The Velvet Underground Myth: How Popular Was the Banana Album?

The Velvet Underground Myth:

How Popular Was the Banana Album?

I’ve finally updated my 2021 investigation into how popular the Velvet Underground were during their lifetime. This can be viewed at Into Creative here: https://www.intocreative.co.uk/the-velvet-underground-myth-grant-mcphee/. It can also be read as a companion to this new update, as not all of the information it contains is repeated here. That said, there should be a caveat that some of the figures in the earlier article are now out of date and have been updated for this piece.

The original article’s wider scope — how popular the Velvet Underground were during their lifetime — has since developed into a series of related, deeper dives into the band’s overall popularity, mostly based on historical and contemporaneous press. This will likely grow to well over 100 Substack posts, each covering an individual month from December 1965 through the 1990s.

1963-December 1967 can be viewed in the below link:

Because the scope of the original “popularity myth” article has changed so drastically as a result of these press deep dives, it felt more useful to create a companion post focused specifically on the popularity of the debut album, rather than letting this material get lost.

This article attempts to determine actual sales numbers through three processes: (1) perceived popularity, (2) sales determined by releases, and (3) sales determined through royalties, finishing with an overall analysis based on all three combined with contemporaneous band interviews.

Here we go…

How Popular Was the Banana Album? And How Many Copies Did it Sell During the Band’s Lifetime?

Of course, popularity is relative. The clearest determiners of popularity for a musical artist are record sales and press coverage.

Before addressing these determiners, we must ask the question: why?

Well, a myth has developed around both the band and the album. Fascinatingly, the non-music press contemporaneous with the band’s lifetime does not reflect much of this myth.

What is the myth? A cursory Google search brings up a multitude of articles, blog posts, social media comments, and post-1971 opinions claiming that the band were “virtually unknown” during their lifetime, received very little press coverage, and sold only a tiny number of records until punk came along and they were “rediscovered.”

Perhaps the biggest and most frequently quoted proponent of this myth is Brian Eno, whose now-infamous quote — often taken out of context — has become the apocryphal: “The Velvet Underground & Nico barely sold any records, but everyone who bought one went out and formed a band.” (with several variations in its retelling).

Having watched a recent (to 2021) Netflix documentary on Andy Warhol, I was surprised to learn just how popular he was during the 1960s. I had assumed that he, and his Factory compadres, were struggling artists operating on the fringes of the culture. It was therefore revelatory (to me) for the documentary to demonstrate that by the start of the 1960s he was America’s highest-paid commercial artist, and that by the end of the decade — aside from perhaps Picasso — he was the world’s most famous artist. He was also almost certainly one of America’s most effective self-publicists.

As I was watching the Warhol film primarily as a fan of the Velvet Underground, I was well aware of his name being emblazoned on the front cover of their first album, as well as the fact that he served as their manager from late 1965-mid 1967.

Now knowing of this fame, I thought of the Eno quote, and something didn’t sound right about it. Surely, with Warhol’s involvement, the band would have been better known — and would they not then have sold more than 30,000 records?

Where would I start? The common figure thrown around is for 30,000 records in its first five years. An obvious starting point would be to discover where this Eno quote came from. It’s very poorly attributed in general but it can be pinpointed to a Los Angeles Times interview from 1982:

““My reputation is far bigger than my sales,” he said with a laugh on the phone from his home in Manhattan. “I was talking to Lou Reed the other day, and he said that the first Velvet Underground record sold only 30,000 copies in its first five years. Yet, that was an enormously important record for so many people. I think everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band! So I console myself in thinking that some things generate their rewards in second-hand ways.””

That figure of 30,000 records appears to have been provided to him by, none other than Lou Reed himself. Surely we can believe old Lou? I don’t think so.

I’m an avid reader of Discogs, an online resource for record sellers. It contains a HUGE and very concise discography, and more importantly it details almost every variation of a band’s records: Original releases, reissues, subtle variations within these issues, foreign releases and so on and on. It’s user-updated and is very, very concise.

A quick look at the entry for The Velvet Underground and Nico is very telling. It contains 462 versions, including over 30 alone in 1967.

Additionally, Olivier Landemaine runs another very detailed resource covering these variations -http://olivier.landemaine.free.fr/vu/discog/lps/usa/lpsusa.html

And Mark Satlof has the world’s largest collection of copies of the debut album and has been another huge resource. https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/03/11/519306037/velvet-underground-and-nico-50-years-first-record-800-copies-collection

If we compare the entry for the Velvets’ debut with that of another similarly pioneering “cult” US band from the same era — the 13th Floor Elevators’ debut — we see a stark contrast: only one issue in its debut year plus a promo, three issues in 1967, one in 1968, and then nothing until 1977. This was a band who actually did have a minor hit record. - (here is an article I put together detailing the semi ‘hit’)

Of course, I don’t believe this Discogs entry is complete, but nevertheless there is an interesting disparity when comparing pressings between both bands’ debut albums. The number of VU pressings listed, once analysed will be a huge resource in revealing the level of popularity.

At this juncture it’s important we introduce Warhol’s popularity, which I touched upon. From very late 1965 to the middle of 1967 Warhol managed/’sponsored’ the band. Despite years of repeated claims of the band almost being unknown to a wider public during their lifetime - see Dylan Jones’ recent Loaded biography for further evidence of this claim - this is demonstrably untrue. An argument could be made that the Velvet Underground were rarely mentioned in the music press during their first two years this is certainly untrue of the mainstream, local and regional press. There are literally hundreds of mainstream articles featuring the exploits of Warhol and the band during 1966-1967. Here’s a brief example:

Even the UK mainstream press — The Daily Mirror being one example — was running multiple articles on the band during 1966, before they even had a record out.

Of course, this was a very different type of press from that afforded to “pop bands,” due to its arts and ‘high society’ focus. Nonetheless, the Velvet Underground were written about as extensively as many high-selling groups of the day. My 1965–1967 press-cuttings posts offer only a glimpse of how extensively they were covered.

If you don’t believe me then have a look at those press cuttings in the link I provided near the start of this article— the coverage the band received during this period is phenomenal.

It should therefore come as no surprise that Verve/MGM had high expectations for the success of the Banana album, based on this extensive mainstream press coverage, once a release date was finally set — an early problem that would have a significant effect on sales.

The later than expected release date was due to a multitude of delays - the elaborate sleeve design and a last minute inclusion of a potential ‘hit single’ being two - which would pale into comparison with later problems causing further delays, as we will see.

The Confusing Release Date.

Adverts first started appearing for the album in January 1967, The Great Falls Tribune displaying a listing for the album on the 27th.

Billboard and Cashbox would follow on the 28th with an inventory listing and a full page advert of Verve’s upcoming releases. Interestingly, this shows only the back-cover of the album, adding weight to the recent press coverage during late 1966, documenting the Warhol ‘Banana Theme’ artwork causing a release delay.

Interestingly, Discogs (and a huge amount of biographies) state that the album was released on the 12th March 1967. However, this certainly does not appear possible. That date was a Sunday. Additionally there is a review I found in the 24th February Troy Daily News. Possibly the first review ever of the album. And it’s a fantastic one!

What does this review tell us beyond it sounding like an intriguing listen? It suggests the high possibility that the album was released before 12th March. The fact that the “official” release date falls on the earlier mentioned Sunday lends weight to the likelihood that the actual release occurred on a different date.

However, for this revised late-February date to be correct, it would require the reviewer not to have broken a potential press embargo — something record companies generally enforce, in that reviews are not published unless the album is available to the public. It seems unlikely that a reviewer would break such an embargo, so the most reasonable conclusion is that there was no embargo and that the album was released in February.

Further weight can be placed on February as a release date due to the high amount of reviews printed in early March, as seen here- https://substack.com/home/post/p-184253255

Cashbox and Billboard too both had ‘reviews’ on the 4th of March.

Cashbox and Billboard were the two primary chart compilers in the mid-1960s. There are three crucial points to consider regarding how charts were compiled in the US.

i) Most importantly, Billboard and Cashbox compiled their charts very differently. Billboard based its chart on a combination of record sales and airplay, whereas Cashbox compiled its chart using record sales alone. To determine the most accurate sales figures for the VU album, Cashbox would therefore appear to be the simpler and more relevant source.

ii) However, chart return shops were vulnerable to chart hyping — the illegal practice of record companies “buying” their own records to artificially inflate chart positions. It should also be noted that DJs and radio stations were likewise prone to chart fixing.

iii) Finally, not every shop in the US was used for generating chart positions. Far, far from it. While a representative sample of shops across the US should, in theory, provide a reasonable indication of sales, not all shops sold the same styles of music. This posed a particular problem for stores specialising in niche genres such as jazz and “underground” music, which were often not used as chart return outlets - a problem that would last for decades.

Cashbox was the first to publish a chart placement for the album, based purely on record sales as previously noted. On the 8th of April it reached No. 138, which is fairly respectable (a point we will return to later).

As respectable as this placement was, a crisis was unfolding behind the scenes that fundamentally prevented the album from reaching an almost guaranteed higher position. Upon release, the actor Eric Emerson — whose torso appeared on the back cover image — objected to its unsolicited use and filed a lawsuit against MGM seeking financial damages. As a result, the album was withdrawn almost immediately after release, severely impacting the press interest already built. Any momentum was lost as the album became unavailable during the period of litigation.

Unfortunately, there is no publicly available documentation detailing this crisis. I initially assumed it occurred in late May or early June, based on circumstantial evidence (which we will examine later). However, through email correspondence with Richie Unterberger, author of White Light/White Heat: The Velvet Underground Day to Day, he kindly informed me:

“Emerson took legal action about the cover by the end of March, and the label started to use the sticker by mid-April. I found information about the court case in the Andy Warhol Archives at the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh. The archives don’t allow copies of the documents to be circulated.”

This sticker is known as the Emerson Lawsuit cover, which we know — based on Richie’s research — was made available in mid-April. I think it may be possible to narrow this date slightly earlier by correlating the Cashbox entry with a small remaining number of non-lawsuit covers and the appearance of the new snickered variants. Certainly, the trend shown in the Cashbox chart over the next few weeks demonstrates how this cover change now positively affected subsequent sales.

15th April saw it appear at No. 131

22nd April saw it rise to No. 124

6th May, and it’s now at 117

20th May and it reaches its peak at No. 105. It hovers around No. 114 until the 2nd week of July suggesting relatively small but stable sales.

This chart position in Cashbox is certainly reflective of record store adverts in local press proclaiming the album one of the ‘Top Hot Selling albums’, in addition to the promotional work being done in monthly contemporaneous press.

Billboard

Billboard, on the 6th May would feature another Verve ‘Underground’ artists poster.

And on the 13th of May saw the album enter the Billboard Chart at No. 199, a month after it had charted on Cashbox, an odd discrepancy.

That week’s Billboard also contained some interesting information about the promotional team behind the new Verve ‘underground’ releases:

Although there is evidence of radio play it is very small and this could certainly reflect the lower placed Billboard listing, which as we know is made from combined physical sales and radio-play.

By the 10th June it had reached its temporary highest position at 195 - until a surprising re-entry in November which will be looked at later.

From mid 1967 onward, the story becomes somewhat strange, with a number of seeming contradictions.

The band disengaged themselves from Warhol, which — though speculative on my part — may help explain several of these anomalies.

Firstly, we have the confusion of the Canadian cover. Discogs lists its release as March, in line with the US release date. I believe this date is also incorrect; based on a Toronto Star review from June that suggests that the album had been released in the US four months earlier but that “until recently, it was released nowhere else.”

Confusingly, the Canadian release did not feature the infamous Warhol banana on the front cover, but instead used the rear cover image. In this case, bizarrely, it was the Emerson torso image — which was the subject of an active lawsuit until 1 May, when Emerson was paid $1,000. Why the label would choose to release the album in this form at that point suggests a very odd piece of decision-making. The Canadian edition would later appear with the airbrushed torso cover.

In fact, the November UK release would also appear with the airbrushed “back cover.”

And the German issue followed a similar pattern, despite the Discogs entry initially listing the Banana cover, followed by the airbrushed Emerson back-cover version.

The Warhol banana sleeve would not officially appear in the UK or Germany until 1971, at which point it used original 1967 US “airbrushed” peelable covers — although some German copies from the 1960s appear to have imported these earlier.

My speculation is that this pattern reflects either the deteriorating relationship with Warhol during this period, or the practical complexity of producing the US cover design and costs to export. I would suggest the latter as the primary factor, were it not for later non-US pressings initially utilising US-made covers before transitioning to region-specific versions.

What I’m at odds to explain is the surprise reappearance of the album in the US charts in November as there is little to indicate a surge in press attention (which was running consistently from release).

Peaking at No. 171 on the 18th December.

Before disappearing after the 8th January, 1968

The slightly earlier release of the Nico solo album would certainly have given this a small amount of attention but the most likely reason is the Discogs noted early 1968 rerelease of the album - containing an airbrushed torso - actually haven taken place instead in November 1967 instead.

UK Release

The album was eventually released in the UK in November 1967 and received a small amount of press. We’ll come back to the UK release as it offers a significant opportunity to estimate sales. In many ways it already offers insight into how ‘happy’ Verve/MGM were.

It should be noted that a record company is very unlikely to release a foreign territory album if projected sales are to be low. The inference here being that Verve/MGM were happy with current US sales.

Sales

There is, of course, the early 1969 royalties statement from MGM that gives a figure higher than Eno’s — and Lou’s 1982 “recollection” — of 30,000 copies sold in the first five years. The MGM statement represents far more solid evidence, and we may be able to add further weight to it by attempting to extrapolate additional evidence from this with other sources.

We see a unit figure of 13, 336 for the Mono copy and 45, 140 for the Stereo totalling almost 60,000 units, a reasonable amount, certainly in relation to Eno’s 30,000 figure over 5 years anyway.

60,000 US Copies Estimated to be sold from Feb/March 1967 to February 1969

Of course, the two earlier accounting dates have lower sales which seems intuitive in relation to the 1967 chart placings. This is not an issue as we know there were spikes in sales due to the album’s initial periods of being unavailable. Also, White Light/White Heat (the subject for another article) was made available in January 1968 which likely aided debut sales throughout 1968.

UK Sales.

The MGM statement is empty of unit sales but a data driven estimate too can be used with the earlier accounting period methodology.

Methodology: Estimating UK Units From the February 1969 MGM Statement
The February 1969 MGM royalty statement lists a discrete royalty payment for “England” without accompanying unit quantities, indicating foreign license income rather than direct domestic accounting. In such cases, unit sales can be estimated by dividing the royalty payment by a plausible per-unit artist royalty rate for UK-licensed LPs of the period. Late-1960s UK licensing arrangements typically returned a small royalty to the US rights holder—often equivalent to roughly $0.06–$0.10 per LP when converted to US dollars. Applying this range to the $376.70 UK royalty payment shown on the statement yields an estimated 3,800–6,300 UK units credited during that accounting period.

3,800–6,300 UK Copies Estimated to be sold from November 1967-February 1969

Stampers

There is further data available to us to estimate album sales - stampers.

London/Jazz offers a neat breakdown of how Verve/MGM, in the mid 1960s created albums.

In the 1960s, Verve Records (which was acquired by MGM in December 1960) utilized a standard industrial “3-step plating” process to mass-produce high-quality vinyl records. This method was the industry standard for large production runs, typically allowing for the pressing of up to 100,000 records from a single lacquer.

The 3-step process consists of the following technical stages:

1. Step 1: The Father (Master)
   The original lacquer disc, containing the music grooves, is sprayed with silver and then electroplated with nickel. When separated, this creates a Father (or Master) plate, which is a metal negative of the record (with raised ridges instead of grooves).

2. Step 2: The Mother
   The Father plate is put back into an electroplating tank to produce a Mother plate. The Mother is a metal positive (with grooves like the final record) and can be played on a turntable to verify audio quality before proceeding to mass production. One Father can typically produce up to 10 Mothers.

3. Step 3: The Stamper
   The Mother plate undergoes a final electroplating process to create the Stampers. These are metal negatives (with raised ridges) used directly in the record press to mould the hot vinyl into the final disc. One Mother can produce approximately 10 Stampers, and each Stamper can press about 1,000 records.

Extrapolating data from this process certainly can be an indicator of sales. Unfortunately it is not an easy process to determine stampers across record labels.

However, we are lucky as EMI pressed UK copies. Due to the detailed and fevered analysis of Beatles records the EMI stamper system has been decoded and detailed for many years. We can apply this to the Velvet Underground too as it is universal with EMI records (EMI manufactured and distributed MGM records up to 1971).

I’ve used information and an image from the excellent thebeatles-collection.com to help explain this decoding process easier. And I have used the available matrix information for pressings listed on discogs - which importantly for us is incomplete.

Methodology: Estimating UK Units From Stamper Data
UK stamper and matrix information provides an indirect but useful proxy for estimating production volume. In the late 1960s, UK LP pressing plants typically derived one stamper from a mother, with each stamper capable of producing a finite number of pressings before a new one had to be used. While exact yields varied by plant and material quality, industry norms allow stamper counts to be translated into approximate pressing quantities. By examining the highest observed stamper codes for this the banana album and applying cautious assumptions about stamper yield, it is possible to derive an estimate of the number of UK copies manufactured during the relevant period. This method does not measure sales directly, but it establishes a plausible upper range for units pressed and therefore available to sell. For us, the relevant period can only go as far as 1971, although Discogs states 1969 as the last EMI manufactured copy. This, coincidently and happily aligns with the MGM royalty statement.

Stamper Code System and Yield Assumptions
EMI pressing plants in the 1960s used an alphanumeric stamper code system derived from a fixed letter sequence (commonly the “GRAMOPHLTD” sequence), with each letter corresponding to a numerical value. Under this system, a single letter indicates a stamper number (e.g., G = 1, R = 2, A = 3, etc.), while two-letter combinations represent higher sequential stampers. Each stamper was produced from a mother and was capable of pressing a finite number of records before degradation required replacement. While exact yields varied depending on vinyl formulation, press calibration, and quality standards, industry estimates typically place stamper yield in the range of 500–1,500 pressings per stamper for LPs during this period. In the estimates presented here, yields toward the lower end of that range are favoured to avoid overstating production volume.

Mono Stamper Progression and Yield Estimate
UK mono pressings for the album show a limited stamper progression, with codes suggesting only a small number of stamper ever being put into service. Applying a conservative assumption of 500–700 pressings per mono stamper, and allowing for the possibility that one or two additional stampers may have existed but are not represented in currently catalogued copies, yields an estimated mono production range of approximately 1,200–2,000 units. This range reflects both the narrow stamper sequence observed and the historical context: mono LP production in the UK declined rapidly during 1968, and mono pressings of new or marginal titles were often curtailed early or produced only in small residual batches.

Stereo Stamper Progression, B/R ambiguity, and Yield Estimate
Stereo pressings on Discogs show a broader stamper progression, consistent with stereo dominance by late 1968. When interpreting stereo stamper codes, particular care must be taken with visually similar letters—most notably B and R, which are frequently misread in runout inscriptions due to stamp wear in online listings. Where such ambiguity exists, the lower numerical interpretation has been preferred unless corroborating copies clearly support the higher value. Using a conservative yield assumption of 700–1,000 pressings per stereo stamper, and again allowing for limited unobserved stampers, the stereo production estimate falls in the range of approximately 2,800–4,300 units. This reflects a longer production run and higher sustained demand relative to mono.

Accounting For “jumped” Stamper Numbers and Incomplete Documentation
It is important to note that online databases such as Discogs do not document every pressing variation, and gaps in observed stamper sequences should not be interpreted as definitive evidence that intermediate stampers never existed. Stampers may be absent from surviving examples, undocumented by collectors, or associated with pressings that have not yet been catalogued. To account for this, the estimates above incorporate a modest allowance for “jumped” stamper numbers by assuming the existence of one or two additional stampers beyond the highest confidently observed codes. This approach avoids both extremes by neither assuming a complete database nor extrapolates inflated units from incomplete data.

The MGM royalty statement gave us a UK estimate of 3,800–6,300 Copies.

Synthesis of mono and stereo estimates
When combined, the mono and stereo stamper-derived estimates yield a total UK production figure in the range of approximately 4,000–6,000 units, which closely mirrors the independently derived estimate based on the February 1969 MGM royalty statement. Importantly, both methods also converge on a stereo-dominant format mix, reinforcing the conclusion that the UK activity reflected in the 1969 statement belongs to a late-1968/early-1969 sales window rather than cumulative sales from 1967. The agreement between physical manufacturing evidence (stampers) and financial accounting data (royalties) strengthens confidence in both estimates and suggests that UK sales during this period were modest, format-skewed toward stereo, and consistent with the album’s niche market position at the time.

We need to be clear that these estimates are missing linking data - stamper information as Discogs is incomplete and more detailed royalty information is required to increase accuracy. However, what data is available does allow for a strong estimate. And that both individual methodologies appear to align in their estimates. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that from November 1967 to mid 1969 there were 4,000-6,000 units of the album sold in the UK.

US sales based on Stamper codes 1967-1969

Unfortunately it is far messier to carry out a similar estimates for US releases based on pressing information.

We know that at least two pressing plants were used - East and West and we know that Mono and Stereo variants were used.

http://olivier.landemaine.free.fr/vu/discog/lps/usa/lpsusa.html has been a hugely helpful resource for obtaining these.

Why U.S. Matrices Cannot Be Converted Into Units

Unlike UK pressings, U.S. vinyl manufactured in the late 1960s does not employ a standardised stamper-coding system that allows visible runout inscriptions to be translated into sequential stamper numbers or pressing quantities. Examination of U.S. mono and stereo pressings of The Velvet Underground & Nico shows matrix information limited to catalog identifiers, master numbers (MG/MGS 558–559), and occasional revision markers (e.g., “REV,” “RE-1”), which denote lacquer recuts rather than stamper changes. U.S. pressing plants typically replaced stampers internally without altering runout inscriptions, meaning that a single matrix variant may represent a small or large number of pressings with no external indication of scale. As a result, U.S. dead-wax evidence is well suited to reconstructing pressing chronology, format transitions, and manufacturing geography, but it does not support a defensible conversion from observed matrix variants to absolute unit totals.

For this reason, U.S. matrix data is best used qualitatively, not quantitatively, and should be interpreted alongside accounting and manufacturing evidence rather than as a standalone proxy for sales.

Integrating U.S. Matrix Evidence With UK Stamper and Royalty Analysis

While U.S. matrix inscriptions cannot be used to derive unit directly, they provide important context and confirmation for estimates derived from UK stamper analysis and royalty accounting. The U.S. matrices document parallel East and West Coast manufacturing, early mono and stereo parity followed by a rapid decline in mono, and continued reuse of stereo metalwork into later catalog pressings. This pattern is consistent with a sales trajectory characterised by the relatively modest initial demand, plus sustained low-level catalog sales and increasing stereo dominance by late 1968.

These qualitative signs align closely with the quantitative estimates derived independently from UK stamper yields and the February 1969 MGM royalty statement, both of which point to moderate but real sales activity rather than either immediate commercial failure or large-scale hit status. Taken together, the U.S. matrix evidence supports the shape and timing of sales inferred from other sources, even where it cannot specify absolute quantities.

The 1971–72 UK reissue

Off the back of Loaded being issued in the UK in 1971 a campaign was launched to re-issue the entire catalogue, which was now being manufactured and distributed by Polydor. This coincided with much press interest in 1971. Loaded in the UK was manufactured and distributed by Polydor for Atlantic. This allowed for all four albums to be made available at the same time, and with the addition of a double compilation - The Velvet Underground FEATURING Nico.

Can we estimate the sales from the remaining two years of the bands life (1969-1971) beyond the MGM royalty statement and EMI stampers? Unfortunately this hugely important document and the jump to Polydor vastly reduces useful data.

Matrix evidence for the October 1971 UK reissue (Verve SUPER 2315 056) shows the consistent use of first-cut lacquers (A//1 and B//1) with no contemporaneous UK recuts (e.g., A//2/B//2), indicating that the campaign was executed from a single lacquer set. In Polydor practice this constrains total manufacture, as sales substantially exceeding the capacity of a small number of stampers would normally necessitate new lacquer cuts.

Applying conservative early-1970s yields (approximately 800–1,200 pressings per stamper) and allowing for incomplete documentation, the most defensible estimate for the 1971 reissue places total UK manufacture in the range of ~2,500–6,000 copies, with a central estimate around ~3,500–4,500. The appearance of contemporaneous “MADE IN U.S.A.” label variants is best understood not as evidence of a separate large-scale campaign, but as a pragmatic response to short-term demand—supplementing UK supply via U.S. pressing rather than commissioning new UK lacquers—suggesting that the title was moving faster than initially anticipated, but not at a level requiring structural expansion of the UK metalwork.

What makes this figure particularly striking is the compressed time window in which these sales appear to have occurred: almost certainly late 1971 into 1972, rather than spread across many years. In that context, selling several thousand copies of a five-year-old album represents a notably strong performance. The attached Virgin Records “30 Best Selling Albums” store chart from 1971, which places The Velvet Underground & Nico relatively high (around #13), provides an important qualitative explanation for this outcome. While this chart is not equivalent to the official UK album chart—it reflects sales within a specialist independent retailer and likely does not incorporate broader national returns—it nevertheless documents strong sell-through in precisely the type of “underground” retail environment most receptive to the reissue campaign. Given the existence of similar specialist shops across London and other major cities, the Virgin chart supports the interpretation that the reissue’s success was concentrated, rapid, and niche-driven, rather than diffuse mainstream exposure. Seen this way, the fact that the 1971–72 reissue may have matched—or exceeded—the album’s original late-1960s UK sales over a far shorter period underscores the effectiveness of the campaign and the album’s dramatically changed cultural standing by the early 1970s.

Later UK manufacture (1978–83)

This falls out of our timeframe but it does offer some useful information for the progression of sales in the UK and how they relate to 1971.

Subsequent UK pressings—such as the 1978 Verve SUPER 2315 056 variant showing B//2 on Side B, the 1981 Verve Deluxe (2490 159), and the 1983 mid-price Polydor/RCA issues (SPELP 20)—document a distinct, later phase in the album’s UK manufacturing history. These releases involve new matrix identities, label designs, and, in some cases, format changes (e.g., non-gatefold sleeves, mid-price branding, cassette editions), indicating fresh production decisions rather than the continuation of the 1971 metalwork. Importantly, these later pressings are best understood as catalog maintenance and periodic re-presentation of an established title over the long term, rather than evidence of sustained high-volume demand at any single point. Their existence demonstrates durability and continued interest across the late 1970s and early 1980s, but they should not be retroactively folded into estimates for the 1971–72 reissue campaign itself, which remains a discrete, tightly bounded episode of concentrated sales activity.

Essentially, what this offers us is evidence that all stampers from the 1971 UK pressing were used by the early 70s, necessitating exporting from the US, followed by new UK metalwork in the late 70s. i.e. a lot of copies were sold in the UK during the mid 70s.

1969-71 US Sales

The 1970 Fusion article has been cited as evidence that The Velvet Underground & Nico had sold “nearly a quarter of a million copies” by the turn of the decade, but a close reading shows that it is not a reliable source for audited sales figures. The article’s claim that the album “sells 215,000 copies with 700–1000 orders still coming in monthly” is presented without territorial breakdown, accounting context, or methodological explanation, and appears within a highly stylised piece of Rolling Stone era Journalism rather than a trade or industry report. Given what is now known from royalty statements, manufacturing evidence, and chart performance, this figure is almost certainly inflated and likely reflects copies shipped or ordered over time rather than net consumer sales. As a literal sales total by 1970, the Fusion number is not supported by the documented record.

That said, the Fusion article remains historically important because it captures contemporary perception rather than verified accounting. By 1970, the album was clearly no longer regarded—even within underground press circles—as a commercially dead release. The reference to ongoing monthly orders indicates that the record was continuing to move as a catalog item, aligning with evidence from MGM royalty statements showing substantial U.S. sales into late 1968 and early 1969, and with the later decision by Polydor to mount a dedicated UK reissue campaign in 1971. In other words, while the Fusion article exaggerates scale, it accurately reflects a moment when the album’s commercial reputation had shifted from “failure” to “slow-burn success.”

This context helps explain Sterling Morrison’s later claim that the album eventually “went gold.” There is no evidence that The Velvet Underground & Nico ever received RIAA gold certification, nor that it reached 500,000 copies sold by the early 1970s.

How Many Copies of the Velvet Underground and Nico were sold in the bands lifetime, 1967-71 (release of the album to demise of the band)?

The convergence of royalty data, UK stamper analysis, and reissue activity now strongly supports the conclusion that the album crossed into six-figure cumulative sales by the turn of the decade or shortly thereafter. Morrison’s recollection can therefore be understood not as a precise certification claim, but as an imprecise memory of an album whose long-term sales and influence far exceeded its initial reputation. In this light, his assertion is directionally correct in scale, even if inaccurate in formal terms.

The Velvet Underground & Nico had already sold on the order of 60,000 copies in the U.S. by early 1969, continued to sell steadily as a catalog title, and achieved renewed commercial momentum with the UK Polydor reissue in 1971–72.

The release of Loaded in late 1970 materially would have altered the Velvet Underground’s commercial profile and plausibly drove renewed interest in earlier albums, particularly the debut. In U.S. retail practice, such visibility typically translated into increased back-catalog orders without necessarily producing chart re-entries or formal reissue campaigns. In this context, it is reasonable to infer that cumulative U.S. sales rose meaningfully beyond the 60,000 units supported by late-1960s royalty data, helping to explain Sterling Morrison’s later recollection that the album had sold in very large numbers. While claims of 200,000–250,000 copies sold by 1970 remain unsupported by manufacturing and accounting evidence, the combination of steady catalog sales and a post-Loaded uplift makes a six-figure total by 1970 or shortly thereafter both plausible and consistent with the broader documentary record.

As our hard data only takes us to February 1969 where we have a strong estimate of 60,000 copies sold there is, of course the possibility that a further two years could add a similar amount of units. 120- 150,000 units would certainly seem a safe figure.