Discogs seller refuses to help

Having said that, I wish Discogs functionally allowed for a "sealed" condition listing. Their platform could use a software upgrade. But their rules reference the Goldmine standard, and so buyers and sellers on Discogs should know what Goldmine says about the risks inherent in buying and opening sealed records.

 

Yes, from their website: "Discogs uses the Goldmine Standard for grading the condition of items listed in the Marketplace."

And then the rules which actually apply to discogs offers follow.

Can you find anything like "buyers beware" regarding sealed records on Discogs?

 

I linked to Goldmine earlier in this thread. Discogs references Goldmine. Buyers and sellers there should know what it says.

 

Here is a link to Discogs, the company which sets the rules for their website:

How To Grade Items

They do NOT offer a link to the Goldmine website.

What does that mean?

That the Goldmine website is totally irrelevant here.

 

I wouldn't say it's totally irrelevant, no. They state expressly that they follow the Goldmine Standard. Anyway, no point going around in circles on this. It's there for all to see.

 

Explain how a private party can determine the condition of a sealed record without opening it.

The only other option is to open it but it then is no longer sealed and graded as "Mint". My understanding of the grading system is only sealed records can be considered to fall under the "Mint" category. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It is not a question of being unwilling. It's a question of applying logic. Unfortunately, you seem to be discounting any such factor in your analysis of the situation which is why we are at odds in this case.

PayPal 99% of the time will favor the buyer almost under any circumstance so it is not a rule as much as it is an easy loophole for nefarious buyers to exploit. Thankfully, it hasn't happened to me yet as everyone has been a gentleman through and through but it eventually may occur that I will ship a NM record and be told I shipped a G.

AFAIK, they do not.

Selling CDs and LPs are two different things entirely.

In all my years of buying CDs, I've only ever encountered a single case of a sealed one with scratches. The spindle had broken into pieces which managed to get underneath the disc which ended up scratching it.

LPs are an entirely different animal and can unfortunately be manufactured with defects in far more regularity than CDs.

My latest experience with this sort of thing is a few months back when I bought a sealed record which arrived in seemingly perfect condition. Unfortunately, some paper scuffs were present on one side which resulted in ticks throughout its playback. One of my biggest peeves is how most manufacturers still use paper sleeves which can result in this sort of thing.

But I didn't insist in getting another copy as it was a private seller. Had it been Amazon or another retailer, I definitely would have traded it in for a better copy.

 

I've been doing some more reading in the Discogs forum as to why they don't offer "Sealed" as a drop-down menu choice. I think their position makes some sense, actually--a sealed record can be mint, NM, VG+, etc. It can have corner bumps, creases, cut-outs, seam splits, water damage, and yet still be sealed. Therefore, sealed is not actually a condition of the sleeve, but an extra fact on top of sleeve condition that might add value additional to the observable condition of the record.

If the sealed record is observably mint, I have no problem with sellers choosing to list it as mint, even though they cannot possibly know the condition of the record inside without opening. I think buyers need to take responsibility for this and decide for themselves whether they want to purchase sealed records from private sellers.

However, in my own practice I'm going to start listing perfect-looking sealed records as NM at best. I can't know the condition of the record inside without opening it, still. But I never use M as a grade for opened records at all, on the theory that no record is ever truly mint (this is my own thing, I know not everyone agrees with this), and so I shouldn't use M for sealed records just because Discogs doesn't offer a "Sealed" drop-down menu option. Note this doesn't change my views on the responsibility of the seller. As Strat-Mangler rightly points out, the seller can only grade what he or she can see.

 

Obviously it is possible to chose a grading without actually checking the exact real condition of an item (like a sealed record). Thousands of record sellers do it on Discogs, Amazon, eBay all the time. All kinds of companies do it all the time with products they sell without checking each individual item.

Marketplaces like Amazon, eBay, Discogs force sellers to guarantee that the item is (at least) in the described condition. In the case of new-sealed items that means that there are no (serious) flaws.

If a seller isn't happy about this he/she should sell elsewhere.

 

That's where the disconnect seams to be, though, right? The described condition is sealed, and that's what the buyer got. Probably most sellers on Discogs, eBay, and Amazon Marketplace who sell sealed records list them as mint, without knowing their condition. Read the threads on the Discogs forum and you'll see buyers who bought and opened a sealed record only to find it defective say, quite reasonably, "well, can't hold it against the seller."

 

On paper, every sealed item should be perfect. The reality is a different story, mostly because (IMHO) of poor QC by some of the pressing plants. Having said that, no seller nefariously sells sealed copies fully aware of damage ahead of time. The album would need to be open for that purpose... and then, the idea of the possible perfection of an item which has not seen the light of day is lost.

In the end, your solution is to be willing to shoulder the totality of the risk with none to the buyer. Either open a sealed item to confirm whether it is in flawless condition and accept a downgrade from M to NM and its appropriate loss in funds or be prepared to either replace/refund if the buyer states the album is not absolutely perfect.

Do you use, buy, sell, play vinyl records regularly? Your perspective definitely sounds like one from somebody with little to no experience in how fragile vinyl is.

 

For those "black or white" types, like what we saw above, I guess there would need to be a separate rating of "Sealed" with "Mint" being eliminated completely.

"Mint" outside of a sealed item is one I'd never personally use, even though I've seen others do it. The rating should go, IMHO, like this...

G, VG, VG+, NM, S

With the understanding that "Sealed" presents *some* type of risk, even if that risk can be relatively minimal. As I said in the linked thread, I had to purchase *4* different copies of the same double album to form a 2xLP set without serious flaws (huge scratches, pimples, no-fill, etc). That's what I'm referring to in regards to poor QC. It can be frustrating but since I don't personally manufacture the albums, all I can do is report it is sealed and how the jacket looks.

 

There are record plants I won't buy from for those reasons. United, Rainbo, and whatever the newer one in New Jersey is called. Memphis Record Pressing is barely a step up from those three, IMO, with United being the worst by far.

I agree with your rating system. I *only* use M when selling sealed records, but the expectations of a few buyers on this thread are making me come off that position.

 

Strat-Mangler and Gabe Walters,

I can understand your position and in many things I'm with you.

But a large part of CD/vinyl business seems to have changed in the last decades. Amazon, eBay, Paypal and maybe Discogs as well are setting the rules for online selling nowadys. Generally favouring the buyers over the sellers. Additionally consumer rights are more important than they used to be (at least in Europe).

Discogs is setting the rules for their website. It is available in Chinese and Russian language now. Is it realistic to expect a buyer from China to go to the Goldmine website and read the grading rules there?

Would Discogs be able to install a much different handling of "sealed" items in comparison to eBay and Amazon? Why should a buyer pay the same price if he/she can have more protection elsewhere?

(I'm listening to records from time to time but I don't like the imperfections I can hear. I rarely sell vinyl online. If I do it I'm grading rather conservatively. As I already wrote I once actually had a problem with a sealed record and refunded the buyer)

 

I agree that places like Amazon are changing buyers' expectations. I think it's a problem, but there's only so much you can do. If a new record is in print and available from retail stores, I don't buy it from private sellers, myself. I'm not sure why anyone would.

I do expect buyers to know the background rules of opening sealed records and to be reasonable in how they conduct themselves when they're disappointed. Of course, reality sometimes dashes these expectations. I can say that I am always professional and courteous in my conversations with buyers, and that goes a long way toward resolving any potential disputes to mutual satisfaction. That is only good business, and maybe something of a dying art, too.

 

No, but I would not be remiss in expecting consumer protections being similar, unless I was in a dark overcoat undercover of darkness, with a pocket full of bitcoins. If you really think a modern-day seller is protected by the right that all the mall stores closed in 1980, why are you even reading this thread, because it is surely likely to upset you while you are trying to get that money transfer out to that prince in Nigeria...

Otherwise, safeguards that keep you from getting a shredded t-shirt from a warehouse in Slovenia, should also protect you from getting a bum record unless it was labeled, "bum record".

"Goldmine rules" means nothing, except a magazine not recognized by any governmental agency or consumers group, wrote some sentences that people who pay them to run ads selling their wares, agreed to accept. If you believe these so-called "rules" that somehow gives them more credibility in your eyes, see: "P.T. Barnum", "sucker". Then check your watch to see if it's been a minute yet. The so-called "Goldmine rules" would not even protect you if you bought an issue of Goldmine, and tried to send it back because one of the magazines' own staples was bent.

 

Really, the solution is a lot simpler than we're discussing here if it is a real factory sealed LP and not a reseal situation. Grade the Sleeve condition, leaving the Media condition blank. State in the Condition comments that it's factory sealed. Whatever imaginary condition the buyer wants to believe it is in that's on him and not the seller. If it is factory flawed then the buyer can deal with the manufacturer or the label themselves.

 

The media condition field is not optional when listing on Discogs. But it is a good idea to state in the comments that it's sealed and that returns will not be accepted if opened.

 

If I learned anything here as a seller, if I ever do sell anything sealed especially vinyl, I'm going to be very clear in my ad on what's expected on the seller and buyer if there's a problem. Obviously some really gray areas especially for private sellers.

 

Ok, it's just that I gave it try but of course didn't select final For Sale button.

 

Unfortunately all my recent Discogs purchases were overgraded. Today I received a record that was - supposedly - "barely played" in a "Very Good+" sleeve.

What I actually got was a record covered in dirt and fingerprints. Both clear signs that the record had been played. The lower corner of the sleeve had the clear signs of waterdamage and the whole cover gave off a cellar-y smell.

I. Don't. Know. Am I too critical? But when I pay for quality am I not supposed to receive quality?

 

This is why I don't buy much stuff from Discogs (CDs, occasionally). eBay has some support for the buyer (maybe, not always - but quite often). I don't know if Discogs supports the buyers concerning their listings / "contracts" between sellers and buyers, or if it's just "Buyer Beware".

NO ... you should receive what you paid for.

I truly hope you get some satisfactory resolution, if you wish to pursue it.

 

Discogs doesn't have a 30 day guarantee like eBay does, but they do have other provisions that can help the buyer.

But it really doesn't really matter if you use PayPal. As a buyer, PayPal offers way more protection as they give you a ridiculous amount of time, 180 days, to return. eBay gives you 30 days to make a claim.

With respect to risk, I see no difference in terms of exposure, between the two as long as you use PayPal.

 

Good to know!

 

I didn't read thru the entire thread. I do buy a lot of discogs and IMO, when I read "The LP was advertised as a brand new sealed item and it was." That's the end of the story. Most people who sell on Discogs are not dealers and don't have multiple copies of albums to send for replacement. It's the luck of the draw, hopefully the LP wasn't too expensive. When I sell new/sealed vinyl on discogs I won't take it back either if there's an issue. How could I possibly know the pressing was bad and or trashed by the pressing plant and be held liable. It's unfortunate but it happens, deal with it. As a side note, if you're buying new vinyl releases off discogs you should only buy from retailers who list there so if there is an issue they can help you, otherwise buy from AcousticSounds, Amazon, MusicDirect, Elusive Disc, etc...

 

Wow, not trying to get into it with you, but I find your attitude really...... erm....... poor.

When you write: "When I sell new/sealed vinyl on discogs I won't take it back either if there's an issue. How could I possibly know the pressing was bad and or trashed by the pressing plant and be held liable." This is completely wrong, imo. You sell an item - in this case a record. You describe it, and the expectation is it's fit for purpose. You should stand behind the product YOU sold. Now, if it's bad due to a manufacturing error - that's for you to take up with whomever you got it from. That's YOUR business. But to hold the next buyer liable, which is what it seems you're doing, is just wrong. IMO.

If you get a chance, please PM me your username on Discogs, I want to make sure I don't ever buy from you (and I don't mean that as an attack in any way, I just seriously would want to be warned about buying form someone who isn't standing by the transaction.) Alternatively, could you confirm that you make it clear in your listings that you don't accept returns under any circumstances. Thanks!