Julien, I assume this is a common occurrence.... My copy of Quest for Fire (catalog 1148-80) has different cover art and different logos on the back. Mine is older CBS/Fox the pictured one is 20th Century. Should I enter it as a new disc since the cover art and publisher are different? or should there just be notes that the publisher and artwork are different? The difference in the cover art is the wide bar across the top with the 20th century logo is not there. Instead The picture covers 2/3 of the front with a smaller CBS Fox logo in the top right corner. Another difference is this copy being older doesn't have a UPC. Since I originally entered some of the info on this catalog number, the info I entered applies to the older version not the one that is pictured that was provided by someone else.

I have a lot of discs like that and just guess they are later pressings. I just keep them all together. Is the UPC the same? Or the number?

I'm finding that with some music titles as well where the catalog number is the same as the first edition even though it is very clearly a re-issue with a different OBI and digital sound etc. A good example being a Japanese re-issue of:
The Cars: Heartbeat City (1984) [SM035-3428]

I have the first Japanese pressing with the triangular OBI and analog only sound which struggles to cope with some of the audio on this laserdisc.
I also have a later 3rd pressing with the exact same catalog number as the 1st edition. It features the much improved digital soundtrack and a ring OBI.
The ring OBI mentions a digital mastering for the soundtrack however the sleeve doesn't, yet the sleeve mentions CD Video which was obviously the rebranded name
given to laserdisc in late 80's only.

These mix ups are out there, especially with Japan discs. I have a copy of Diamonds Are Forever (Japan 1993 release) that states on the cellophane covering that the disc is AC-3. It is not! Only three Bond films were released in the US as AC-3 as far as I know. Plus my RF is working fine to verify so I don't know what these mix ups are all about.

Normally, if a cover is different, it should motivate a new entry.

A different re-release (especially when old one if Analog and new one is Analog/Digital) certainly deserves a separate entry

Julien

wow

Different cover should be a different listing in the database. This happened A LOT in the early days of laser. The cover change is actually a change of company names. MVC-20th Century Fox Video-CBS-Fox. All had same catalog numbers and basically the same transfers, but with the corporate name change, new covers were necessary. This also happened with MCA and Columbia. Disovision-MCA Videodisc-MCA Home Video, Columbia Home Video-RCA/Columbia Home Video. The only studio from the earliest days of laser that didn't change was Paramount making it very difficult to track down original releases from them since I collect the first couple years of laser. The other identifier for many of these is the lack of ISBN# and "Manufactured by, (or for) Discovision Associates" on the back cover.