advertisement


pfm Record Shop gradings

Move the pfm Record Shop to Discogs grading?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 88.9%
  • No

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9

Tony L

Administrator
I’m in two minds whether to abandon my usual Record Collector gradings for the US Goldmine standard as used by Discogs. The latter seems to be dominant, Record Collector magazine pretty much consigned to history.

I’ll put it to a poll!

The key difference is a Discogs VG+ equates to Record Collector EX. NM is pretty much consistent. Anything below VG isn’t really of use to us in either grade system. The problem from an audiophile perspective is either VG+ (Discogs) or EX (Record Collector) is a very wide grade and can in reality mean borderline to lovely. I’ve always trod my own path to a large degree so have always used VG+ as the bottom end of EX, i.e. the bottom grade I’d personally want. I just don’t stock anything less than that. If I’d not be prepared to track it with a £4k Koetsu or whatever I won’t sell it regardless of the grade, so any talk of “feelable marks” etc one sees elsewhere just never get listed.
 
I think more important is knowing how conservatively (or not!) the dealer grades. Good descriptions are helpful too - I go on these as much as the actual grade.
 
Helpful to see the full grades?

Record Collector

Mint (M) The record itself is in brand new condition with no surface marks or deterioration in sound quality. The cover and any extra items such as the lyric sheet. booklet or poster are in perfect condition. Records marked as Sealed or Unplayed should be Mint.

Excellent (EX) The record shows some signs of having been played, but there is very little lessening in sound quality. The cover and packaging might have slight wear and/or creasing.

Very Good (VG) The record has obviously been played many times, but displays no major deterioration in sound quality, despite noticeable surface marks and the occasional light scratch. Normal wear and tear on the cover or extra items, without any major defects is acceptable

Good (G) Te 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

Gold Mine/Discogs

MINT (M)
These are absolutely perfect in every way. Often rumored but rarely seen, Mint should never be used as a grade unless more than one person agrees that the record or sleeve truly is in this condition. There is no set percentage of the Near Mint value these can bring; it is best negotiated between buyer and seller.

NEAR MINT (NM OR M-)
A good description of a NM record is “it looks like it just came from a retail store and it was opened for the first time.” In other words, it’s nearly perfect. Many dealers won’t use a grade higher than this, implying (perhaps correctly) that no record or sleeve is ever truly perfect.

NM records are shiny, with no visible defects. Writing, stickers or other markings cannot appear on the label, nor can any “spindle marks” from someone trying to blindly put the record on the turntable. Major factory defects also must be absent; a record and label obviously pressed off center is not Near Mint. If played, it will do so with no surface noise. (NM records don’t have to be “never played”; a record used on an excellent turntable can remain NM after many plays if the disc is properly cared for.)

NM covers are free of creases, ring wear and seam splits of any kind.

NOTE: These are high standards, and they are not on a sliding scale. A record or sleeve from the 1950s must meet the same standards as one from the 1990s or 2000s to be Near Mint! It’s estimated that no more than 2 to 4 percent of all records remaining from the 1950s and 1960s are truly Near Mint. This is why they fetch such high prices, even for more common items.

Don’t assume your records are Near Mint. They must meet these standards to qualify!

VERY GOOD PLUS (VG+) or EXCELLENT (E)

A good description of a VG+ record is “except for a couple minor things, this would be Near Mint.” Most collectors, especially those who want to play their records, will be happy with a VG+ record, especially if it toward the high end of the grade (sometimes called VG++ or E+).

VG+ records may show some slight signs of wear, including light scuffs or very light scratches that do not affect the listening experience. Slight warps that do not affect the sound are OK. Minor signs of handling are OK, too, such as telltale marks around the center hole, but repeated playing has not misshapen the hole. There may be some very light ring wear or discoloration, but it should be barely noticeable.

VG+ covers should have only minor wear. A VG+ cover might have some very minor seam wear or a split (less than one inch long) at the bottom, the most vulnerable location. Also, a VG+ cover may have some defacing, such as a cut-out marking. Covers with cut-out markings can never be considered Near Mint.

Very Good (VG)
Many of the imperfections found on a VG+ record are more obvious on a VG record. That said, VG records — which usually sell for no more than 25 percent of a NM record — are among the biggest bargains in record collecting, because most of the “big money” goes for more perfect copies. For many listeners, a VG record or sleeve will be worth the money.

VG records have more obvious flaws than their counterparts in better shape. They lack most of the original gloss found on factory-fresh records. Groove wear is evident on sight, as are light scratches deep enough to feel with a fingernail. When played, a VG record has surface noise, and some scratches may be audible, especially in soft passages and during a song’s intro and ending. But the noise will not overpower the music otherwise.

Minor writing, tape or a sticker can detract from the label. Many collectors who have jukeboxes will use VG records in them and not think twice. They remain a fine listening experience, just not the same as if it were in better shape.

VG covers will have many signs of human handling. Ring wear in the middle or along the edges of the cover where the edge of a record would reside, is obvious, though not overwhelming. Some more creases might be visible. Seam splitting will be more obvious; it may appear on all three sides, though it won’t be obvious upon looking. Someone might have written or it or stamped a price tag on it, too.


I use the Discogs system on Discogs, logically, but I think it's a better system as there are finer distinctions between the upper grades (and as you say the lower grades are essentially junk and not relevant). That said, I prefer the RC definition of Mint, the GM one is a bit pretentious - to me a new/unplayed record and definitely a factory sealed one is mint unless it has an obvious fault.
 
I use the Discogs system on Discogs, logically, but I think it's a better system as there are finer distinctions between the upper grades (and as you say the lower grades are essentially junk and not relevant). That said, I prefer the RC definition of Mint, the GM one is a bit pretentious - to me a new/unplayed record and definitely a factory sealed one is mint unless it has an obvious fault.

Yes, ‘Mint’ to my mind means ‘as new’, though with no transit damage, no scratches from the card inner etc, i.e. some new records fail to get there. There are a few areas of contention for me, e.g. if a particular pressing has an undetected fault, e.g. stitching, infill etc, I don’t think it is fair to complain to a used record seller about it as they have no returns path.

I’ve also often seen a single spindle mark on brand new unplayed vinyl, I suspect careless handling at the plant when they stack batches fresh off the press on a ‘spike’ like holder to cool. Classic Records audiophile cuts being especially guilty of this IME, annoying given their high value. I can think of several in my collection I opened to find a marked label on one side.


Stick with what you’re doing Tony, your penned honest descriptions trump any grading system, your customers are PFM members and appreciate your grading the way it is. Imo.

The written descriptions wouldn’t change at all, just the grading format. It would take a bit of effort to rewrite both listings (it is more than a find/replace), so if I do it it likely won’t be immediately. I’m beginning to think the RC gradings are just dead now.

FWIW I don’t like either as both the VG+ (Discogs) and EX (RC) grade is just too wide. That’s why I sort of came up with my own thing of using VG++ to indicate something decent from an audiophile perspective that still falls short of what I’d grade as an EX, but wouldn’t want to push what I see as an up to EX to NM as that leads to a risk of over-grading.

The whole of my life is in the top two or three grades, I have absolutely no use for ‘VG’, ‘Fair’, ‘Poor’ etc. That is all ‘Landfill’ grade to my mind. I actually end up junking a lot.
 
Whichever way you go Tony don’t stress too much about it. I know from years of experience of buying from you that you naturally expect far better quality than most, and thus the records you sell reflect that and I’ve never had a single issue.
 
For what it is worth, from my perspective it might be useful to move to the Discogs grading, but not so much that I want to vote for it. I value your honest grading and valuations more than I care which scale they sit on :)
 
Tony, your grading is first rate in terms of transparancy and clarity.

Sadly the Discogs version seems to have taken over the world. Whatever you decide to do the quality of what you sell will be undiminished.

Thanks for a great Record Shop.
 
One problem that comes to light when thinking about this is I’ve actually been using my own personal blend of both systems for decades now as there are obvious faults with both.

In many respects the grading system only impacts the low-priced bulk stuff e.g. the fixed-price classical and non-collectable general rock, pop & jazz which is currently blanket graded as ‘EX/EX or better unless stated’. I’ll likely just append a US grading of ‘VG+/VG+ or better unless stated’ to these and leave the rest in my own variation of both systems. Everything in the collectables area is individually described with issues detailed anyway. I like having as many words available as possible. I think most folk using the listing understand this, and can interpret what I’m trying to describe.

Interesting that the Goldmine description posted upthread does actually include VG++, EX, EX+. As such whilst I’m not directly compatible with Discogs (which is fine, I’ve no intention of selling there, I hate buying there too as everything from UK sellers seems overgraded), I may actually be reasonably inline with Goldmine.

As such I think I’ll leave it aside from expanding the blanket budget grades to encompass both UK and US.
 
(which is fine, I’ve no intention of selling there, I hate buying there too as everything from UK sellers seems overgraded)
almost universally. NM - 'A nearly perfect record. The record should show no obvious signs of wear.' I don't know what's hard to understand about VG+ not being scratched. 'Will show some signs that it was played and otherwise handled by a previous owner who took good care of it.' I'd expect very light sleeve marks from a paper or card innner but that's it. Maybe I'm just too fussy!
 
almost universally. I don't know what's hard to understand about VG+ not being scratched. 'Will show some signs that it was played and otherwise handled by a previous owner who took good care of it.' I'd expect very light sleeve marks from a paper or card innner but that's it. Maybe I'm too fussy!

I will only buy a NM grade from a UK Discogs seller as that way there is no ambiguity, and even then I’ve had to open disputes for crap I’d barely grade at VG. To be honest it has put me right off the platform and I’m reluctant to buy from anywhere other than Japan where sellers seem remarkably honest and actually tend to under-grade IME, e.g. you pay for VG+ and receive NM. A different culture.

My suspicion is a lot of high-volume sellers these days just ship any old shite and refund the complaints.
 
I will only buy a NM grade from a UK Discogs seller as that way there os no ambiguity,
if only! That's been my strategy too along with 100% feedback - it still doesn't work. They seem to have invented an additional 'for its age' criteron...

The problem being that return postage is so expensive.
 
if only! That's been my strategy too along with 100% feedback - it still doesn't work. They seem to have invented an additional 'for its age' criteron...

It makes a return much easier though. The NM grade is way tighter and less open to interpretation than VG+, EX etc. I refuse to get into any dialogue, the grading is clear so they need to refund.

The area where I am very tolerant is sealed NOS which I view as a ‘Schrödinger’s grade’ and one can’t hold a used record seller to blame for any unpredictable manufacturing defect. Likewise stitching, infill etc. That’s still a NM (or whatever grade) record IMO. It was born like that. It isn’t the fault of a used dealer who can’t possibly play-test everything before buying-in and obviously has no returns path the way a new record shop has.
 
The great thing about moving to a Discogs system is that you can then completely ignore it and sell any old shit!

I bought a copy it steely dans Katy lied, and the eponymous dire straits album. Both listed as NM on Discogs. As you suggest these grades should not be up for interpretation!

Instead they were covered in surface marks, scratches and the dire straits had one or two big scratches that causes needle to skip!

Near mint my ass!

I lost my top at him, because before paying, I specifically asked him to check them and be sure he meant NM. He said he was a collector himself and always “under grades”!!

He then made me feel like the asshole by saying things like “I’m sorry we don’t agree on the grading”

NM is not up for “interpretation”, and these were nothing of the sort.
 
@shrink I've had a few shockers recently as well. Most sellers seem happy to sort something out but I've also had the odd weird rant accusing me of being a scammer. Sigh.
What annoys me is that the refund doesn’t Include the cost of postage.

So it’s cost me £5 for his inability to grade records!
 
What annoys me is that the refund doesn’t Include the cost of postage.

So it’s cost me £5 for his inability to grade records!
Yes that's a big annoyance, especially for lower priced records and why a seller will often offer a 50% refund and let you keep the record. Which is fine by me if it's a damaged cover or minor condition issue but otherwise can leave you stuck with a duff record you've still paid a fiver for or whatever.

I tend to chalk it up to some you win, some you lose and I have a mental list of dodgy graders who I avoid in future.
 
Yes that's a big annoyance, especially for lower priced records and why a seller will often offer a 50% refund and let you keep the record. Which is fine by me if it's a damaged cover or minor condition issue but otherwise can leave you stuck with a duff record you've still paid a fiver for or whatever.

I tend to chalk it up to some you win, some you lose and I have a mental list of dodgy graders who I avoid in future.
I’m new (ish) to Discogs, so still trying to find reliable sources
 


advertisement


Back
Top