Original Blue Notes vs Reissues

Just to add, most of the "sealed" records I have bought have corner cuts, punch holes etc...and are most likely bought up old store stock nos records that did not sell. I don’t care if the titles are not mainstream or on the "TAS" list or even if they are considered collectable! I buy them because if they are in fact legit, I’m the first to play it. I also buy them because as mentioned, they sound better than anything available today as a reissue. If there are no spindleMark’s, the labels are clean, the vinyl surface is clean and void of any scratches or marks, and most importantly plays without distortion or detectable groove wear, then I indeed received an actual "sealed" record imo. Life is a gamble, I’m willing to gamble on records, as I mostly win.

Just to mention, the sellers I buy from on Ebay have been members for a long time and have sold thousands of records and have 100% feedback. 

I have only one original Blue Note and number of 70x reissues + modern reissues.
I also have ~80 jazz and classical records from 1955 to 1964 period by other labels: Columbia, RCA, Verve, Atlantic.
IMHO, most this original records sound better than any reissue from any period in term of tone, texture of instruments, micro-dynamics, airy, alive.
90% of modern reissues are junk. For example I don’t understand any reason to do reissue using digital technologies in any stage of process.
There are some good modern reissues and very good reissues from 90x and 2000x. Some of them sound more "audiophile" then originals - more bass, cleaner and clearer high frequencies. But in 80% cases I will prefer VG++ original press to modern good reissue.
There are some rare exception like, Classical Records - Satchmo Plays King Oliver that sound for me even better than original.
Regards,
Alex.

Original Blue Note copies in well kept condition were never cheap, but in recent years they have become 'trophies for the rich' and prices have completely spiralled out of control. That's a most unfortunate trend for 'normal' record collectors. And for audiophiles too, as the originals do have a sound that even the best reissues have not managed to reproduce. 

Van Gelder's masterings - especially the mono's - were cut loud and stand out for their dynamics, bordering on distortion and sometimes crossing that border. If anything it's 'edge of the seat' stuff and modern audiophile reissues from Classic and Music Matters always sound too civilised in direct comparison. At least that's my opinion.

But given the expertise of guys like Bernie Grundman and Kevin Gray I wouldn't be surprised if their mastering work is actually closer to what's on the master tapes. And we can't rule out the possibility that these source tapes have deteriorated and lost some of their dynamic freshness after 50+ years, which would limit them in their attempts to recreate the original RVG sound.

What it comes down to for me is this: I always (need to) adjust my expectations whenever I put on one of those reissues, but never the other way around (except adjust the volume). That speaks - uh - volumes....

I own a number of the original Blue Note recordings and also a number of the Music Matters Reissues. Personally I usually prefer to listen to the reissue, simply because  the pressing is almost always quieter. OTOH, if the original is quiet, and I own several that are....I typically find that there really isn’t a huge difference between the original and the MM reissue. Unfortunately, I cannot say that for some of the other reissue labels compared to the original. I am going to be acquiring some of the Tone Poet series, should be interesting to see how they compare.

I agree