Jump to content

Zeppelin Mysteries Hosted by Steve A. Jones


SteveAJones

Recommended Posts

Sadly, it is true Philip Churchill Hale, a 23-year-old photographer and designer friend of Jimmy's, was found dead at Plumpton Place on October 15 1979. Jimmy testified at the

inquest and foul play was ruled out. I believe the coroner's report cited drug overdose as the cause of death.

Then, it talks about something else.

Steve,I always think you are an expert about Led Zeppelin.

But this is my former post(from another site).

This another expert says that the man who died at Plumpton Place was a 19 year old fan. Did two men die at Plumpton Place?

And were Charlotte and Scarlet staying in the house at that time?

Expert: Chris M. Zangara

Date: 6/7/2007

Subject: Jimmy Page autograph

Question

Hi Chris ! Could you tell me if Jimmy Page changed his autograph ? If he did, Do you know in which period ? Because recently I acquired a family christmas card signed by page (Jimmy, Charlotte and Scarlet)and the Pages's autograph is very similar than the autograph that he does today. Thank's a lot !!

Answer

Hello again Manel,

Thank you for sending the picture of Jimmy's autograph on the Christmas card. It's really not all that different from Page's usual signature but you can tell it was done very meticulously as it is clear and smooth. You may see other autographs of Page that are smaller, without as many "mm" looking curves, etc -- but that's probably as he's simply signing a quick autograph as opposed to something like this where he obviously sat down and took his time. I have a couple Robert Plant autographs from the same year and they are very different but you can still tell it's his signature.

The only way to guess the time period of your Page autograph is to consider the time period in which Jimmy owned Plumpton Place.

Jimmy bought Plumpton Place, East Sussex in 1971 and sold it in 1980 following a hardly-ever reported tragedy when a 19 year old fan died from an apparant drug overdose during a party on the grounds. No confirmation if Page was actually present that night.

Page spent most of his time at Plumpton Place following Robert's hiatus due to a broken foot during most of 1976 and some of 77. During that time he would often let fans walk the grounds and sometimes invite them in if he deemed they were not harmful or to rabid a Zep fan. He also did a few charity gigs in local pubs around that time, one famous one with Ron Wood from The Rolling Stones, just down the street at the Half Moon pub.

I'm going to assume that because of all this activity during 76 and early 77 - this was when this autograph was most likely created. If I find anything more, I'll be sure to post another follow-up.

Thanks Manel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good you are getting out of there BUT... it's number 333! What would Jimmy say?!?

I know! Imagine my surprize when I received it!! :hysterical:

Seriously, peace and prosperity to you both as you move

ever onward.

Very much appreciated mate! Cheers! :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SA(Scorcerer's Apprentice)Jones,you are the consummate Led Zeppelin historian.Your quest for the factual is admired by many of us on this forum.

Since the events that transpired over the last 24-36 hours,I was wondering,would you speculate on possible situations 2-5 months out from today?

What do you feel?What do you see?

This is still a mystery in the future tense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SA(Scorcerer's Apprentice)Jones,you are the consummate Led Zeppelin historian.Your quest for the factual is admired by many of us on this forum.

Since the events that transpired over the last 24-36 hours,I was wondering,would you speculate on possible situations 2-5 months out from today?

What do you feel?What do you see?

This is still a mystery in the future tense.

I will of course defer to Steve, as the question was directed to him. But expect Jimmy, John Paul and Jason to be hard at work on something new and exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will of course defer to Steve, as the question was directed to him. But expect Jimmy, John Paul and Jason to be hard at work on something new and exciting.

Ya baby :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SA(Scorcerer's Apprentice)Jones,you are the consummate Led Zeppelin historian.Your quest for the factual is admired by many of us on this forum.

Since the events that transpired over the last 24-36 hours,I was wondering,would you speculate on possible situations 2-5 months out from today?

What do you feel?What do you see?

This is still a mystery in the future tense.

To borrow a line of self-deprecating summation from Roy Harper, I'm just a sparrow in the gutter, really. Collaboration is the key!

I generally prefer to let Jimmy speak for himself regarding possibilities. If all goes well,

he'll be doing so in Toronto in about two weeks time. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This another expert says that the man who died at Plumpton Place was a 19 year old fan. Did two men die at Plumpton Place? And were Charlotte and Scarlet staying in the house at that time?

My post is correct...there was only one death...Jimmy was home at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An investigation of original and reproduction Led Zeppelin Objects courtesy of my friend,

the incomparable Rick Barrett:

The Presence “Object”: Real Or Repro?

by: Rick Barrett

I get LOTS of questions about the famous statue that was on the cover of Led Zeppelin's Presence album, which is called “The Object”. Hopefully this feature will give some background on it and answer some questions that commonly arise!

First of all, after Hipgnosis designed the Presence album cover, in which The Object was painted into the various scenes, Led Zeppelin had real Objects produced. That's what was used to photograph the album's black and white inner sleeves. Shortly thereafter, Alva Museum Graphics in New York was contracted to produce 1000 individually numbered 12" tall black Objects for Swan Song to use in their promotion of the record. On the base of each Object was imprinted the following on four sides:

1) LED ZEPPELIN (1/4" tall lettering)

2) "THE OBJECT" c 1976 SWAN SONG INC (VERY small lettering)

3) PRESENCE (1/4" tall lettering)

4) ____/1000 (The individual number was here; this information was etched by hand onto each Object

The originals came in brown cardboard boxes taped shut with brown paper filament tape. On the side of each box was a flat white sticker with "The Object" and "Copyright 1976 Swan Song" written in red. Some boxes have the number of the Object inside written in black magic marker on the outside of the box, on top. These brown cardboard boxes were nothing fancy; without the sticker it was just a plain brown cardboard box. When opened, one could see that The Object was packed in a brownish padded blanket of sorts...like those padded mailers filled with that shredded newspaper stuff. (Originals were NOT packaged with bubble wrap, and the cardboard boxes did NOT originally come shrink wrapped.) This is the only way and the only time The Object was ever released by Swan Song/Atlantic Records.

In the late 1970's-early 1980's, somewhere in the vicinity of 500 reproductions were made. Seems like there were lots more than that, but this is fact. There WERE many variations of the bogus Objects and they were all from the same source. None of the repros were numbered higher than 650 if memory serves me well, though there was one numbered 666! I do recall that there happened to be an overlap of some numbers on the fakes. I doubt there are any more than three of the same number on any of the repros. The numbering of these were done by hand, but they were not done chronologically; it seemed like whatever suited the bootleggers at the time was the norm. Most of the first run of repros had some cheap green felt on the bottom of The Object; subsequent ones were just plain black bottomed.

The differences between the originals and the 1980’s reproductions are as follows:

1) Originals: flat black paint;

Repros: glossy or semi-gloss black paint

2) Originals: very smooth sides and base; little or no imperfections

Repros: bulges and pits were prevelant, though not all that noticeable from a fair distance away; various flaws abound...brush marks from the paint, difficult to read etchings on the base, bulging top edge

3) Originals: underneath the thin coat of paint, a flesh-color appears IF a scratch or chip is not very deep; if deep then white shows through

Repros: Only a white color shows through if scratched or chipped

A REAL Object is in the left of these photos; a reproduction Object from the 1980’s is in the right of each photo:

ObjectImage2.jpg

ObjectImage1-1.jpg

**Both Originals and Repros were made of a hard plaster called hydrocale, and weighed the same. The originals were made of a higher quality material, which is one reason why there are less flaws than the hastily produced fakes. Both are also the same height.***

It is fairly safe to say that once one has seen an original Object, then you'll always be able to tell the difference between genuine and fakes. The differences are subtle enough for some to have been fooled by bootleg ones. Original Objects are not easy to find; most people who have them seem to want to keep them. Unlike many Zep items that seem to just appeal to hardcore Zeppelin fans, there are a LOT of music fans and collectors of promo items that want or have an Object. Real ones in an unopened box are becoming very rare; most people that get them open them up! I can't tell you how many people opened ones that we sold when we had a batch in the early 90's; one of our foreign customers had the unfortunate experience of having their original Object in the box opened by a Customs agent.

Finally, there has been another incarnation of reproduction Objects, manufactured by an artist in Oregon. These are very easy to tell from both the originals and reproduction Objects from a several decades ago because they have very rounded edges, are lighter in weight, and are usually numbered 310/1000:

ObjectImage3.jpg

ObjectImage4.jpg

The Object is a REALLY cool item; it's a GREAT conversation piece in any room and is quite an attention getter on a coffee table or shelf. If you're looking for an Object, good luck in your search!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my very good friends spent (lots of) very real money to travel there to see Jimmy specifically. You don't break that kind of promise cause you "don't feel like it". Yeah, it's Jimmy Page. And guess who my friends spent thousands to go see? Hell, the plane fare was ten times the ticket price. I'm just sayin. It doesn't matter who you are. If you're legitamately unable to perform, that's one thing. But these posts reek of ambiguity about it. Was he unfit to perform or not?

I don't care if it's Jimi Hendrix! A commitmant is a commitmant! Especially when people have wrapped their whole year, holiday and savings into seeing you.

I just don't agree with "If anyone on earth has a right to skip what he doesn't feel like doing, it's Jimmy Page."

I'm sure if you'd spent five grand on tickets to the show, airfare, hotels, etc, just to see Jimmy, and he "didn't feel like it", you'd have a different point of view.

Jimi Hendrix should come back from the grave to please you? :rolleyes:

Not Page's fault the promoters didn't tell the public farther in advance. And what a shame, since there are such hard feelings about it. Seems to me they owe Jimmy an apology.

Page has busted his ass his entire life. What's the big deal if he didn't feel like travelling and performing several weeks after surgery? That's perfectly legitimate to the orthopedic surgeons I know.

I sure haven't heard what, if anything else, was going on, and doubt those who remain miffed about it will explain it, either. If I had to guess, I'd say somehow Planty pissed him off good and proper, but heck, maybe he just felt like playing old timey gospel songs down by the lake instead.

No one's explained yet why that's not his perogative every bit as much as it is Robert Plant's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to open a new topic for this so I write it down here (perhaps it is a "Mystery"):

In the book "John Bonham- The powerhosue behind Led Zeppelin" Mick writes that he appeared on stage at the concert in Preston, Town Hall on November 27, 1971. I never found this gig listed on any concert-list. But it seems to me that it happened. He writes about it:

"...it was an extra date added the original tour dates hat been confirmed, so the gig was never written about an there were no photos....it was about the only gig not to be recorded on bootleg"

Steve, can you clear it up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Page's fault the promoters didn't tell the public farther in advance. And what a shame, since there are such hard feelings about it. Seems to me they owe Jimmy an apology.

Page has busted his ass his entire life. What's the big deal if he didn't feel like travelling and performing several weeks after surgery?

Claude Nobs owes Jimmy no apology. I believe notice was not given further in advance because all interested parties were offering Jimmy ample opportunity to summon up the wherewithal to at least appear, if not perform. Claude ensured full refunds at the door were offered for any ticket holder who preferred one.

If you must know what the big deal is it's that Ahmet passed away fairly soonafter.

As one who was at his tribute in Montreux, this is still a highly sensitive and personal issue for me. You see, to this day I cannot understand why Jimmy willfully failed to honor his commitment to Ahmet in life, and it's the precise reason why so far as I was concerned he and Harvey Goldsmith could stick their 02 gig where the sun don't shine.

Nothing personal, just raw emotions.

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claude Nobs owes Jimmy no apology. I believe notice was not given further in advance because all interested parties were offering Jimmy ample opportunity to summon up the wherewithal to at least appear, if not perform. Claude ensured full refunds at the door were offered at the door for any ticket holder who preferred one.

If you must know what the big deal is it's that Ahmet passed away fairly soonafter.

As one who was at his tribute in Montreux, this is still a highly sensitive and personal issue for me. You see, to this day I cannot understand why Jimmy willfully failed to honor his commitment to Ahmet in life, and it's the precise reason why so far as I was concerned he and Harvey Goldsmith could stick their 02 gig where the sun don't shine.

Nothing personal, just raw emotions.

Maybe, Led Wallet felt cheated. Didn't they file suit against Atlantic/Warner bros around this time? Did Ahmet still have influence, and what was the the outcome of that ugliness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to open a new topic for this so I write it down here (perhaps it is a "Mystery"):

In the book "John Bonham- The powerhosue behind Led Zeppelin" Mick writes that he appeared on stage at the concert in Preston, Town Hall on November 27, 1971. I never found this gig listed on any concert-list. But it seems to me that it happened. He writes about it:

"...it was an extra date added the original tour dates hat been confirmed, so the gig was never written about an there were no photos....it was about the only gig not to be recorded on bootleg"

Steve, can you clear it up?

Led Zeppelin performed at Preston Town Hall on November 23rd 1971, not the 27th.

It is indeed among the few Led Zeppelin gigs for which no recording is known to exist.

However, there is an authentic ticket stub and two comments from attendees in the official timeline, lending credence beyond a reasonable doubt to it actually having been performed. Perhaps there was an advert or review published to further confirm the date

and details.

Mick would certainly have no reason to embellish having appeared with them onstage

(it is he who blows the whistle on the studio version of 'Fool In The Rain') but clearly

the date provided is a typo. They would have had no inclination to return to Preston just four days after having played there during a brief month-long UK tour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, Led Wallet felt cheated. Didn't they file suit against Atlantic/Warner bros around this time? Did Ahmet still have influence, and what was the the outcome of that ugliness?

Had nothing to do with it! Jimmy and Ahmet had socialized more than once since that lawsuit was filed March 12, 2002 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ledzep1.html

I think it's still in litigation. I also like to think Ahmet remains influential in this world.

Apparently, Jimmy and Robert may have had a falling out the month prior in Stockholm,

where they along with JPJ and Zoe Bonham went to receive the Polar Music Prize award from Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf.

Bottom line is he wasn't there but he was out with Ross Halfin in London the same night.

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Led Zeppelin performed at Preston Town Hall on November 23rd 1971, not the 27th.

It is indeed among the few Led Zeppelin gigs for which no recording is known to exist.

However, there is an authentic ticket stub and two comments from attendees in the official timeline, lending credence beyond a reasonable doubt to it actually having been performed. Perhaps there was an advert or review published to further confirm the date

and details.

Mick would certainly have no reason to embellish having appeared with them onstage

(it is he who blows the whistle on the studio version of 'Fool In The Rain') but clearly

the date provided is a typo. They would have had no inclination to return to Preston just four days after having played there during a brief month-long UK tour!

It was indeed the 23rd. The concert kicked off at 7.45pm. Mick Bonham is rumoured to have played congas during "Whole Lotta Love" but as there is no known bootleg or published photos it would be impossible to confirm.

Meg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimi Hendrix should come back from the grave to please you? :rolleyes:

Obviously not! :rolleyes:

Any reasonable person would know I was being facetious, and implied no such expectation.

Considering the hate mail I've been receiving from you in my inbox for the last few days, perhaps it would be better if we don't quote each others posts until you calm down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was indeed the 23rd. The concert kicked off at 7.45pm. Mick Bonham is rumoured to have played congas during "Whole Lotta Love" but as there is no known bootleg or published photos it would be impossible to confirm.

Meg

Thanks Steve and Meg. I know about the 23rd November Gig. But I thought, that it possible could have been an "seceret" gig. And I couldn't believe that Mick didn't remeber the correct date. But if you say it was the 23rd gig, I'll trust you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously not! :rolleyes:

Any reasonable person would know I was being facetious, and implied no such expectation.

Considering the hate mail I've been receiving from you in my inbox for the last few days, perhaps it would be better if we don't quote each others posts until you calm down.

Hence the :rolleyes: . Any reasonable person would know I was being facetious in return.

And, um, Evster darlin', your mail to me hasn't actually been full of love and kisses, you know.

When you get over the idea that I am required to behave according to a different set if rules than you are, do let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the :rolleyes: . Any reasonable person would know I was being facetious in return.

And, um, Evster darlin', your mail to me hasn't actually been full of love and kisses, you know.

When you get over the idea that I am required to behave according to a different set if rules than you are, do let me know.

Seemslike you are spreading your love around behind the scenes then SC. And I thought I was the only one in your life.

I am disappointed at your two timing me with The Evester :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the :rolleyes: . Any reasonable person would know I was being facetious in return.

And, um, Evster darlin', your mail to me hasn't actually been full of love and kisses, you know.

When you get over the idea that I am required to behave according to a different set if rules than you are, do let me know.

The crux of it is elementary. Your mail has been accusatory. Mine has been defensive. Plain and simple. You smack me down, hugs and kisses are not to be expected in return. Now we've both been asked by the mods to stop this arguing on the open board. What say you we do so, and stop mucking up Steve's thread?

Edited by Evster2012
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...