vinyl condition ratings

[paulf-2007]

Don't know what you all think but when looking for used vinyl the condition descriptions sellers use are bollocks in my opinion. All this excellent, excellent +, near mint and mint mean nothing other than possibly mint, that in my view means its not been played or rarely played. To my mind a record to be worthy of my replay set up has to have no scuffs or scratches of any kind and make no noise, pops and clicks and that makes it good. If it has any scuffs or scratches its not good. Recently I bought some half speed mastered vinyl from a Canadian reviewers collection that were perfect and described as virtually unplayed and were so.
I just bought a copy of Heart, Bad animals described as very good and maybe I should have avoided it as that description must mean its shite in reality, it sounds like rice crispies, I cleaned it quickly on my rcm and its still the same, maybe a deeper clean will make it better,

[hifi_dave]

I've given up buying LPs from E-Bay as I have rarely had a decent copy, despite only going for the mint, excellent, pristine etc. Even though all the ones I have bought have looked immaculate, they usually have numerous clicks, pops and surface noise.

[struth]

ive found a lot of the thicker old vinyl even with marks play superbly. some modern brand new dont fair so well. all older ones need several cleans

[RobbieGong]

I realized a long time ago that vinyl record gradings are way to ambiguous.

I mean this is the Record Collector Magazines Grading Guide for example:

GOOD: The record has been played so much that the sound quality has noticeably deteriorated, perhaps with some distortion and mild scratches. The cover and contents suffer from folding, scuffing of edges, spine splits, discolouration, etc.

This is clearly not good, so who, how, why was it ever decided that this is the term to describe a record like this :scratch::scratch::

I always go nm / near mint where ever possible and have been seldom disappointed.

The very odd disappointment I've had has been someone clearly trying it on and there has been no hesitation in telling them that the record is no way nm and why, untold surface marks etc etc . The record has then been returned - end of :rolleyes:

[Sophistry]

I find that, if buying online, you have to find sellers or dealers whose grading you trust - so that when they say that the record is VG+ you know what that means and you are happy with it... Or just buy from Japan :lol:

Definitely a whole range of views on the condition of records in each description... It is obviously an art rather than a science, but some people really try it on!

I agree with Robert about trying to buy NM or better!

[Bigman80]

I've ended up with a few "refund freebies" due to sellers not grading correctly. I complain if it isn't as described via eBay and numerous sellers have said "just keep it, I don't want it back" followed by a full refund.

I buy from eBay safe in the knowledge that they will back you up if the item isn't as described.

[Mike Reed]

Unfortunately these gradings (and you've got to have some kind of grading) are usually visual only. A record played with a cream-crackered stylus or arm may look NM, but be utterly useless on decent kit.

A few years ago I bought (via Ebay) a fairly pricey record (Famous Blue Raincoat) from a long established Lincolnshire stockist. It was graded NM, but when it came, it was so covered in dust that I couldn't see the vinyl. Once cleaned, it was okay, except for a loud noise caused by damage. Never again. Really crappy quality control there !

[Mike Reed]

..... The record has then been returned - end of :rolleyes:

Okay, but the cost of posting a record is north of £3. I'd not be happy having to fork that out (and the packing/ proof of postage etc. hassles) to return one, quite apart from the disappointment.

Bought a jazz record recently which I was confident would be in good nick. Unfortunately I was sent the wrong record and that had been so flimsily packed as to have sufferered a nasty crease. ! The record was mint, but convoluted emails and returns sorted it out eventually, at only a cost in time for me. The actual purchase item was also in superb condition.

[Sophistry]

Okay, but the cost of posting a record is north of £3. I'd not be happy having to fork that out (and the packing/ proof of postage etc. hassles) to return one, quite apart from the disappointment.

Absolutely agreed, Mike... But given the sad decline of the British record shop (apart from a few great exceptions), this seems to be the world we are living in these days! Hence why I say, I feel you have to find dealers/sellers whose ratings you can trust.

[Macca]

Given the nature of the vinyl format don't all these problems just come with the territory?. It's why they invented compact disc. Anyone remember compact disc? I've bought a fair few of them second hand and they are all mint with no pops or crackles :D

[struth]

when ive sold records ive tried to grade them as i would accept them. if you do that you wont go far wrong. obviously the older the record the more acceptable is the odd blemish, especially to cover. as i said before older vinyl can have marks but it wont usually be audible. i still say older vinyl was tougher.(ie 50's 60's good stuff)
also listening to vinyl on headphones you will hear more problems alas.

[RothwellAudio]

Given the nature of the vinyl format don't all these problems just come with the territory?. It's why they invented compact disc. Anyone remember compact disc? I've bought a fair few of them second hand and they are all mint with no pops or crackles :D

I think you may be right. To me, the beauty of the revival of interest in vinyl and the popularity of downloads and streaming is that second hand CDs can be bought dirt cheap :eyebrows:

[Macca]

I think you may be right. To me, the beauty of the revival of interest in vinyl and the popularity of downloads and streaming is that second hand CDs can be bought dirt cheap :eyebrows:

Bought a CD yesterday, brand new, came out last year, £9.99. Or I could have had the vinyl version at £20.99. Over twice the price! But when CD first came out they were £12 and the vinyl version was £5.50. How times change.

[Phil Lawton]

There are always chancers about who push the envelope of credibility...I'm fairly sure that their idea of "near mint" is that it's been stored adjacent to a box of 'After Eight' for a week.

Genuine sellers will usually do a play-test for you - there's really no harm done by asking. I've had a couple of them come back and tell me that the audio rating is way below the visual rating and that I should avoid the item. Such honesty is rare.

Alternatively, as someone else earlier in the thread suggested, buy only from Japan.

[Bigman80]

There are always chancers about who push the envelope of credibility...I'm fairly sure that their idea of "near mint" is that it's been stored adjacent to a box of 'After Eight' for a week.

Genuine sellers will usually do a play-test for you - there's really no harm done by asking. I've had a couple of them come back and tell me that the audio rating is way below the visual rating and that I should avoid the item. Such honesty is rare.

Alternatively, as someone else earlier in the thread suggested, buy only from Japan.[emoji23][emoji23] quality

[Shovel_Knight]

It seems all Japanese collectors are neat freaks and their pressings are very impressive, but I don’t like Japanese mastering :-( All my Japanese LPs are a touch too bright for my taste.

[speedracer]

I sell, & buy, quite a few records on ebay, & always play test, clean & pop the record in an anti-stat inner to help me grade it properly. You get to know the good sellers & I have returned only 2 or 3 in 5 years or so, & have had none returned or my grading questioned, so some get it right. I avoid sellers who say "it looks very good" because they obviously don't have a clue.

[Pete The Cat]

There's a fundamental flaw in how the Record Collector rating for Mint is interpreted. The definition refers to the cover being "in perfect condition". That's means more than simply "new".

Back in the day many covers weren't in perfect condition when you saw them in shops. I'm not simply talking about being thumbed, I mean that they weren't particularly well made.

It's quite noticeable that the production quality of album covers has improved in the past couple of decades. Look at the spine on the gatefold of a modern re-release in your local Sainsburys and it will look like a hardback book compared to its 70's equivalent.

For this reason I assume all cover ratings shown as Mint are at least one grade lower than claimed, before allowing for seller bull.

I recently bought a very well described Rush Archives which is the best I've seen in over 70 adverts and would still only say it's VG/EX.

Pete

[Audio Al]

I have had severall LP's that look like they have been use to sand down a artexed wall :eek:

Discribed as excellent

Complained and had a full refund , Then put them in my bin

[Mike Reed]

Given the nature of the vinyl format don't all these problems just come with the territory?. It's why they invented compact disc. Anyone remember compact disc? I've bought a fair few of them second hand and they are all mint with no pops or crackles :D

Yeah, yeah, yeah ! You can't vilify vinyl with a broad brush reference to those fiddly little things, however!:lol:

Covers are surely easy to describe; it's the grooves inside that contact your stylus and can't be seen. Actually, I'm amazed by the number of charity shop records I've bought, despite showing poor care and dubious provenance, that play well after a clean. Difference stylus profiles may have something to do with it, as it depends upon where that crappy stylus has sat in the groove.

[Mike Reed]

There are always chancers about who push the envelope of credibility...I'm fairly sure that their idea of "near mint" is that it's been stored adjacent to a box of 'After Eight' for a week.

Like it !:lol:

[Haselsh1]

Yeah, I bought 'Blue Chip' by Acoustic Alchemy quite a few years back from a seller through Amazon that was listed as collectable condition. It wasn't, it had a warp so bad it was unplayable. The biggest problem though was that I hadn't tried to play it for quite a few months.

[paulf-2007]

There's a fundamental flaw in how the Record Collector rating for Mint is interpreted. The definition refers to the cover being "in perfect condition". That's means more than simply "new".

Back in the day many covers weren't in perfect condition when you saw them in shops. I'm not simply talking about being thumbed, I mean that they weren't particularly well made.

It's quite noticeable that the production quality of album covers has improved in the past couple of decades. Look at the spine on the gatefold of a modern re-release in your local Sainsburys and it will look like a hardback book compared to its 70's equivalent.

For this reason I assume all cover ratings shown as Mint are at least one grade lower than claimed, before allowing for seller bull.

I recently bought a very well described Rush Archives which is the best I've seen in over 70 adverts and would still only say it's VG/EX.

Petethe condition of the cover is of very little interest to me, I'm only interested in the quality of the record, I listen to music, I'm not a collector. I've seen records that have been sealed for many years for silly money and removing the seal would devalue the record, a bit like vintage wine, unless you're a multi millionaire who is going to drink a bottle of wine costing thousands, then what is the point of looking at it. Oh bugger I'm derailing my own thread. I'm assuming the rush record is not that good yet you describe it as excellent.

[Macca]

Yeah, yeah, yeah ! You can't vilify vinyl with a broad brush reference to those fiddly little things, however!:lol:

Covers are surely easy to describe; it's the grooves inside that contact your stylus and can't be seen. Actually, I'm amazed by the number of charity shop records I've bought, despite showing poor care and dubious provenance, that play well after a clean. Difference stylus profiles may have something to do with it, as it depends upon where that crappy stylus has sat in the groove.

Yes, very true. I've got loads of LPs that cost a quid each and 99 percent were fine after a clean. I also don't care about the condition of the sleeve. Ironically one of the worst records I own for noise was bought brand new. Cleaning improved it but it is still below the acceptable threshold. I just don't see the point anymore now CDs are so cheap. I miss the euphoric distortion a little, I'll admit, but I'm hoping that will wear off with time.

[skimminstones]

I jusr accepted that anything on Discogs and Ebay is probably going to be one or more usually 2 grades lower than its described. All my used vinyl gets a ultrasonic clean and a vacuum dry now though.

[Pete The Cat]

I'm assuming the rush record is not that good yet you describe it as excellent.

Sorry, my explanation could've been clearer. The cover of the album is as good as it's possible to be having firstly been in a shop and subsequently carefully owned. However, since it's a gloss light grey that marks easily even this one is no longer "perfect". All of them that I've seen for sale have some sort of marks.

I agree wholeheartedly that there's no point having records not to play them. My main point was simply that the RC definition of Mint, taken literally, was arguably unachieavable for many album covers which date back to the last century. When we were first buying them many of them weren't "perfect" to begin with. However unscrupulous sellers still use that grading.

Pete

[alphaGT]

The used vinyl market has changed drastically in only a few years. Just 5 or 6 years ago, good vinyl was to be had on eBay for $1 to $5 a piece. Now, used vinyl is going for $13! Due to the new interest in vinyl, everyone is trying to cash in. Luckily about 6 years ago I stocked up on many used records in the $1 to $5 range.

But even the descriptions of the ratings is ridiculous, since when has the word GOOD meant unplayable? I bought an old Alice Cooper, Love it to Death, and it skipped in 4 places! Rated Good. After about 5 serious scrubbings it is now playable, but still has a lot of pops and ticks. I don’t mind taking a chance for $3, but when they are charging $12 or $13 for a used record, I expect more.

Russell

[paulf-2007]

But even the descriptions of the ratings is ridiculous, since when has the word GOOD meant unplayable?

Russell
Exactly my point

[Pierre De Grenoble]

My own rule of thumb is to look at the cover. Anything that is bumped, obviously edge/storage worn and creased up is not excellent. and neither will the record be.

Its become worse because of smartphones. Every arse wipe has become an expert and their over optimistic and often illiterate lack of description is an other warning to avoid like the plague.

I don't use discogs but if something is not as described on eBay then it will go back at the seller's expense as a matter of course.

[struth]

My own rule of thumb is to look at the cover. Anything that is bumped, obviously edge & storage worn and creased up is not excellent. and neither will the record be.

Its become worse because of smartphones. Every arse wipe has become an expert and their over optimistic and often illiterate lack of description is an other warning to avoid like the plague.

I don't use discogs but if something is not as described on eBay then it will go back at the seller's expense as a matter of course.

i think most vinyl enthusiasts will get it pretty much right mostly. there may be the odd difference in attitude re nmint to ex etc, often by perfectionists, (and lets face it, new vinyl isnt perfect and never will be)but they usually know whats what; unless they are at the madam, or made a genuine mistake. i keep all my record covers in poly liners which helps a lot, and until recently in ali cases too

[Pierre De Grenoble]

i think most vinyl enthusiasts will get it pretty much right mostly. there may be the odd difference in attitude re nmint to ex etc, often by perfectionists....

I think that sums it up pretty well. these days it seems that an awful amount of sellers have never even seen or heard a record being played. The same can be said/seen in the descriptions
of Grandad's hi-fi gear when they've dragged it out of the attic/garden shed when Grandma died.

[GJO]

I very rarely buy used now except from forum members who are generally trustworthy,I used to buy from e-bay,but mostly from a seller who lived local to me and I could inspect them at his place.Since the demise of "Criminal Records" in Tunbridge Wells I haven't purchased anything used.Some of the crap that seems to be sold at some remaining dealers defies belief.
I once pointed out to a dealer based in shop in Essex that a Tangerine Dream LP I was considering purchasing on inspection had a scratch right across the b side,he just shrugged and put it back in the rack,needless to say I walked out.

[rigger67]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/lifestyle/record-collector-who-sees-difference-between-near-mint-and-very-good-will-never-find-true-love-20180222144733

[alphaGT]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/lifestyle/record-collector-who-sees-difference-between-near-mint-and-very-good-will-never-find-true-love-20180222144733

I resemble that guy!

Russell

[Mikeandvan]

What was that 70s or 80s work of art that involved an extremely scratched record? It was a dig at record collectors amongst other things.