Psychedelic Rock Concert Posters, Postcards and Handbills 1965-1973 by Eric King. Many of these corrections only apply to earlier editions and have been corrected in more recent editions, but some have been added recently. Anyone using any edition of my Guide should look here for the latest updates before taking action based on the information in the Guide. This is not an extremely changeable scholarship, but new information emerges fairly often, and now that I am managing this site myself, I will attempt to see to it that the collectors and dealers who use my Guide have information which is as up to date as possible.

Family Dog corrections

Bill Graham corrections

Batman essay corrections

Graham tickets corrections

Gibb/Grande corrections

Neon Rose corrections

If you have questions or information that might be useful in keeping my guide up-to-date, I may be reached at therose7@earthlink.net.

Return to Eric King's Main Page.

Under acknowledgments add:

"Later additions to the list of acknowledgements are: Tim Duca, Michael Einhaus and Steve Hogle, Dave Alfonse, Bob Alfonse, Cactus Pete Anderson , Jeff Miller, Brad Kelly, Mark Sidman and Robert Burwell."

"Even later additions to the list of acknowledgements are: Mark L. Corley, Joe Armstrong, Vance Carpenter, Bert Webb and Michael Bradford."

At the PMA show in October 2000 Mark Powers pointed out to me that his name was nowhere to be found on this list of acknowledgements. This is a major oversight for which I humbly apologize. Mark’s contribution to this scholarship is substantial.

Still later additions are Jim Northrup, Cindy Lefton, Theofilos J. Pappas, John Smith, Chris Gerrie, Lutz Hieber, Gisela Theising, J. C. Hall.

Thanks to Michael Erlewine for correction of many typographical errors.

Steve Hathaway, Bill Hahn, Arnold Benetti, Sue Nelson, John Arimond, Tom Hamilton, David Ruma and Jack Perno.

Mark Corley, Kevin Phillips, Doug Garn, Mark Forer, Christian Peterson, Bill Culnane, Roger Clark, Dan Powell


Pat McGauley, Henry Josephson, Ross Hannan, Toni Franklin, Jeremy Reynolds, Steve Young, Chris Gibson


Greg Hodal, Peter Ostertag, Paul Turansky, Maria Lewis, David Pierson, Jerol Weinberg, David Bannigan, Jon Burr


After Some Words About Micrometers add:
SOME WORDS ABOUT BLACK LIGHT

    Another major step forward in identifying the various printings of these posters was taken when Jacaeber Kastor suggested that we examine paper stocks on poster backs under black light. In some cases the differences are dramatic. This tool has been successful in distinguishing some of the most difficult and problematic originals from their reprints. I now believe that anyone who is serious about the study of these posters should purchase a black light. They are available in most hardware stores at inexpensive prices.

Before the Family Dog section add:

Response to Phil Cushway

In July of 2001 Mr. Phil Cushway, owner of Artrock, made a number of complaints about this guide as part of a brief essay posted on eBay along
with eBay item 1446507650, a copy of

FD-66-RP-2. In order to do justice to Mr. Cushway's criticisms I will quote them in their entirety exactly as they appeared:

"In general I hesitate getting at all involved in the designation of what is, or is not a first printing. In many cases it is possible to distinguish with relative certainty, that there were two printings and what contra-distinguishes them apart. In many cases, however, this is not possible. The primary text used for this purpose, Eric King's "collector's guide" changes over the years with some posters that are "only printed once" in one edition, now has different printings; posters thought to be second printings are now considered to be the reverse; posters with several printings before are now considered to be part of a single-edition; newly discovered. The recent (within the last year) discovery of "small dots" or "small lines" is now thought to separate "printings". I try to rest my reasoning on the following premises: 1) That I was not present at the printer at the actual time of printing and therefore can never say for certain without a lot of proof that these were in fact multiple printings and how to tell the difference. 2) That professional printers who would do things in the most reasonable and simplistic manner primarily printed these posters. 3) That in general, what was the most likeliest, and simplistic explanation is what probably happened. 4) We should not try to read something too complicated into what is a very straightforward process."

Mr. Cushway has raised a number of issues which merit a careful, well-reasoned response. The most important point that should be made is that most of the criticisms Mr. Cushway makes relate to changes between my earliest guide to this material, the first edition, which I wrote in 1978 and 1979, and the expanded, illustrated third edition which I wrote in 1995. In the earliest edition I disregarded the subtle differences between many of the printings of Family Dog posters from FD-43 to FD-86. In 1978 I felt that since the Family Dog had chosen to designate each of these printings as "-1" even though some had been printed weeks and even months after the concerts, I should accept the decision of the copyright holder to make such a designation. It is important to note that at that time these specific Family Dog posters sold for a maximum of $5.00 each, and, like almost everyone else, I never anticipated that they would have the values they currently do.

The main reason that I wrote the original guide is that reprints of early Bill Graham posters were being sold by people claiming they were originals. Here there was a genuine difference in value. And original BG-8 might have been worth $20 while a reprint was worth only $3.00, and
there was every reason to believe early originals would continue to increase in value if collectors felt confident about what they were buying. No such problem existed with Family Dog posters from No. 1 to No. 41 because these were almost all clearly marked. In 1978 although I was aware of the problem with the undesignated reprinting of Family Dog posters from No. 43 to No. 86, I chose to ignore it. I have apologized for this poor scholarship repeatedly, and I do so again here. My earlier guide was inadequate in this regard, and I have regularly given buyers of that guide a substantial discount on the purchase of the newer ones, but it is important to repeat that quite a few of these distinctions were not only very subtle and difficult to describe, they were also on items which had what was essentially the same value, $5.00 in mint condition. The notion of devoting an additional several hundred hours to the writing of the 1978 guide in order to distinguish this material under these circumstances seemed excessive to say the least. Almost all the changes Mr. Cushway refers to fall into this specific area where the 1978 guide listed Family Dog posters from No. 43 to No. 86 as printed once when in fact there were multiple printings which I listed correctly in 1995.

Today this material is tens and often hundreds of times more valuable, collected by multitudes all around the world, recognized by major art historians as the most important graphic art in the 20th Century and bought mainly as decor. It is hard for people to understand that in the late
1970s this material was collected only by a few dozen serious collectors and at most a few hundred casual ones almost all of whom lived in the San Francisco Bay area. These were collectors seeking complete sets to put into albums. They were interested in what mainstream Americans in general and the San Francisco art establishment in particular viewed as "the drug crazed ravings of filthy, sex obsessed hippies." (This is a direct quote made to me in the early 1970’s by a high ranking official of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art whom I shall not embarrass by naming.) By 1990 it became clear that a new edition of the guide was necessary, one which reflected the fact that there were clear distinctions between the various printings of most of the Family Dog posters between No. 43 and No. 86 as well as several Bill Graham posters not noted in my earlier guide. Unfortunately I was unable to work on this revision until 1995. By this time the enormous jump in values necessitated a very precise, thorough and professional guide which I believe I have made available since 1996.

As for more specific criticisms I note the following: there are only two cases where posters designated originals and posters designated reprints have been reversed. One is the "Batman," BG-2, about which I have written a lengthy essay concerning what is almost certainly the worst
scholarly mistake made not only by me but agreed upon by all the early collectors of this material. The other is FD-44 which was the result of an error by my typist which I failed to catch in the proofreading process to the expanded and illustrated 1996 edition which was the first edition entered into a computer. The failure to catch this reversal was entirely my fault, but it does not represent an error in scholarship. I knew all along which was the correct original. It was properly identified in my handwritten manuscript which I gave to my typist.

The case of the poster which previously had been listed with multiple printings which I changed to one printing in 2000 is FD-68. It seems unfair to me for Mr. Cushway to complain about this since he is the one who pointed out that the evidence of multiple printings was incorrect. He
presented conclusive proof that the guide was incorrect, and I changed it to reflect the new data. I note that although there is not a lot of similar information which will alter the guide substantially that is likely to emerge following the decade from 1990 to 2000 during which a great deal of the research was done both by myself and by Jacaeber Kastor of Psychedelic Solution, this continues to be a fluid scholarship. Some new material or evidence is discovered almost monthly, and it would be irresponsible for me not to share this with those who use my guide. That is why I maintain my web site, so collectors can access the latest information as it becomes available. While it is not possible for me or anyone else to guarantee absolutely that this or that item will not change, the level of precision now has reached the point where it is extremely unlikely there will be many such changes. Perhaps the best demonstration of this is that there are only about half a dozen serious differences between my guide
and Mr. Kastor's catalogue which is the result of research almost completely independent from my own. We share our results, but we work separately. If we have arrived at this many identical conclusions, it seems reasonable for the collecting public to rely on the notion that there are
not many mistakes in our two works on this topic.

Another related topic which ought to be addressed is the claim by some parties that Mr. Kastor and I differ greatly on many items. This is just not so and is very possibly the work of people who wish to discredit both of us so they can sell reprints which they claim are originals. The main
differences between Mr. Kastor's catalogue and my guide involve either style or areas of interest. The styles are very different because his is a catalogue of items or sale. He runs a business, and quite reasonably he wishes to sell his wares. Information he gives about printing variations is
only one part of what he seeks to present to his customers. In my guide it is the main information that I wish to present to my readers. Carefully read these two documents rarely state anything mutually exclusive. As for different areas of interest, I seem to have a fascination with things like the fact that a number of early Bill Graham cards which were printed three cards vertically alongside one poster have differences among the three cards, top, middle and bottom (This is other than split fountain differences such as BG-53.). I have laboriously outlined these differences which really would have no utility in a catalogue of items for sale. Mr. Kastor chooses to lump them together. He is well aware of these differences, does not dispute them and even pointed one of them out to me. He seems to have an interest in subtle differences in paper stocks, especially in differences between stocks from the same printing which when viewed obliquely on the reverse under good lighting have either a random texture or a texture which he describes as "rows." My attitude is that since these are from the same printing, I would prefer to lump them together. I am fully aware of these distinctions and do not dispute their existence.

The last of Mr. Cushway's objections that I wish to address is based on his apparent belief that I use small dots or lines as proof of the existence of different printings because I use them as traits distinguishing printings. Actually in these cases I usually have already proved to my own
satisfaction that there are different printings, and I am merely looking for the clearest and simplest distinctions between them which can be verbally described. These are often small dots or lines which appear on all copies of one printing and no copies of another. So that collectors can understand how this process works, the following is a description of the evidence on two different posters, BG- 205 and FD-49, and how they came to be described as having two printings when previously only one had been listed. I will also cite one case, FD-75, where as yet no such evidence exists but which I list as having two printings anyway, and I will say something about why I do so.

For a number of years beginning in the mid-1980s I had suspected there might be two printings of BG-205. The reason for this was that I had noticed there were two variants which were reliably separable by color. Although the differences were subtle, they were consistent, and I saw no transitional copies, copies partway between the two in color which would indicate one run during which the ink was changed, a common occurrence with early Bill Graham posters. Furthermore the cards seemed to match one variant of the poster, but the cards were not printed on the same sheets at this stage of psychedelic history. While interesting, this was not adequate evidence to warrant my changing the guide to indicate two printings, especially since it was not one of the six unmarked 1975 reprints and no copies of BG-205 bore the script "W" which at
the time was thought to mark all post 1975 Bill Graham reprints (I note in passing that after BGP reprinted the six posters Nos. 170, 188, 210, 211, 214 and 216 in 1975, I wrote a letter to Bill Graham very politely suggesting his attorneys check California law regarding reprinting of
posters. I mentioned that the law prohibited selling reprinted posters without designating them as reprints. I never received a response, but afterwards the reprints bore this script "W."). I simply waited to see if further evidence would appear.

In 2000 Michael Bradford, a part-time poster dealer in North Carolina who knew I was interested in this image e-mailed me that he had acquired a very interesting item, a proof sheet of two posters, a BG-205 with no script "W" and a BG-140 with a script "W." It was on glossy, coated stock similar to that used for Bill Graham originals from No. 150 to No. 286. This was clear evidence of a BG-205 reprint, and I asked him to send it to me so I could study it. When it arrived, I pulled out six copies of BG-205 I had saved, three from one group, three from the other. The proof sheet clearly matched one group, so that group was definitely the reprint, but although the colors of the two groups were different, the differences were
very subtle, and it was not possible to describe these differences verbally. Furthermore since few collectors nowadays were likely to have copies of both variants, it would not have been possible (as it was in the 1970s when there were few collectors most of whom had most known variants)
to say "hold your two copies side-by-side and look for the one with the darker magenta..." I had to find some mark that appeared on all of one edition and none of the other.

I noticed that on three copies there was a small black line on the right edge of the poster midway between the top and bottom. Having seen this sort of mark on posters on several previous occasions, I recognized this as a remnant of a printer’s bull's-eye which had been placed too close to the image and could not have been completely removed in trimming without creating an unattractively narrow border (A printer’s bull's-eye is a circle with two crosshairs through it, one vertical, one horizontal. Usually there are four on an uncut sheet, usually center top and bottom and center left and right sides. They are used to realign the press exactly between the different runs with the various plates so that colors are printed in exactly correct registration. These are usually trimmed off after the printing process is complete.).

I saw that the BG-205 on the reprint sheet was on the viewer’s left so the right border of the
BG-205 was in the middle of the sheet between the two images. That meant there could he no copies of the reprints with the black line in the right margin because there could not be a printer’s bull's-eye at the center of the sheet. There would have been no room for it. It could only be there on the original, and it was extremely unlikely any originals existed which had been trimmed so far in as to eliminate this black line entirely because this would have created a drastically unbalanced poster.

I then changed the guide to include this new information. I note that the small line was not used as "proof" of two printings, only as the distinguishing characteristic, and that there was substantial and convincing evidence beyond the existence of the small line that there were two
printings. I did not describe the evidence because if I attempted to give the reader all the evidence on every image, the guide with the four or five times its current size.

The case of FD-49 is similar but not identical. With Family Dog items the printing records for the numbers from 43 to 86 exist in the form of the carbon copies of the billing from California Litho Plate to the Family Dog. In general these do not show by number which items were reprinted.
They simply read "reprints 5M," but there are enough such receipts from week to week that it is obvious almost all of these numbers were reprinted. Furthermore proof sheets of both originals and reprints exist in most cases. Original proof sheets are readily distinguished from
reprints by the presence of cards. An employee of California Litho Plate has confirmed the long held belief that cards were never reprinted with Family Dog posters. As with BG- 205 it was clear that there were two groups of posters, one a range of darker blues which match the cards and
one a lighter blue which did not. Again I set aside several copies from each group and awaited further evidence. It was suspected that the darker was the original and the lighter the reprint, but this was not certain.

Jacaeber Kastor then did the same thing, stored away a few copies of each, and one night when he had some time to spare he spread out on the floor a selection of both groups and spent several hours looking at them. Eventually he noticed that on all the light blue copies there was a
small, faint horizontal line in the lower margin. This was clearly a mark which was on the printing plate, not a mark made, for example, by piece of dirt which had gotten on the plate during the printing process, had moved around and eventually had been removed by the printer during the course of the printing. While this did not seal the case, it certainly gave credence to the idea that two different plates printed these two groups of posters. Since it was extremely unlikely two plates were made to print the original and there were no light blue cards, he decided this meant there were two printings and listed them as such in his catalog. As a dealer he had access to a substantial number of additional copies which to check, and he also contacted other collectors and dealers to check their copies. All confirmed his thesis. I agreed with the results of his research and changed the guide accordingly. That would have been an adequate end of the story, but several months later two other things surfaced. One was the original artwork which did not have the small line, and the other was a printer's proof sheet of the reprint of FD-49 printed alongside FD-59. On this sheet FD-49 clearly had the small line. As an astute reader can see, the existence of this small line is far from the only proof that there are two printings. It is only one part of a carefully reasoned argument in favor of there being two printings. It is the only one mentioned in my guide and in Mr. Kastor's catalog because it is the easiest means of distinguishing between the two printings, not because it is the sole proof there are two printings which it obviously is not.

The case for two printings of FD-75 tends to rest on the evidence of other images as much is on evidence of FD-75 itself. Here there are two distinct groups separable by color. Unlike FD-49 where the two groups were not noticed until after the close of the Avalon Ballroom, the second
variation was recognized when it appeared in posters shops while the concert series was still running. The lighter blue was very noticeable in contrast to the blue of the original. Therefore it was possible for me to inquire among the early collectors to see if anyone had seen a lighter copy
around the time of the FD-75 concert. No one had. Since there were no cards which matched the lighter blue version, it was, like FD-65, one of the images which very early on led to the suspicion that the Family Dog was reprinting posters which it did not designate as such (By the time I became aware of the California law on this topic, the Family Dog was long out of business.). Since I was not certain about the reprinting of postcards in 1978, in my 1979 guide I only mentioned that there were two variants, and although I had an opinion about which was the first, and that opinion was widely shared, I did not designate the darker blue as the original. By 1995 I knew enough about the printing history of other Family Dog posters from No. 43 to No. 86 to be able to say confidently that since there were very distinct color groups which did not overlap and that one and only one matched the cards, the one which matched the cards was an original and the one which did not was a reprint.

In the case of Family Dogs Nos. 70, 73, 76, 80 and 83 no separate groupings are now known to exist, and I tend to think that most of these will continue to be designated as printed only once, but future evidence is unpredictable. For the rest of the Family Dog items from No. 43 to No. 86, I believe that evidence exists for reprinting of each item except for No. 68 where both posters and postcards vary substantially indicating one printing with several ink changes and No. 55 where there are almost certainly two printings (A proof sheet of FD-55 and FD-57 exists.), but I am unable to separate them consistently to my own satisfaction. Mr. Kastor believes he can, and although I recommend that collectors who want to be certain of having an original buy one of each from him, I am strongly inclined to believe his designations are correct. We both have spent
hours and hours looking for a consistent scratch or dot to separate them but thus far we have been unsuccessful.

I hope the preceding will convince the reader that the scholarship of my guide which Mr. Cushway has sought to call into question is, in fact, accurate and trustworthy.

After Family Dog essay add:

The Mystery of the Family Dog Capitol Records Reprints

I have had in my possession for a number of years photocopies of two printing invoices from California Litho Plate Company, one of the companies which printed Family Dog material. While I have seen many of the yellow carbon copies of California Litho Plate invoices, I have not seen these two invoices in that form, only as photocopies, but I have no reason to believe they are not photocopies of genuine invoices. One is dated 10/9/1967. The other is dated

11/21/1967. The earlier one indicates that 100,000 Family Dog posters, 5,000 each of twenty different posters, were shipped directly from the printer to Kama Sutra Productions in Los Angeles. Kama Sutra Productions was associated with Capitol Records. The later invoice indicates that another 100,000 Family Dog posters, again 5,000 each of twenty different posters, were shipped directly from the printer to Capitol Records in Los Angeles. Several numbers appear on both invoices indicating that a total of 10,000 of those posters were printed, presumably at different times. The list on the 10/9/1967 invoice is as follows: 1, 3, 5, 14, 17, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 50, 54, 56, 60. The list on the 11/21/1967 invoice is as follows: 17, 26, 28, 38, 49, 50, 53, 59, 61, 64, 70, 72, 75, 77, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, D-5.

Apparently it was the intention of Capitol Records to distribute these posters to record stores across the country where they would be sold. There are copies of magazine ads dating from that time showing nineteen of the twenty posters on the first invoice (Number 41 appears twice, and Number 38 does not appear.). I know of no ads showing the posters on the second invoice. Because these posters were shipped directly from the printer to Los Angeles, copies of many of these printings never were in the Family Dog inventory so no copies of those were distributed in the San Francisco Bay Area unless a handful wound up in a local record store. This also means that no copies of many of these were in the possession of Postermat, the North Beach San Francisco poster shop which bought the Family Dog inventory when the Family Dog closed in 1968. This shop sold posters from the mid 1960s through the 1980s before selling its inventory to Artrock which eventually sold its inventory of Family Dog material to Wolfgangs Vault. This resulted in an almost complete absence of many of these reprints in collections originating in the Bay Area.

Capitol Records has no archive of old promotional material.  Furthermore it is their policy to destroy any unused promotional material after six months. They were very helpful when I tried to find copies of these variants, but they were long gone.  Over the years I had been able to identify only a handful of these Kama Sutra Records reprints, mostly from the first list, Numbers 1, 21, 28, 33, 38 and 42. All the others were unknown. I thought it was possible that some of these so closely resembled other printings that no one had recognized them, or, more likely, they had never fallen into the hands of one of the few experts sufficiently familiar with the material that they immediately would see they were different.

In 2008 on the internet I encountered someone whose late father had been an executive of Kama Sutra Records. Among the items in his estate was a cardboard package containing copies of all twenty of the Kama Sutra Records reprints. The package, which was printed with the Family Dog logo, appears to have been the way in which at least some of the Kama Sutra Records reprints were distributed to record stores across the country.

I was able to study each of these twenty posters carefully, and I discovered that about half of them were from separate printings which can be distinguished from other Family Dog reprints. The others appear to be identical to copies which were in the Family Dog inventory when it was sold to Ben Friedman/Postermat. The fact that about half of these twenty Kama Sutra Records reprints match copies which were in the Family Dog inventory in substantial quantities indicates that at the time the Kama Sutra Records reprints were printed, another 5,000 of them were printed and sent to the Family Dog for distribution by them. By identical I do not mean simply the same colors or paper stocks but also the presence of common printing zits which are transitory in nature. These are caused by specks of dirt which get onto the printing plate during printing process and are periodically removed from the plate by the printer. If there are common printing zits on posters, it is clear the plate was not cleaned between the time one was printed and the time the other was printed. If a press run was ended at 5,000 and the plate was going to be reused, even the next day, the plate would have been cleaned, so the presence of common printing zits speaks strongly in favor of these which match copies in the Family Dog inventory being printed in one continuous press run of  10,000 half of which was sent to Kama Sutra Records and half to the Family Dog. Information about the specific posters can be found under the listing for each poster.

The fact that some of these Kama Sutra Records reprints have been so difficult to find because they are identical to other well-known Family Dog reprints leads me to believe that at least some and possibly most of the Capitol Records reprints have been so elusive because they, too, are identical to the well-known reprints that were in the Family Dog inventory. Since several of the Kama Sutra Records reprints turned out to be ones I had already catalogued, for example FD-1-RP-3, I think it is possible some of the Capitol Records reprints already have been entered in this Guide, for example FD-D5-RP-2. Unless and until a similar find of Capitol Records reprints is discovered, this will remain a mystery. Of course, if anyone finds such a package of Capitol Records reprints, I would very much like to see it.

I believe it is worth noting that several of these reprints which definitely were printed by California Litho Plate nevertheless bear credits from Bindweed Press, the printing of FD-26 which bears the notation “FD26 (3)”, or Double-H Press, FD-43-RP-3. This probably means that film from those printers came into the hands of California Litho Plate and was used to burn the plates used by California Litho Plate.

"Pomegranate Press printed an authorized reprint of this image in the 1990’s. A Pomegranate
Press credit appears on the reverse"

Under FD-1 description after “… suggested by Chet Helms.” add “The title of this book is “The American Heritage Book of Indians.” The editor in chief is Alvin M. Josephy Jr. The title of the photograph is “Sioux
Chiefs.” It was taken by Edward Curtis.

Change FD-1-RP-3 to read

FD-1-RP-3 In 2000 a copy of the third printing was discovered. It incorrectly bears the
notation "No.1-2" in the lower right corner. The "Washington Street" credit is
deleted and replaced in the lower left bottom margin with "1967 c Family Dog
Productions 639 Gough St., San Francisco, Calif. 94102". The distance from the            base of the "9" to the top of the "o" is the same as on FD-1-RP-2. In 2008 it was determined that this is the Kama Sutra Records reprint. The 2000 copy and the 2008 Kama Sutra Records copy are both on identical stock which has a woven or “rows” texture on the front as well as other similarities. 14 9/32" x 20 5/16"   14 13/32" x 20 9/32"

 Under FD-5 change date to "4/22&23/66."

Add to FD-5-RP-3 This poster is on stock which glows or floresces under black light.
Change FD-5-RP-4 to read

"FD-5-RP-4 The fourth printing on uncoated index has the same markings as FD-5-RP-3. The blue of this printing is substantially lighter than FD-5-RP-3, and the red is slightly lighter. The length is sufficiently different to use as a distinguishing characteristic. In 2008 it was discovered that this is the Kama Sutra Records reprint. The stock has "rows" or woven texture on the back and does not glow or floresce under black light. The previously known copy and the Kama Sutra Records copy discovered in 2008 have identical linear dimensions.
14 21/64" x 20 55/64"

After FD-5-OHB-C add
FD-5-RHB-D     Volume 9 Number 1 of CA Magazine: The Journal of Communication Art
                            from 1967 had an article on psychedelic posters. Bound into the spine and
                            detachable by perforations was a handbill of FD-5. The image size was the
                            same as FD-5-OHB-A, but the paper dimensions were 11 3/4” x 15 9/16”

Add to FD-9-RP-2 "There is a great deal of variation to the green of this printing from light to
olive to fairly dark."

Under FD-9 notes add that the picture is of Greta Garbo from the 1932 film Mata Hari.

Under FD-11 change "FD-1-OP-1" to "FD-11-OP-1."

Add to FD-14-OP-1 "Most originals were printed in silver ink."

Under FD-14-RP-3 add: "This printing is on stock which is smooth on the front."

Change FD-14-RP-4 to read:
FD-14-RP-4          In 2008 the Kama Sutra Records reprint was discovered. Notations are the same as those on FD-14-RP-3, but this separate printing is on stock which has a “rows” or woven texture on the front. The blue is slightly darker on FD-14-RP-4 than it is on FD-14-RP-3.
13 59/64 x 19 29/32”

After FD-14-RP-7 add

"FD-14-OP-8 In 1999 several copies of a variant original printing were discovered printed with gold ink."

Under FD-14-OHB-B change "FD-14-HBO-6" to "FD-14-OHB-A."

Under FD-14-RPC-C change "5 29/32"" to "4 29/32""

Add to FD-15-OP-1 “Underneath “Sopwith Camel” the poster reads “FRI. AND SAT. NIGHTS ONLY.” Apparently due to a late change in the bill some copies have a small sticker covering “SAT.” “SUN” is hand written on this sticker.”

Under FD-15-RP-2 change "two" to "three" and "both" to "all" twice. Add "It is on dull/matte finish stock."

Under FD-15-RP-3 add "It is on a semi glossy stock."

After FD-15-RP-3 add

"FD-15-RP-4 This variant is part of the same press run as FD-15-RP-2, but it is .0090" thick. It is on a semi glossy stock."

Under FD-17 change handbills to read:

 

FD-17-OHB-A	The handbill was printed once but on three different colors of paper. Since the amount of purple ink used varied substantially, all four variants themselves vary from one to the next from darker to lighter. The ink also varied between pure purple and purple with a great deal of red in it. Further confusing the issue is that by some means unclear to me the distance between the "Bindweed" credit and the bottom purple border varied. Sometimes the credit was close to the bottom edge of the paper, sometimes closer to the border, sometimes half covered by the boarder, and sometimes actually covered by the border making it appear that an entirely separate variant which deliberately omitted the credit exists. Basically only four variants exist. FD-17-OHB-A is pure purple ink on white paper. 8 31/64" x 10 61/64"
FD-17-OHB-B	This variant is reddish purple ink on yellow paper. 8 33/64" x 11 1/64"
FD-17-OHB-C	This variant is reddish purple ink on pink paper. 8 17/32" x 11"
FD-17-OHB-D	FD-17-OHB-D In 2000 a variant was shown to me which I had not seen before but which had been known for some time to at least two serious collectors. This variant is the pure purple ink on yellow paper. It is distinctly different from FD-17-OHB-B which is much more common. It should be noted that this new variant is not a two of a kind item. The collectors who pointed it out to me each said they had seen several copies of it and had long thought it was in my guide.

Under FD-19-OP-1 change "right" to "left."

Under FD-21 change the description to read:
“This poster is several shades of red and blue in a white frame. For many years the central image of this poster was thought to be the City Hall of San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake, but in 2003 it was pointed out to me by Christian Peterson that this is actually the Sonoma County Court House after the 1906 earthquake. “

After FD-21-RP-5 add

 

FD-21-RP-6

In 2000 another reprint was discovered. This dates from the time of the concerts. Above the word "Dance" at the top the top border line is straight for about 4 1/4". On FD-21-RP-2 and FD-21-RP-3 the left end of this line simply begins to slope downward. On FD-21-RP-6 this horizontal line extends about 1/32" beyond the point where the line begins downward. This creates a "Y" shaped effect not on the other 1960’s reprints. This effect does appear on the original. This poster does not have letter separations. This poster is substantially longer than the others. This poster is on uncoated index. In 2008 it was discovered that this is the Kama Sutra Records reprint. 14 9/64" x 20 53/64"

 

FD-22-PP-5	In 1999 two separate reduced image, black and white only (no yellow) pirates   of this image were discovered. On this version the distance from the bottom      most point in the image near the right margin to the top most point in the         image near the right margin (portions of the black line border) is 16". On this    version the motto "May the Baby Jesus…" is nearly illegible.
FD-22-PP-6	On this reduced image, black and white only (no yellow) pirate the distance  described under FD-22-PP-5 is 15 7/8". The motto "May the Baby Jesus…"  is clearly legible.

Add to FD-24-RP-2 "The Family Dog logo is a positive image in black with lots of detail."

After FD-24-RP-2 add

 

FD-24-PP-3

In 1999 a pirate was discovered. It had been shot off a damaged copy of FD-24-RP-2.The upper right and lower right corners have printed "tears" and "tape pulls" which appear to have been on the legitimate copy used to produce the pirate. There is extensive dot screening around the border which is white on FD-24-RP-2. Colors are substantially different.

Under FD-26 add
          Change FD-26-RP-4 to read: In 2007 I located a copy of the Kama Sutra Records reprint of this poster. It turned out to be identical to FD-26-RP-3. See
          "The Mystery of the Capitol Records and Kama Sutra Records Reprints" in the Table of Contents.

FD-26-RP-13 A Portal Publications reprint exists on thin stock. It bears the credit “RP 006  c 1977  Mouse/Kelley Portal Publications Ltd. Corte Madera. California 94925 Litho in U.S.A.”  on the right side of the bottom margin. 20 3/64” x 27 63/64”

Add to FD-26-PP-9:

"In 1997 it was learned that this edition was a properly licensed reprint, not a pirate."

After FD-26-PP-10 add:

FD-26-PP-11 In 1999 yet another pirate printing of FD-26 was discovered also on .0050" stock

but less glossy than FD-26-PP-10. This one measures 14 5/16" x 19 11/16".

"Sometime around 1987 a pirate postcard measuring 4" X 6" was printed..."

 Under notes under FD-28 change the notes to read: "The striped effect was not produced by shining light on the face of a man through Venetian blinds as had been previously stated in this guide. It was produced by a light beam used by the USA military for making a facial contour map for an Air Force flight helmet. The photographer was the famous Life magazine photographer, Ralph Morse.

FD-29-RP-4          This printing on uncoated index bears “29(3)” in the lower left corner.  No “Bindweed” credit appears.  “© Family Dog Productions 639 Gough St., San Francisco, Calif. 94102” appears in the lower left margin. This  printing is on stock which glows or floresces under black light. 14 “ x 20 1/32”

FD-29-RP-5 In 2008 the Kama Sutra Records reprint was discovered. It bears the same notations as FD-29-RP-4, but it is a separate printing. Colors, paper stock and linear dimensions are all different. This printing is on stock that does not glow or floresce under black light. 13 63/64” x 19 31/32”

Under FD-29-RPC-H change "Keley" to "Kelley."

Under FD-29-OHB-D and FD-29-OHB-E change "boarder" to "border."

Under both FD-30-OP-1 and FD-30-OP-2 change "1996" to "1966."

Under FD-30 change FD-30-RP-3 and FD-30-RP-4 to read

FD-30-RP-3         The next printing, a reprint, bears the notations “No. 30-3” in the lower left corner and “1967 © Family Dog Productions 639 Gough St., San Francisco, Calif. 94102” in the lower right.  No poster bearing “No. 30-2” is known to exist. This poster is on a stock which has a mild glow or florescence on the back when exposed to black light. 14 9/32” x 19 31/32”

FD-30-RP-4 In 2008 the Kama Sutra Records reprint was discovered. It was a separate printing. It bears the same notations listed for FD-30-RP-3, but the paper stock is different, colors are different and linear dimensions are different. This stock does not glow or floresce when exposed to black light, but the easiest way to distinguish this printing is that it is 3/8” narrower than FD-30-RP-3. 13 7/8” x 19 57/64”

Under FD-33-OP-1 change "left" to "right."
Under FD-33-RP-4 add "In 2008 it was discovered that this was the Kama Sutra Records reprint. The copy that I obtained in the mid 1970s from Bob Cohen, Chet Helms' associate, was identical in microscopic printing marks, linear dimensions and paper stock to the Kama Sutra Records copy."

Under FD-36 change date to read "11/25 & 26/66."

After FD-36-RP-3 add

"FD-36-OP-4 In 1999 copies of a variant original printing were discovered on orange stock."

Under FD-38-RP-3 add, "In 2008 it was discovered that this was the Kama Sutra Records reprint. The copy that I obtained in the mid 1970s from Bob Cohen, Chet Helms' associate, was identical in paper stock and linear dimensions to the Kama Sutra Records copy. The paper stock was woven or "rows" texture on the front.

FD-39-RP-2*      This reprint is on uncoated index and adds “No. 39” in the lower right corner.  No indication is made of second or third printing. This printing has a blue which is a medium blue darker than that of FD-39-RP-3. 13 61/64” x 20 1/64”

FD-39-RP-3* In 2008 the Kama Sutra Records reprint was discovered. It bears only one major printing differences from FD-39-RP-2. The only consistent recognizable difference is that the blue of this printing is a light blue lighter than that of
FD-39-RP-2. 13 3/4” x 20 1/16”

*After looking at a lot of copies of FD-39-RP-2 and several of FD-39-RP-3, I discovered that both versions were printed at the same time. The evidence for this is
common printing  zits on both and darker blue and lighter blue versions. The blue ink simply was changed between the run of 5000 of one and 5000 of the other. I have tried to avoid any distinction between two printings of a poster which requires someone to have more than one item in his/her hand, but here this is unavoidable. Both versions exist on stocks which have and do not have “rows” or woven texture, so that criterion can not be used. Some copies of each glow or floresce under black light, and others do not, so that criterion can not be used. The stocks are all of similar thickness so that can not be used. I even noticed that linear dimensions, length and width  varied on both versions. The only real
difference is the color, and I believe the semantics of color are unreliable for describing the difference between these shades of blue. Since these are reprints and most collectors are not that concerned with telling reprints apart, especially ones probably printed an hour or two apart, I am going to make an exception this one time. If you need to tell these two reprints apart, you will have to have one of each in front of you. The darker will be FD-39-RP-2, and the lighter will be FD-39-RP-3.

After FD-39-RP-3 add
FD-39-OP-4       In 2003 a variant of the original was discovered which was not printed with the black
                           plate. On this variant the Indian appears blue which was printed under the black on those
                           copies which were printed with the black plate.  “The Bindweed Press San Francisco”
                           appears in white drop out in the lower margin at left. 13 49/64” x 19 61/64”

Under FD-40-OHB-A delete “Toward the end of the press run the red ran low, and many copies
               exist with pale red.”
After FD-40-OHB-B add
FD-40-OHB-C  It had previously been thought that the version with pale color instead of red was a result of the red ink running low in the reservoir of the press. Closer  examination of this version shows that it is a different color than pale red. Accordingly it has been designated a new variant.  Thanks to Phil Cushway for pointing this out to me in 2003. 8 17/32” x 10 31/32”

FD-40-OHB-D  Some copies of this handbill had part of an interview with Country Joe and the Fish on the back. This was then distributed with an issue of Mojo Navigator.

Under FD-41-RP-2 change “41-2” to “41 (2).”
Under FD-41-RP-2 add: This more commonly seen variant lists the Family Dog address as 639 Gough Street.
Change FD-41-RP-3 to read: The Kama Sutra Records reprint discovered in 2008 lists the Family Dog address as 1725 Washington Street. This means that FD-41-RP-3 predates FD-41-RP-2. 13 63/64" x 20"

Under FD-41 change FD-41-OHB-B to read:

The other handbill is black ink on coral paper. Both have a Family Dog credit and
bulk postal information on the reverse. In 2001 a copy was discovered which had been
mailed to someone on the mailing list. 8 17/32" x 11 1/32"

Under FD-41 after FD-41-OHB-B add

FD-41-OHB-C Some copies of FD-41-OHB-B were hand addressed and sent to people on the mailing list.

FD-43-OP-1        The poster was printed three times.  One original has “Double-H Press” credit below the Family Dog phone number. Number appears in lower left corner on poster. 14 1/64” x 20”  See FD-43-RP-3 for reprint with “Double –H Press” credit.

*FD-43-OP-2 In 2003 it was discovered that the printing which deletes the “Double-H Press” credit is an original.  Accordingly this designation has been changed from

FD-43-RP-2 to FD-43-OP-2. See evidence at the end of this section.

14 5/64” x 19 61/64”

**FD-43-RP-3 In 2007 I had access to a number of posters from the estate of an executive of Kama Sutra Records.  One of these posters was a copy of FD-43. To my surprise this poster had the “Double-H Press” credit. Printing records of California Litho Plate show that they reprinted this poster for Kama Sutra Records long after the concert, so this poster definitely is a reprint, so all Double-H credit posters of FD-43 will need to be examined to see if they are reprints. I discovered that the original with the Double-H credit is on stock which floresces or glows under black light. The reprint with the Double-H credit does not. See further evidence at the end of this section. 14 1/32” x 19 59/64”

FD-43-RP-4 Pomegranate Press printed an authorized reprint of this image in the 1990’s. It is the same image as FD-43-OP-2 with no Double-H credit. A Pomegranate Press credit appears on the reverse. 12 29/32” x 14 15/16”

FD-43-OPC-A The postcard appears in three forms.  The first has a blank reverse. 4 31/32” x 7 3/32”

FD-43-OPC-B The second has a Family Dog credit and bulk mail permit on the reverse.   5 1/16” x 7”

FD-43-OPC-C Some copies of FD-43-OPC-B were mechanically addressed and sent to people on the mailing list.

 F. D. 43 Moby Grape

This poster is several shades of bluish gray and white on a red background. The central image is a photograph of a kneeling woman, Alla Nazimova, from the 1923
silent movie Salome. The card for this image was the first in the numbered Family Dog series to have been printed on the same sheet as the poster, at first one poster and four cards and then shortly thereafter one poster and six cards which became the usual policy. After this point only a handful of cards were printed separately from the posters. As far as is currently known no Family Dog cards ever were reprinted when the posters were reprinted during the 1967 – 1968 period. For this reason with only two or three exceptions the cards parallel the original printings perfectly and comparison between the card and poster of a specific number for identical colors is usually a reliable means of distinguishing original printing posters from reprint posters incorrectly bearing the designation "-1" in the numbered Family Dog series (This does not apply to the Bill Gra-
ham series.).

*Evidence: Since the time of the concerts it had been assumed that because the Double-H credit printing was more scarce than the one without the credit and because the change in credit implied a change in printers, that the Double-H credit printing was the original and the one without this credit was a reprint. In 2003 Phil Cushway of Artrock discovered a printer’s proofsheet which had a single FD-43 poster, four postcards and concert tickets. This proofsheet did not have the Double-H credit. Because it is known that the cards were never reprinted and tickets were certainly not reprinted (In fact the usual policy was for the printer to stop the press when enough tickets had been printed and then remove that portion of the image from the printing plate so that printer’s proofs often exist both with and without tickets.), it is clear that the printing without the Double-H credit is an original printing. Accordingly the designation of this printing in this Guide had been changed to “FD-43-OP-2.” It was then necessary to consider the possibility that the Double-H credit printing might be a reprint. This was very unlikely because Double-H did not print any later printings after FD-43, but it had to be considered. Using a 20x loupe, I examined the paper stock used for the Double-H credit printing. I  compared this to the stock used for the mailed cards sent to people on the mailing list. The stocks are identical. Since the mailers were printed first, well before the concert, the Double-H credit printing is also an original printing. It is noteworthy that the printing without the Double-H credit appears on two slightly different stocks. These differences are most notable with respect to how they appear under black light. Furthermore the blank backed cards which were handed out in the street to advertise the event also are printed on two slightly different stocks which correspond to the two stocks of the printing without the Double-H credit, further evidence that these posters were printed before the concert. Why the Double-H credit was removed at some point in the press run is not known for certain.  One possibility suggested by Jacaeber Kastor is that since the printing records show that the original of this poster was printed by California Litho Plate, not Double-H, and that the ticket outlets strip on FD-43 is based on the ticket outlets strip of

FD-42, that the ticket outlets strip from FD-42 inadvertently was attached to the FD-43 artwork without the Double-H credit being removed. The plate was made from this artwork, and printing was begun. Shortly after printing was begun, one of the pressmen at California Litho Plate noticed the Double-H credit, stopped the presses and removed the Double-H credit. Since cost was a big factor in printing these posters, the copies with the improper Double-H credit were not thrown out but were delivered to the Family Dog along with the ones without the Double-H credit. All things considered, this makes sense because ticket outlets strips were occasionally reused without careful attention being paid to incorrect information they might include. This was also the case with BG-230 where a ticket outlets strip including David Singer’s name was attached to a poster by Pat Hanks.

**Further evidence: While it was good evidence that the copy of  FD-43 which came from the estate of a Kama Sutra Records executive was a reprint just because it came from that estate, and printing records show this poster was reprinted for Kama Sutra Records, there was the possibility that he might have acquired this poster separately, especially since the “Double-H Press credit was present. I looked for further evidence, and I noticed that this poster had a remnant of a printer’s bull’s eye in the middle of the right edge. Because original posters of FD-43 were printed on the left half of sheets with the cards on the right, it would be impossible for there to be a printer’s bull’s eye along the right edge of an original because the right edge of an original would have been in the middle of the uncut sheet, and printers did not place printer’s bull’s eyes in the middle of uncut sheets. They only placed them along the edges of the sheets. This means that this poster was printed on the right side of a sheet which means it was printed two up (two posters side by side) on a sheet with another copy of FD-43. Only the oddly shaped FD-98 and FD-99 originals were printed on sheets without the cards. Since we already know of printer’s proof sheets with cards which are originals, we know that the posters from this sheet which was printed with two posters side by side has to be a reprint.

Once I had determined that this poster had to be a reprint, I looked for a means of distinguishing it from the original with the Double-H credit. At that point I found that the paper stocks were different, that the originals floresced or glowed under black light, and this reprint did not. I did not use the printer’s bull’s eye remnant as a distinguishing characteristic because the poster was printed two up on a sheet, and the posters on the left half of the sheet would not have this printer’s bull’s eye remnant in the middle of the right edge.

Under FD-44-OP-1 Delete:

"Copies of the original measure .0070"-.0072" thick which matches cards and mailers. These are 20 1/4" long."

"The original was incorrectly identified as 20 1/4" long in earlier editions of this Guide The original is the 19 15/16" long printing."

Under FD-44-RP-2 Delete the text and replace with: "The reprint measures 20 1/4" long."

Add: "*" Before "FD-44-RP-2"

At the bottom of the page add: "*This error was discovered by Jacaeber Kastor."

FD-46-RP-4 In 2002 a new variant of this poster was discovered. It is a reprint. Although   all three colors, blue green and orange are different from the other printings,
 this variant may be most easily distinguished by the color of the stock when
 viewed on the back. It is not white as are most Family Dog posters. It is a distinctly off white shade. This stock is .0070” thick. 14” x 19 63/64”
 
 

FD-49-OP-1        Printing records indicate this image was printed multiple times.  Unfortunately postcards including addressed mailers vary considerably from light to dark blue and light to dark orange.  Paper stocks vary in thickness as well.  In 1998 a distinguishing characteristic between FD-49-OP-1 and FD-49 reprints was discovered by Jacaeber Kastor. The original does not have the small line in the blue margin described under FD-49-RP-2 . 14” x 19 63/64”

FD-49-RP-2      On all the reprints of FD-49 there is a small, horizontal line in the blue border above the “ER” in “KEPLER’S” in the ticket outlets strip. This line is only a few thousandths of an inch wide by 1/8” long. In 2007 it was determined that there were a total of three separate reprints. As fate would have it the one whose dimensions are listed here probably is the last printing. It is characterized by a blue which is lighter than medium blue. All the others are medium blue or darker. This is also the only one of the reprints which probably was not printed two up alongside FD-59, so there is no reprint of FD-59 which is parallel  to this FD-49. The back does not turn gray or lavender under blacklight
13 61/64” x 20 5/64” 

FD-49-RP-3      This reprint was printed two up on the same sheet (alongside) a reprint of FD-59. This means that paper stocks and colors are the same on that reprint and this one. This reprint is substantially wider than the other two reprints of FD-49 so the width will be the distinguishing characteristic.
14 23/64” x 20 1/16”

FD-49-RP-4      This reprint was printed two up on the same sheet side by side with a reprint of FD-59. The colors and paper stock match those of that FD-59. The distinguishing characteristic of this poster is that the stock will turn gray or lavender under black light. The light blue version will not. The blue of this poster is darker than medium blue. 13 61/64” x 19 61/64”

This entry replaces any previous FD-50 entry.
 

FD-50	Break on Through to the   Other Side
3/3 & 3/4/67	Avalon Ballroom
Victor Moscoso	Country Joe and the Fish  Sparrow  Doors

  Under FD-50-OP-1 change 14 32/32” to 14 3/32”

                     FD-50-OP-1* The original printing of this poster has a ticket outlets
                    strip in green. A proof sheet exists which shows the postcards with a
                    white strip and a poster with a green strip. Since cards were not
                    reprinted, the original has a green strip. Since FD-50-RP-7 discovered
                    in 2002 also has a green ticket outlets strip, it must be noted that
                    FD-50-OP-1 has a small (1/64") black spot near the top of the left
                    portion of the second "R" in "Sparrow" just under the middle of the
                    right leg of the "H" in "the." 14 32/32" x 19 49/64"

                    FD-50-RP-2 The second printing, a reprint, has the ticket outlets strip
                    in white. A substantial number of copies of this printing have a mostly
                    horizontal printing flaw across "Sparrow." 14 1/32" x 19 31/32"

                    FD-50-RP-3 A variant exists which has the ticket outlets strip
                    replaced with "Printed by Offset in Three Colors on International
                    Paper’s Springhill ® Whitetag, Basis 100." A short essay about
                    printing technique and the life of Victor Moscoso appears on the
                    reverse of this printing. "No. 50-1" appears in the lower left corner.

                    FD-50-RP-4 This variant has a blank ticket outlets strip. A substantial
                    number of copies of this printing have a mostly horizontal printing
                    flaw across "Sparrow." This variant was printed on two different paper stocks. One has a woven or "rows" texture on the back and does not glow or floresce on the back under black light. It turns an off white. The other does not have a woven or "rows texture on the back. This variant turns gray on the back under black light. 14 1/32" x 19 31/32"

                    FD-50-RP-5 In 1990 Pyramid Books in England printed this image.
                    Paper stock is thick and glossy. The top half inch of the image is
                    missing. In 1997 it was learned that this was a properly licensed
                    reprint, not a pirate. 11 57/64" x 16 35/64"

                    FD-50-RP-6 Another variant exists which has the ticket outlets strip
                    replaced with "Printed by Offset in Three Colors on International
                    Paper’s Springhill R Whitetag, Basis 100." A short essay about
                    printing technique and the life of Victor Moscoso appears on the
                    reverse. "No.50-1" does not appear in the lower left corner.

                    FD-50-RP-7* In 2002 a printer’s proof sheet was discovered with two
                    posters printed side by side. These both have a green ticket outlets
                    strip. This newly discovered reprint may be distinguished from
                    FD-50-OP-1 because copies of FD-50-RP-7 do not have the small
                    black dot described under FD-50-OP-1. Colors do differ from
                    FD-50-OP-1, especially the blue which is much lighter on FD-50-RP-7,
                    but the presence or absence of the dot is the distinguishing factor.

FD-50-RP-8  In 2007 I located a copy of the Kama Sutra Records reprint of this poster. It turned out to be identical to the variant of FD-50-RP-4 which was on stock which turned gray on the back under black light, the variant which did not have a woven or "rows" texture on the back. See "The Mystery of the Capitol Records and Kama Sutra Records Reprints" in the Table of Contents.

                    FD-50-OPC-A The ticket outlets strip is white on both printing
                    variants of the postcard. "Place stamp here" is on one reverse. 5 1/64" x
                    6 61/64"

                    FD-50-OPC-B The other reverse has the bulk mail permit. 4 63/64" x
                    6 63/64"

                    FD-50-OPC-C Some copies of FD-50-OPC-B were mechanically
                    addressed and sent to people on the mailing list.

*Since the early 1980’s serious scholars of this material have been aware that in 1967
Capitol Records ordered 100,000 posters from the Family Dog, 5,000 each of 20 images.
These were shipped directly from the printer to Capitol Records. The evidence for this is
the existence of a printer’s invoice describing this sale. Capitol Records then distributed
these posters to record stores across the country. They also advertised the set of 20
posters in music magazines. Since these posters were shipped directly from the printer
to Capitol Records, no copies of these posters were in the Family Dog inventory when
the Family Dog went out of business and sold its remaining inventory to Postermat.
Accordingly these have been very difficult to locate and document. One of the last
missing Capitol Records variants has been the FD-50. In 2002 we found out why we
had been unable to document this variant. It simply looked too much like the original to
be noticed.

Fortunately in 2002 Bill Jacobs of California discovered a printer’s proof of two FD-50
Posters printed side by side. Since all California Litho Plate Family Dog originals except
the unusually shaped FD-98 and FD-99 were printed on the same sheets as cards which,
according to employees of California Litho Plate were never reprinted, it was clear that
this was a proof sheet of the long sought Capitol Records reprint. Mr. Jacobs was kind
enough to bring this proof sheet to the October 5, 2002 TRPS (The Rock Poster Society)
Swap Meet where it was carefully examined and compared to an original proof sheet
which once had been the property of the artist, Victor Moscoso, who had taken it home
from the printer’s before the concerts. Present at that time and assisting me in this
examination were Jacaeber Kastor and Dennis King as well as several other serious
scholars of this material. Mr. Kastor and I agreed that the best distinguishing
characteristic was the presence or absence of the dot mentioned under FD-50-OP-1. Mr.
Dennis King felt that although the dot did distinguish between the two printings, he
preferred a different distinction involving the Family Dog logo. Those interested in his
distinction should contact him directly.
I wish to thank Mr. Jacobs for discovering this variant and bringing it with him to the
Swap Meet so we could all study it and Mr. Dennis King for recognizing the importance
of this proof sheet and speaking to Mr. Jacobs about bringing it to the Swap Meet where
it could be studied.

F. D. 50 Break on Through to the Other Side This poster is several shades of green, red
and blue. The central image is a photograph of a human face seen from the bridge of the
nose up. A series of wavy lines emanates from the middle of the forehead giving the
appearance of the radiation of energy. The caption "Break on Through to the Other Side"
is written above the face in reference to the Doors song with that title. The four Doors
posters in the Family Dog series by Victor Moscoso are among the most popular
psychedelic posters both because they are very beautiful and because they are for
concerts by the Doors.
 
 
 

Under FD-51 Change posters to read:

FD-51-OP-1       In 2007 it was determined that there were two printings of FD-51 with a dark pink Family Dog logo. The original dark pink logo poster is substantially wider than the dark pink logo reprint. The black of the original is much darker and more nearly black than that of the dark pink logo reprint, but the width should be used as the distinguishing factor. 14 17/64” x 20 1/64”

FD-51-RP-2       A reprint with a white Family Dog logo exists. 14 3/64” x 19 61/64”

FD-51-PP-3       In 2006 a pirate printer offered a bootleg of this image on a website which has since been discontinued. The image of this bootleg is much larger than that of the original. 18 29/32” x 24”

FD-51-RP-4       This dark pink logo reprint is much narrower than the dark pink logo original. The black of this variant is more of a dark gray than a black.
14” x 20 1/64”

Under FD-52-OP-1 and FD-52-RP-2 add "It is on uncoated index."

After FD-52-RP-2 add "FD-52-RP-3 This variant is on semi glossy stock."

Under FD-53 Artist add: “Fred Roth (Photographer)”

Under FD-54 change FD-54-RP-2 and FD-54-RP-3 to read:
FD-54-RP-2          The second printing, a reprint, is c. 14 1/8" wide or narrower.  This reprint is distinguished by a small, reddish dot located in left margin outside the blue double border 1 7/8” below the bottom of the “S” in “Sunday.” 13 31/32” x 19 29/32”
FD-54-RP-3 In 2008 the Kama Sutra Records reprint was discovered. It is a separate printing from FD-54-RP-2. The colors are different from either FD-54-OP-1 or FD-54-RP-2. There are no common printing zits despite there being quite a few on each printing. This printing may be distinguished by the fact that it is narrower than 14 1/8” wide and does not have the dot described under FD-54-RP-2. 13 31/32” x 19 31/32”

<>Change FD-55 posters to read:

FD-56-OP-1*       The best distinction between the original and the reprints of this poster is the absence of small red printing flaws on the originals which are present on FD-56-RP-2 and the absence  on originals of the blue dot which is present on both FD-56-RP-2 and FD-56-RP-3. 14 1/32” x 20 1/64”

FD-56-RP-2* On this reprint there are small, fine horizontal red lines (printing flaws) in the right margin around and below the lower right edge of the photograph. Some copies have more of these flaws, and some have less, but all these reprints have some. These reprints also have the blue dot described under FD-56-RP-3. 13 59/64” x 19 31/32”

FD-56-RP-3* In 2008 the Kama Sutra Records reprint was discovered. It is a separate printing from FD-56-RP-2. It does not have the red print flaws that are described under FD-56-RP-2. It does have a small blue dot located as follows: First find the period (.) in “Alchemical Co.” Then find the “2” in “94102,” the zip code in the Family Dog address. Draw an imaginary vertical line below the period and another horizontal one to the right of the bottom of the “2.” The location of the blue dot, if it is present, will be where those two imaginary lines meet. 13 63/64” x 20 3/64”

Under FD-56 notes add

Phil Cushway has very rightly said that if I change anything significant in this Guide at this late date (2008), I should include the evidence which supports this change. Since the new definitions of Family Dog 56 posters narrow the definition of the original, I believe it is appropriate to explain why this has been done.

Originally I had thought that there were only two printings of this poster. These were FD-56-OP-1 and the one listed as FD-56-RP-2 which was described as having the small red printing flaws in the right margin below the photograph. There were numerous copies of what now is clearly a third printing (FD-56-RP-3) in the San Francisco Bay Area in the inventory of the Family Dog which were sold to Ben Friedman of Postermat in 1968, but I had not recognized them as a separate printing because they were so similar to FD-56-OP-1. While FD-56-RP-2 was very different in color from FD-56-OP-1, FD-56-RP-3 was nearly identical in color to FD-56-OP-1, and I thought the minor differences were variations within a press run.

Further compounding this problem was the fact that when, at the suggestion of Jacaeber Kastor, experts began examining these posters for the presence or absence of “rows” or woven texture on the paper stocks, it was clear that both FD-56-OP-1 and what is now FD-56-RP-3 were printed on the “rows” or woven side of paper stock with one side “rows” or woven in texture and the other side smooth.  I considered this so unusual that the likelihood that two separate printings of a poster done half a year or more apart were both printed in this way was so small that these had to be the same printing.

Then in 2008 the Kama Sutra Records reprint showed up. Printing records clearly indicated it was printed at least six months after the shows, but there it was, printed on stock with “rows” or woven texture on the side of the printing. The cards, including the mailers, were printed on the “rows” or woven texture side of stock with one side “rows” or woven texture and the other side smooth. But the Kama Sutra Records printing had to be a reprint and so did any others that matched it, but the problem was that there was no immediately apparent difference between it and the postcards, and this meant the originals which matched the postcards were on that type of stock, too.

 Jacaeber Kastor had said that there was a large and elaborate print flaw between the upper portions of the “H” and the “A” in “Charlatans” which only appeared on a small number of copies of FD-56 which he had seen, and he took that as his signifier for originals. I saw these posters as originals, but I would not accept this print flaw as a signifier because I had seen copies of FD-56 with only very small versions of this print flaw. I reasoned that this print flaw developed and got worse as the press run continued, and that early in the press run this flaw was not present at all so there were originals without it. Accordingly I stayed with the small red print flaws on FD-56-RP-2 as the only necessary signifier distinguishing between two and only two printings. Jacaeber Kastor correctly identified that there were three printings, but by using the print flaw between the “H” and the “A” of “Charlatans” as a signifier for the original, he eliminated legitimate originals from his listing of originals.

Since I already knew that the postcard was on “rows” or woven texture stock with the image on the “rows” or woven texture side, I had to find some other means of using the postcard to document the difference between the original FD-56-OP-1 and the Kama Sutra Records reprint FD-56-RP-3. I took out two copies of the poster which I had obtained in the late 1960s from people who had gone to many of the shows and whose collections had included mostly originals. This did not mean these were definitely originals, but it did mean it was likely they were. One had the print flaw between the “H” and the “A” in “Charlatans,” and the other did not.

I held the backs of my three postcards and one mailer under a black light, and all had an identical mild white floresence. I did the same with the two posters I thought were likely to be originals. Both of these matched the mild white floresence of the postcards and mailer under black light. I then tried the same comparison on two posters which had been bought in the 1970s from Ben Friedman’s Postermat which came from the Family Dog inventory as well as on the Kama Sutra Records reprint. These all matched each other in turning purple/gray under black light. This was a good start, but only two copies of each poster as well as the Kama Sutra Records reprint and three cards was not enough of a sample to be definitive.

I then went to Wolfgangsvault where I checked these patterns against a large number of postcards and posters. The three posters in the archive of Jacaeber Kastor, which now belongs to Wolfgangsvault, which Mr. Kastor had thought were originals, all matched the postcards by florescing white. The posters in the Wolfgangsvault inventory which were not from the

FD-56-RP-2 printing, turned one of two similar shades of purple/gray under black light. All the postcards in the Wolfgangsvault inventory matched mine in florescing mild white under black light. It was now clear that the Kama Sutra Records printing had been half of a ten thousand print run half of which had gone directly to Kama Sutra Records and half of which had gone to the Family Dog’s own inventory.

At this point I considered the possibility of using the common floresence of the postcards and the originals as the distinguishing criterion, because this and the obviously different floresence of the Kama Sutra Records reprint was the evidence that led me to my conclusion, but this would have required a reader of this Guide to have a black light and a postcard in addition to a poster in order to tell what his/her poster was. I have resisted using criteria generating this need for multiple items because if it is at all possible, I think this Guide should be able to tell a collector how to figure out what an item is using only one item.

At Wolfgangsvault I had six different originals and a pile of reprints sorted by white or purple/gray floresence on the back. This was, I hoped, enough to find some mark which would be on one or the other group consistently so it could be used to distinguish the groups which had already been accurately separated by whether they matched or did not match the floresence of the postcard.

Grant Feichtmeir of Wolfgangsvault (who by now in 2008 is very knowledgeable about this material) and I began looking at several FD-56-RP-3 reprints along with the originals. We noticed several transitory red printing flaws but eventually focused on several blue dots. Eventually we discovered the one in the lower right corner which I describe under FD-56-RP-3. This dot was clearly a mark on the plate because it appeared on every copy of FD-56-RP-3 which turned purple/gray under black light as well as all the copies of FD-56-RP-2, but it did not appear on any of the copies of FD-56-OP-1. At this point we agreed that the blue dot would be the means by which we would distinguish FD-56-OP-1 from FD-56-RP-3.

I hope that the readers of this Guide will find this explanation  adequate to justify this change in the Guide.  If anyone has any questions about this, please email me at the  address  on the title page of this  Guide.

Under FD-57 acts change "Maji" to "Haji"."

Change FD-57-OP-1 and FD-57-RP-2 and FD-57-OPC-A to read
 

 

FD-57-OP-1	The original poster differs from the reprint in a number of ways involving color tone which are apparent when held side by side, but the best way to tell them apart when only one is present is to look 1 1/4" to the left of the "1" in "1967" in the bottom margin copyright notice. On the original there is a 1/64" irregular blue dot. This distinction was discovered by Jacaeber Kastor in 2000. There is some variation in color among posters with the dot. Since there are similar copies of the card, these are originals.
FD-57-RP-2	On the reprint the dot described under FD-57-OP-1 has been deleted.
FD-57-OPC-A	The postcards parallel FD-57-OP-1 in color. This card has a "place stamp here" reverse.

Under FD-59-RP-2 add: "The back of this variant will turn gray or bright lavender under blacklight. It was printed two up on a sheet with FD-49-RP-4."
Under FD-59-RP-3 add: "The back of this variant will not turn gray or bright lavender under blacklight. It was printed two up on a sheet with FD-49-RP-3."

Under FD-60 change FD-60-OP-1 and FD-60-RP-2 to read

FD-60-OP-1 On the original the white area described under FD-60-RP-2 is filled with pale brown ink. 14 1/64" x 20"

FD-60-RP-2 Below the word "ROOM" on the right side of the photo is a heart shaped design with an arrowhead shaped tail. This tail is under the "M" in "ROOM." On the reprint there is a white area along the top edge of the arrowhead shaped tail. This area is c. 1/2" long by c. 1/32" wide. 14 3/64" x
 20 1/32"

Change FD-60-RP-3 to read:

FD-60-RP-3          In 2007 I located a copy of the Kama Sutra Records reprint of this poster. It turned out to be identical to FD-60-RP-2. See “The Mystery of Capitol Records and Kama Sutra Records Reprints” in the Table of Contents.

 

 

The good news is that after years of confusion, the mystery of FD-61 has, at last, been resolved.
The bad news is that most of what  has been in this guide about FD-61 before 2003 has been
wrong. My fellow scholar of this material, Jacaeber Kastor of Psychedelic Solution in New York
City, was only one third wrong, much better than me.

For years we have known that FD-61 was one of the few remaining images which we really did
not have correctly described, and in January 2003 we began exchanging emails seeking to figure
out what the truth is about this difficult image. Eventually we spent an hour and a half on the
phone with each other and with a group of posters and cards in front of us, and as we exchanged
insights, we finally were able to achieve accurate answers to our questions.

I believe that since many people rely on this guide, readers are entitled to more than just a
correction of a mistake. They are entitled to an explanation of why something was wrong and
why the new information is correct.  A description of the process of how the new conclusions
were reached will be found following the entry for this number.
 
 

    FD-61-OP-1 The original is identified by a horizontal band 1/8” wide running parallel to,
    below and touching the lowest pink border. This band in the blue area is a very faintly
    darker shade of blue than all the other blue of the poster. This band is most   visible
    beginning just above the “s” in “outlets” at the bottom and running to the left edge of the
    paper. There is also a similar band 1/16” wide and 1 1/2” long or longer extending
    vertically (at a right angle) upward from the first band in the left margin. It is necessary
    to search very carefully under very good light in order to find this band. Holding the
    poster at varying oblique angles can help. Another characteristic of this poster is a small
    dot immediately to the left of the “M” in “Moscoso.” Stock of this printing varies from
    .007” to .008” 14” x 20”

    FD-61-RP-2 The second printing does have the dot but not the band described under
    FD-61-OP-1. Stock also varies in thickness and texture. At least two separate stocks are
    known to exist for this printing. 14 1/64” x 20 1/16”

    FD-61-RP-3 This printing does not have the dot or the band described under FD-61-OP-1.

    FD-61-OPC-A This card has a “place stamp here” reverse. There is a faint darkening of
    the blue in a vertical band 1/8” wide down the card beginning above the “E” in “The
    Doors.”

    FD-61-OPC-B This card has a bulk mail permit reverse and the same band described
    under FD-61-OPC-A

    FD-61-OPC-C      Some copies of FD-61-OPC-B  were mechanically addressed and sent to
    people on the mailing list.

    FD-61-OPC-D  This card has a “place stamp here” reverse but no band as described under
    FD-61-OPC-A.

    FD-61-OPC-E      This card has a bulk mail permit reverse but no band as described under
    FD-61-OPC-A.

    FD-61-OPC-F       Some copies of FD-61-OPC-E were mechanically addressed and sent to
    people on the mailing list.

The process by which the new descriptions of FD-61 were arrived at is as follows:

The old signifier for FD-61, the difference between pure orange and reddish orange was always
considered problematic. Most of the readers of this guide found it useless because the semantics
of color are different from person to person. Many people even see color differently from eye to
eye (Try looking at something carefully with one eye shut. Then change eyes. Many people will
recognize subtle differences in color.). Furthermore experiments have shown that different
cultures describe color differently. If you take a color band tapering gradually between blue and
green and ask a person born and raised in Tokyo where the color stops being blue and starts
being green, that person will pick a different place along the band than a person born and raised
in New York City. Also I once was on a glacier and asked a dozen people whether  a particular
point on the glacier was blue or green, I got seven “blue” answers and five “greens.”

For this reason several people have looked very closely at FD-61 posters to find some marking
which would work. In early 2003 I finally noticed the band described under the new listing for
FD-61-OP-1. I examined it on several dozen copies, both those I thought were originals by color
and those I thought were reprints by color. All of those I  thought were reprints had the band,
and all those I thought were originals did not have it. I then sent this information to Jacaeber
Kastor of Psychedelic Solution in New York City. He studied many more copies and agreed it was
a workable signifier, but he believed I had it backwards. According to him it was the originals
which had the band. We then spent an hour and a half on the phone with a pile of copies of this
poster in front of each of us, and he noticed that the band does not disappear to the right of the
“S” in “Outlets.” It only becomes more faint. It actually runs all the way across the poster to the
right edge.

He then had the excellent insight that if he was right and the band was only on originals and ran
all the way to the edge of the poster, it would appear on two out of every six postcards because
the cards had been printed so that they were on the same double sheet with the original poster,
one poster with six cards. We both got out a number of cards, and we were both able to find
cards with the band running exactly where it should be according to his theory. This
demonstrated conclusively that those posters with the band are originals, those without are
reprints. In order to double check this I called Paul Getchell, another serious scholar of this
material, who owns a copy of the uncut printer’s proofsheet of FD-61 with the cards. I asked him
to look for the band, and he was able to find the band running all the way across the poster
horizontally and vertically down the lowest two cards on the sheet.  The cards on this sheet are
rotated 90 degrees from the poster so a horizontal line on the poster would be vertical on the
cards.

This leads to the question of how I managed to get the original and the reprint reversed for all
these years. I had used the logic used on most of the Family Dog items from this period, that
since the cards were never reprinted, the original poster was the one which matched the cards.
In this case for unknown reasons, the cards and posters do not match. Paul Getchell told me that
one of the things which is interesting about the proofsheet which he has is that the orange is
much darker and more reddish on the side/half of the postcards than it is on the side/half of the
poster. The darker, more reddish postcards more closely match the poster reprint which was done
later on a double sheet printed side by side with a poster of FD-66. Mr. Kastor has a photograph
of the printing plate of this item so we know it was printed this way. Further linking
FD-61-RP-2 to FD-66-RP-2 is the fact that the vertical bars/lines which appear in the red on that
poster also appear in the upper left red area of FD-66-RP-2 also appear in the upper left blue
area of FD-61-RP-2.

Mr. Kastor also showed me copies of another poster which is a third printing of FD-61 which does
not have the darker blue band and is missing the small dot which appears immediately to the left
of  the “Moscoso”  signature in the plate on FD-61-OP-1 and FD-61-RP-2. He believes, and I am
inclined to agree, that this poster was printed later, probably two up with two copies of the same
image.

I apologize to the buyers of this guide for this error which is probably the worst in this  guide
which has been discovered up to this point. I can only say that this is a fluid scholarship with new
discoveries made regularly, and those of us who study it try our best to see the information we
share with others is as accurate as possible.

Under FD-62 change posters to read:

FD-62-OP-1          In 2007 it was discovered that this poster was printed twice and that there are two variants of the original. Both variants of the original have a small  c. 1/64” blue dot in the right margin level with the right arm of the “Y” in the Family Dog logo. Both variants are printed on “rows” or “woven” textured stock. This variant has the rows pattern on the front of the poster. 14 1/32” x 20 1/64”

FD-62-OP-2       This variant with the blue dot described above has the rows pattern on the back of the poster. 14” x 19 31/32”

FD-62-RP-3       The reprint does not have the blue dot described above and is on stock which does not have a rows pattern on either side.  13 31/32” x 19 31/32”

FD-62-OPC-A This card has a “place stamp here” reverse. 4 63/64” x 7”

FD-62-OPC-B This card has a bulk rate permit reverse. 4 63/64” x 6 31/32”

FD-62-OPC-C Some copies of FD-62-OPC-B were mechanically addressed and sent to people on the mailing list. 

Under FD-62 notes add:

F. D. 62 Sutter's Mill

 In 2007 Phil Cushway, owner of Artrock, discovered that he owned two proof sheets of this poster, one with cards alongside the poster which was the original and
one printed side by side with FD-58, obviously a reprint. He studied these two sheets carefully and noticed that the original had the blue dot described above, and the reprint did not. In order to prove that the dot was not just a flaw on this copy but on the whole run, several hundred posters were sorted by dot/no dot and then sorted by stock. All copies with the dot were on one stock and all copies without the dot were on the other. This proved the dot was a reliable signifier for the original. Some cards have rows pattern on the front, some on the back.

After FD-63-RP-2 add

FD-63-RP-3 The image side of this reprint is the same watery, off-brown as FD-63-RP-2,but the color of the stock on the reverse is almost identical to the color of the reverse of the original.
14 3/64" x 21 51/64"

After FD-64-RP-2 add

 

FD-64-RP-3

This variant of the poster is similar in color to FD-64-RP-2 but instead of being on uncoated index it is on semi glossy stock.