I just received quite an expensive CD that was listed as NM/M- on Discogs. I've contacted the seller sending him this photo of it and he says he didn't see any scratches when he listed it but even so he still stands by his grading. It basically has one large oval shaped scratch, not deep but pretty obvious when looked at in normal lighting. I'd like to know what people here would grade this? Discogs CD grading: Mint Perfect. No scuffs/scratches, unplayed - possibly still sealed. NM/M- Near perfect. No obvious signs of use, it may have been played - but it has been handled very carefully. VG+ A few minor scuffs/scratches. This has been played, but handled with good care - and certainly not abused. VG Quite a few light scuffs/scratches, or several more-pronounced scratches. This has obviously been played, but not handled as carefully as a VG+. G/G+ There are a lot of scuffs/scratches. However it will still play through without problems. This has not been handled with much care at all.
Based on the Discogs grading, probably VG+, definitely not NM. Obvious question, was it secure in the case when it arrived? I used to know a record dealer who made great play of the lighting he used to grade vinyl, the joke was his eyesight was shot, and he couldn't grade properly whatever the lighting.
Ditto. I don't think you could produce that mark even if the CD came loose in transport. Seller might have dropped the CD when inspecting the discs, and hoped the buyer wouldn't notice.
VG+ for me. It has an obvious sign of use i.e. the oval mark so it can’t be NM/M- The fact that it has been marked also means that it hasn’t been handled very carefully, only quite carefully at best.
Thanks all, guess I'm I slightly stricter grader, I'd go VG, though maybe that's because it was a 70 Euro disc and I kinda expect proper grading for higher priced stuff.
VG+, or maybe VG depending on how pronounced you feel the scratch is. Although a continuous line, in effect you could say it's "quite a few" scratches as it's in two places on each side of the centre. Definitely not NM/M-, which is important if that led you to choose to buy this particular item.
VG+ for me from how it looks in the photo, but if I had it in my hands in good light, it might go down to VG.
It's not that important, it's a return for refund item imo. Send it back with tracking and get your money back. Then post feedback in a nice polite way even if the seller is not nice about it. Just ask to get your refund.
Rossini String Sonatas, Neville Marriner. It's actually a double CD, the second disc has a few smaller scratches, disc in the photo looks worse than in the photo. The seller has offered to send another disc from his collection of up to 20 Euros for free, which I think I'll take.
It's not NM. Rogue traders soil trading for everyone - including other honest and competent Sellers. If you paid PayPal, just open a case "not as described".
I would say VG too, maybe VG+ if I was being very lenient and the item was inexpensive. I sure as well would not be happy to get that, after paying 70 euros. I get things from Music Magpie in a better state than that. EG.
I always find that when I try and take photos of scratched discs, they never look as bad as to the naked eye. I'm holding it in front of the camera, and can see all this stuff on the surface, but whatever angle and lighting I try, it never looks like it when I see the photo. Nonetheless, I have always been refunded by the seller. But it's frustrating for me, as I'd like the images to be more reflective (scuse the pun) of the reality. (I use an actual camera, not a phone). EG.
Absolutely not M- or NM. Personally, I'd grade it VG with an explanation in the description. VG+ is probably fair for this one, but I've always graded pretty conservatively, so as to err on the side of caution. According to your picture, that's really more of a scuff than a scratch, so I wouldn't expect it to interfere with playback. BUT it's a LARGE scuff, and therefore IMO worthy of downgrading for those who care about visual condition. It's nice to see that the seller offered you a free CD in compensation. This leads me to believe he honestly missed the scuff (or just didn't look) or maybe he's not personally bothered by this type of thing and never expected anyone else to be either. Either way, at least he's trying to make it right.
Firstly, I'm sorry for you. I've been burned so many times with sellers over-grading. Frankly, the gradings 'M-' and 'near mint' should be abolished. According to Discogs, 'M-' and 'near mint' mean nearly perfect with no obvious signs of wear. This is an entirely subjective definition and has no place whatsoever in the hobby of collecting media of any kind. This tomfoolery only gives leeway to careless and / or dishonest grading. In the case of @MC Rag, the seller got a 'get out of jail' card simply by claiming he didn't see any scratches when he listed it. It sounds a bit like the seller is implying that if there are scratches, they were not there at the time of listing. That would make me angry! I'll bet that the seller has chosen to withhold feedback pending buying feedback. And if the buyer gives the seller the rating they deserve, be certain the seller will reciprocate. I hope the buyer can at least get refunded.
After getting burned on Discogs twice by the same buyer who claimed NM LPs I sent him were scuffed (they weren't), I began photographing every LP cover and LP, plus scanning any unsealed CDs, booklets and tray cards for my protection before packing and shipping. There are some unscrupulous buyers who likely have a defective copy bought elsewhere that they might return in place of the actual item purchased if the seller asks that the item be returned. Discogs is a two way street, there are dishonest people on both sides. Fortunately I've rarely had any issues as a buyer or seller on Discogs. I blocked that buyer from buying anything else but didn't leave the negative feedback that he deserved.
Good idea. I video myself opening all the CDs I receive so I have proof if the wrong disc/wrong version is sent.
As a buyer, I'm more often unhappy than happy with sellers gradings on Discogs, and it's getting to the stage where I'd rather take a chance with eBay, where at least I've seen a photo or two of what I'm buying. One recent description of an album I was after said 'NM apart from one deep scratch on side 2'
Same here! That's exactly the kind of misuse of the 'NM' grade that irks me. At least the seller described the deep scratch, which should have warranted an EX grade at best. I've come to expect to find defects in anything described as M- even though I should not be able to see any if I take the 'M-' grade definition literally. Within the past week, I received a CD that was described as 'M-', which had multiple scratches that were not visible under defused lighting. However, they are obvious when viewed at an angle under strong direct lighting. I seem to recall reading in these forums that that's how one should view records and CDs when visually grading. Even if an item is described as 'M' and sealed, if it's out of print, I'm suspicious. I've had several instances of being sold resealed CDs that were obviously used and in less than stellar shape.
The last double LP I bought from Discogs was graded vg+ for the cover and the records m-. The cover should have been graded vg while the records were covered in dust and fingerprints. Even after 3 cleanings they sound about vg-. How anyone can grade filthy records m- is beyond me. Used CD's have not been a problem for me.