POLL - Should sellers on the forum use "Excellent" to grade vinyl?

What about "Excellent"? Is this an appropriate grade for describing vinyl condition here? The forum rules don't list it as an option.








We will be using the Goldmine grading for Vinyl and not the UK/European version. Goldmine grading:

Vinyl

Near Mint (M-): No surface noise.

Very Good Plus (VG+): Signs of wear but no surface noise.

Very Good (VG): Surface noise evident on playing, especially in soft passages, and during a song's intro and fade, but never overpowers the music.

Good (G): Significant surface noise, scratches that will produce noise, but will play without skipping.

Poor (P), or Fair (F): Won't play through without skipping or repeating.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/faq.php?faq=classifieds_policies#faq_classifieds_rules

 

Five grades are quite enough.

 

Sorry, the poll option is not coming up. Looks like I can't add it this time...

Still, can we have a discussion?

 

I think so - is it not an option per Goldmine?

To me there isn't a lot of room between NM and VG.....EX should be an option to descrie vinyl that isn't quite NM but still damn nice.

 

Well, I'm glad you brought that up. How do you see EX? Is it a grade between VG+ and NM? In my experience, that is not the way that UK sellers use the grade. Excellent is used in the UK the same way as US dealers use VG+ (not VG++ or NM-).

As far as US dealers goes, their use of EX has me quite confused. Some use in the same way as UK sellers, however others have created a new grade that somehow floats between VG+ and NM. And does the use of EX now downgrade VG+ as it has been traditionally used by US dealers?


"Excellent" is a nice sounding word. I can see why sellers would want to use it.

 

To me a NM record should be mark free and full of shine. Looks like it's never ever been played, perhaps once to put to tape. It's when you open a record and wonder if it was sealed the day before. Rare indeed.

EX records are those that look like they are NM, perhaps except for a single minor sleeve scuff or mark....nothing effecting the sound whatsoever. high shine and luster. no warps. I have bought albums that except for the minor scuff would be seen as new, even look better than some new ones. It's a shame to have to grade an awesome record VG+ just because 1% of it has a scuff so minor it doesn't matter at all. To me those are EX records.


but when you get into visual vs play graded it's a whole new ballgame. What if my stylus or yours (most likely) tracks better than another....on my system is plays great, on yours it doesn't.....it's a dangerous slope for sure. I have played an LP on each of my 2 systems many times and found one sounds better than the other, and vice versa....gear has tremendous results on playback grading.....volume as well. Some surface noise can disappear at low volumes.....buyer cranks things up and it's bad.....

play grading is tough and, to me, should only be used to determine if a mark will be audible.

I dunno....so much room for discussion.....when I grade vinyl I grade it and describe it as close as possible to my expectations as a buyer. What would I expect to see in a NM, EX, or VG record. Once you get into VG range it's only a decent record, a better copy should be an easy find.

 

The forum guidelines for grading vinyl are pretty simple and straightforward. All descriptions of the grades include play-grading. M- looks and plays just about perfectly. VG+ should play with no surface noise. VG is still a nice play copy, with more visual imperfections and/or surface noise, blemishes, etc. I can understand if a seller feels something is between these grades, adding an extra "+", for example VG++, but I don't see the need to throw EX into the grading scale.

I think if an LP isn't play-graded, it's still cool but the seller should note that in the description somewhere. Just my two cents.

 

adamdube, thanks for the in-depth response!

Why not use + and - modifiers? An "awesome record" with a tiny flaw could be described NM- or VG++ (in my experience many SH dealers do exactly that).

Agreed that play grading can be tricky. Hopefully most systems can pick up whether a record has groove wear distortion (from being played with a worn or inappropriate stylus).

 

I have bought several hundred records from UK sellers in the last couple years. I can atttest to the fact that they do not interpret EX the way you have just described. UK EX vinyl can have very light marks, but will stay play through decently--but not up to the top standards of audiophiles. In the UK, "EX+" might be more like a record that you described (very nice with a tiny flaw).

 

EX and VG+ are the same thing. I hate it when someone uses VG++ or VG+++

 

I also feel that EX and VG+ are the same thing. Maybe "Excellent" sounds more attractive. But I'm not sure that all the sellers here would agree that EX = VG+. That's why I get confused. It appears to me that not everyone agrees on the definitions. And I hate to see when the complaining starts about "grading standards going down the tube, etc.", when it might actually stem from the grading terms being used in significantly different ways.

 

That's why the written and available Goldmine grading is so useful.

It helps to have it in front of you when you're grading, too, to be sure.

 

Goldmine Magazine Grading

Straight from Goldmine Magazine, here is their guide to Record Grading 101:
http://www.goldminemag.com/collector-resources/record-grading-101


This is what they say about VG+ / Excellent:

"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."



(Technically, Goldmine doesn't have "EX". They use "E".)

 

I never realized that actually. I had always thought EX was supposed to be better than VG+, for some reason. Not sure why I thought that, maybe because I had not seen it in the forum guidelines and the word probably sounds better.

 

The bottom line is a VG+ or above condition record should play very well.

 

This is where it get confusing. Apparently, the Goldmine site now has the grading tutorial noted in this thread ("Record Grading 101") that seems to be taken from Tim Neely's price guides, vs. what I always remember as the core Goldmine Grading standard (e.g. now assigning an averaged single grade for both record and cover instead of two separate ones, etc.). That older standard still being available on many websites, though it's undergone slight revisions through the years. At least, that's how I'm reading it (and my apologies if I'm misinterpreting it). I should note, that I've also found the "revised" standard reprinted on other sites as well.

http://www.goldminemag.com/collector-resources/record-grading-101


For example, in the past and as you note, Goldmine grading did indeed equate an "Excellent" grade with "VG++," not the VG+ as they have listed in that website article now. Though, it should also be noted that the Excellent grade was never a sanctioned Goldmine grade, even though they acknowledged that its use had become widely accepted among many collectors. Thus, my question is: Has Goldmine indeed recently revised their grading system, or is the older one still the "correct" one? I'll admit that with the rise of the internet, I let my subscriptions to Goldmine, Discoveries, etc., lapse long ago, so I'm somewhat out of the loop as to any changes that might have been made to the grading system in recent years.

For reference, here's that "older" Goldmine Grading standard as found on a few websites. Note the "non-sanctioned" Ex = VG++ designations.:

http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/beatles/grading.html

http://taurusjames.com/page.asp?cs=1&catid=90&id=1116

http://www.12inch.de/goldmine.html



I should add, personally, as a buyer and seller, I've always liked the proper usage of the "Excellent" grade, instead of the plethora (and frankly over-usage) of multiple pluses and minuses. When used correctly, I always felt that it did a good job in covering that "vast wasteland" between M- and VG+; the former implying virtual perfection, with the latter allowing FAR too many flaws to cover what I feel is the playing field where the bulk of most collectors' well cared for, pampered items lie. Furthermore, it's a great tool for sellers who might feel more comfortable listing something that might have the tiniest of flaws or two (e.g. a single spindle mark, a single hairline, etc.), and not have to worry about it not quite reaching a "museum piece" standard for the buyers who might expect it to be if it were listed M-. Once again, the VG+ allowing for far too many flaws, IMHO, on the other end of the spectrum (at least under the "older" Goldmine standard that I reference).

Ultimately, my feeling has always been that a record grading system should convey a somewhat universal mental image in people's minds. Even more so than simply being an issue of overgrading/undergrading, when that drop-off between two grades is too great, it does no one any favors. Now, I'm not saying there should be more grade options than necessary -- just enough to cover all the bases without a steep drop-off, as well as something fairly simple. I'd wager that this would go a long way in helping to eliminate many problems and disappointments, both for buyer and seller, in a given transaction.

 

Well, the grading structure for CDs DOES put EX above VG+, that's probably the confusion. So I do personally use EX for grading CDs, but not LPs. Now that I think about it I suppose that's a bit silly though...shouldn't they be the same?

 

And of course dear old eBay has it's own condition gradings - Brand New, Like New, Very Good, Good - which are SO unhelpful and unrelated to any of the previously discussed collector grades you wonder WHO they actually asked before deciding to use them at all.

 

That's because eBay continues to conflate all collectibles into the 'used' sections to take their chances with the kids clothes and toys. There has never been a useful eBay included grading. That stuff is only there so you can filter using it.

Now if you were looking for records, would you filter by grade and never want to see those of other grades?

 

Possibly I would. Or at least see the higher grade first. I wouldn't buy any vinyl on ebay that a seller says is VG anyway. It's almost certainly not, in the wrong direction.

 

Thanks for that info!

As far as can tell, "Excellent" as a vinyl grade originated in the UK. It is one of the grades in the Record Collector Magazine system (M, EX, VG, G, etc.)

In my experience, UK sellers do not use the term "Excellent" the way you described. UK EX= US VG+. It is not in the "vast wasteland" between Goldmine VG+ and Goldmine NM. It took me dozens of eBay purchases to figure that out, but now I'm certain of it.

 

Whatever grading terms for vinyl are being used - they are all utterly subjective. The visual grade trumps the play grade - which makes this the oddest grading method for collectibles I can think of - since what matters most (most of the time) is the sound aspect. Worse - two systems can impart very different sound to the exact same record.

Which one is accurate? One system might present the LP as near dead silent with dynamic, vivid sonics, while the other may produce it with overt surface noise, accompanying crackle, and dull, half dead dynamics.

Meanwhile, the numismatic derived terms using 'mint' are silly when one realizes the application & strictness of the numismatic grading system.

When I read descriptions that state a VG+ record should have 'no' surface noise.... I just shake my head. No = none. A guarantee for setting up conflict. Just like MINT, a NO surface noise record doesn't technically exist.

The term 'excellent', when used appropriately, actually denotes something higher or better than good. Would you rather have surgery performed on you by a surgeon that receives an 'excellent' rating - or a 'very good' rating? Excellent conjures up something that excels or has excellence.

These are all useless terms unless a record is sound graded. Most experienced people understand that even a near mint record can sound like cra*pola and a scuffed up record sound incredible.

Problem is, they are all so entrenched that we have to live with them. I have bought records online that have been graded using terms like fair, decent, or not even graded at all - and received a gorgeous nearly perfect record. I've paid for 'top grade' described records only to receive scuffed up, well used ones.

 

The SH Forum grading description is way too vague, and is simply misleading when it comes to VG+. I agree with Raunch. Some visually graded VG+ records have no noise whatsoever, but most have at least the occasional tic or some faint background noise in quiet sections or during the lead in:


We will be using the Goldmine grading for Vinyl and not the UK/European version. Goldmine grading:

Vinyl

Near Mint (M-): No surface noise.

Very Good Plus (VG+): Signs of wear but no surface noise.

Very Good (VG): Surface noise evident on playing, especially in soft passages, and during a song's intro and fade, but never overpowers the music.

Good (G): Significant surface noise, scratches that will produce noise, but will play without skipping.

Poor (P), or Fair (F): Won't play through without skipping or repeating.


The following grading system would work much better at providing accurate descriptions to a grade for LPs:

http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/beatles/grading.html

The SH classifieds grading system needs to be modified at the very least.

 

Agreed, it would be nice if it was used this way accurately. However, the EX grade is used very commonly by European sellers for records that fit into Goldmine grade is VG. Which is imo a pretty trashed LP, heartbreakingly so.

I had my heart broken really bad, and I'm still mad about it. Had I not bid on this "Excellent" LP, I would have bid on the other one that came up 5 days later in Mint condition in the US. I have seen no copies of this title turn up in 8 years since. I collect colored vinyl from the 70s of classic rock. I learned pretty fast but I'm still bitter about it.

I learned after three purchases thank god. I only buy from UK sellers when they state much more info than their EX grade. In fact I learned the EX+ is the only listing I would continue reading. Then I am going to need really good photos, and much more writing in the description. Things like EX+, no wear to cover because it has been kept in plastic liner since it was bought, record was played and tapped, and not played again. Stuff like that better be mentioned, or I am outta there so fast.

Yet it has been abused to the point of being a red flag. EX and EX+ just strikes me as a red flag with regards to LPs.

so, NO sellers on this forum should not use "Excellent" to grade vinyl, and currently they are not permitted to per forum rules. It's a become scammers grade imo. VG+ is as well. So accept nothing less than M, NM, and NM- if you really want a top sounding record collection.

 

Impossible. And not true either

First, claiming a record to be NM in any way (let alone the impossible MINT) is opening a can of worms. To many buyers a NM record mean a visually flawless record - not even minor re-sleeving wisps are OK. Not a spindle tracing. No manufacturing anomalies and no storage or age visuals. I've even met people who claim that age or slight fading to the label colors of an otherwise flawless LP knocks it out of the Near Mint category.

The numbers of LPs out there that can meet a readily acceptable near mint grade is exceptionally small, tiny even.

Second, the 'grade' has little to do with the sound under all current gradings. Very Good and Excellent ultimately mean nothing. I have hundreds of of LPs that appear VG+ or nowhere near a 'near mint' that will out do, in every way, identical records that visually appear better. If I were to use a 'grade' standard instead of a sound standard for my own collection I would either have a very small collection, or, I would have a collection of great looking vinyl that was not necessarily the best sounding.

Ideally there should be a sound assessment or grade, in addition to a visual grade, that uses less subjective terminology.