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

While I don't disagree with your overall point, I do find the bolded section (which other posters have also echoed) to be an example of somewhat curious logic, in that it assumes to already know what a VG+ record is, when the guidelines are meant to define exactly what a VG+ record is. It's not like there simply are VG+ records floating around out there, and we can judge the grading scale based on how well it describes them. All we can judge is whether or not people are actually following the scale. As you say, most are not. But it isn't the fault of the scale, which I consider quite reasonable. It's the fault of sellers who ignore the guidelines and inflate the grades to the point that the scale starts to look unrealistic. Basically, I would respond that what you are calling "most VG+ records" are simply VG records. It's much like the way grade inflation in academia has shifted the definition of a C from average to below average.

 

Hi Progfan, appreciate your input!

How do you feel about the audio description under VG+ in this proposed grading scale posted earlier?

Any other input? Gary Gort will be looking this thread over soon. Thanks.


Proposed “SH Classified Forums Vinyl Grading” system:

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

Please note that the Goldmine grading scale has audio quality descriptions for NM, VG and G, but not for VG+. Please also note there is a reference to a grade between NM and VG+ called VG++:

http://www.goldminemag.com/collector...rd-grading-101

For our purposes, we will be including the grade VG++ to fill the gap between NM and VG+, just has been done with CD grading. We have also added a brief audio quality description to VG++ and VG+. All visual grading assumes a bare 100W bulb is used.

Sellers and buyers are encouraged to read the Goldmine link above for accurate grading descriptions. Sellers are encouraged to describe their items in more detail, including any audio issues, when possible. Here is a guide to SH Classified Vinyl Grading:

Near Mint (NM or M-): Near perfect record and cover. No visible flaws or defects (any manufacturing scuffs should be noted). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume.

Very Good Plus Plus (VG++): Only a very small number of minor flaws present (ex. a couple of faint hairlines, a light scuff). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume. No significant ring wear. No seam splits.

Very Good Plus (VG+): More slight signs of wear but still an excellent condition record that plays well. Any surface noise is very minimal and the record is still an enjoyable listen. Covers may show minor defects including very light ring wear.

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

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

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

If the buyer or seller have any questions with how a purchased item has been graded, they are encouraged to PM each other before posting feedback in an attempt to reach a satisfactory agreement.

 

Thanks, Randy. I think the grading scale makes a lot of sense--I'm happy with it. That being said, I hope that sellers will take it literally, paying particular attention to the fairly subtle difference between a VG and a VG+. Even VG describes surface noise heard mainly in quiet sections that doesn't distract from the music. That implies that a VG+ record should really have considerably less surface noise than that--presumably no more than a handful of light tics throughout the entire album (including quiet sections). VG++, as I understand, is sonically indistinguishable from near mint--the only difference between those two categories is visual. If everyone follows that, I'll be happy.

I do wonder whether the qualifier "unexpected" in relation to surface noise will raise issues. Would you be willing to define "unexpected surface noise" as "any noise (such as a pop, tic, or crackle) not normally present on a brand new, unplayed album?"

 

I'll just add:

Grade a record as if you are BUYING it, not selling it.

If you have to think about what grade to give, always go with the lower one.

 

Yes, NM and VG++ should sound the same - like a new record. VG and VG+ are unfortunately more subjective. VG is noisier than VG++. I would hope sellers will take Geoman's advice in regard to play grading those.

I think your suggestion for defining "unexpected surface noise" is a good one. How about if we add your definition this way:


Proposed “SH Classified Forums Vinyl Grading” system:

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

Please note that the Goldmine grading scale has audio quality descriptions for NM, VG and G, but not for VG+. Please also note there is a reference to a grade between NM and VG+ called VG++:

http://www.goldminemag.com/collector...rd-grading-101

For our purposes, we will be including the grade VG++ to fill the gap between NM and VG+, just has been done with CD grading. We have also added a brief audio quality description to VG++ and VG+. All visual grading assumes a bare 100W bulb is used.

Sellers and buyers are encouraged to read the Goldmine link above for accurate grading descriptions. Sellers are encouraged to describe their items in more detail, including any audio issues, when possible. Here is a guide to SH Classified Vinyl Grading. Please Note: "unexpected surface noise" is any noise (such as a pop, tic, or crackle) not normally present on a brand new, unplayed album:

Near Mint (NM or M-): Near perfect record and cover. No visible flaws or defects (any manufacturing scuffs should be noted). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume.

Very Good Plus Plus (VG++): Only a very small number of minor flaws present (ex. a couple of faint hairlines, a light scuff). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume. No significant ring wear. No seam splits.

Very Good Plus (VG+): More slight signs of wear but still an excellent condition record that plays well. Any surface noise is very minimal and the record is still an enjoyable listen. Covers may show minor defects including very light ring wear.

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

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

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

If the buyer or seller have any questions with how a purchased item has been graded, they are encouraged to PM each other before posting feedback in an attempt to reach a satisfactory agreement.

 

Looks great to me, Randy. Thanks so much for all your work on this!

 

So, how do you grade the following?

A 1957 UK Decca promo 45, pristine, unplayed, absolutely minimal surface noise, a very noticeable edge warp

A 1959 US Swan 45, pristine, unplayed, lousy pressing quality with surface noise like a 78

A 1963 US Laurie 45, pristine, unplayed, absolutely minimal surface noise, pressed a millimetre and a half off centre

A 1956 US Sun 45, pristine, unplayed, unbelievably bad surface noise, pressed off centre and cut at very low level

A 1964 UK Decca 45, pristine, unplayed, minimal surface noise, mastered from an acetate

A 1964 UK Columbia 45, labels severely disfigured, playing surface looking horrendously bad, pressed dead central and playing with neither distortion nor surface noise i.e. sounding excellent

I've got all of them!

 

Exactly as you have described them!

If you feel the need to also apply a proposed SH Classified vinyl grade, I would suggest the following, split the grading into two parts (visual and audio) leaving your description in place. Any sleeves would be graded separately as well:

A 1957 UK Decca promo 45, pristine, unplayed, absolutely minimal surface noise, a very noticeable edge warp. Vinyl is visually NM, plays VG++ except for the very noticeable edge warp.

A 1959 US Swan 45, pristine, unplayed, lousy pressing quality with surface noise like a 78. Vinyl is visually NM. Audio quality is Good to Poor due to the lousy pressing quality with surface noise like a 78.

A 1963 US Laurie 45, pristine, unplayed, absolutely minimal surface noise, pressed a millimetre and a half off centre. Vinyl is visually NM, Plays VG+, but pressed a millimetre and a half off centre.

A 1956 US Sun 45, pristine, unplayed, unbelievably bad surface noise, pressed off centre and cut at very low level. Vinyl is visually NM, Plays Poor due to the unbelievably bad surface noise, pressed off centre and cut at very low level.

A 1964 UK Decca 45, pristine, unplayed, minimal surface noise, mastered from an acetate. Vinyl is visually NM, Plays VG+. This record is mastered from an acetate.

A 1964 UK Columbia 45, labels severely disfigured, playing surface looking horrendously bad, pressed dead central and playing with neither distortion nor surface noise i.e. sounding excellent. Vinyl is visually Poor due to labels being severely disfigured and playing surface looking horrendously bad, Plays VG++.

 

Randy, this all looks great!
Three things come to mind:

1) What about "groove wear distortion"? This sound is the bane of my collecting experience. It's not really a surface noise, or crackle or ticks. It's that scratchy fuzzy sound that follow loud parts of the music, and is usually most noticeable toward the end of a side. It typically results from a record being played with a worn or inappropriate stylus. The reason I bring it up is that I have received LPs from all over the globe graded EX to NM that had very little surface noise, but had that awful groove distortion on the loud parts of the music. I'd say a large percentage of pre 1970 records have this issue. It can show up on a record that otherwise looks very carefully handled, and on ones with near silent lead ins and no crackle.

So, how does groove distortion fit into the grading scheme? IMO, a record with groove wear distortion rates no better than VG, if that. Certainly not NM, EX or VG++. I've been round and round with dealers regarding this. Some people claim not to be able to hear it. What do you think?




2. I'd add the word "jacket" (or "cover") to the appropriate part of the VG++ description,

"Very Good Plus Plus (VG++): Only a very small number of minor flaws present (ex. a couple of faint hairlines, a light scuff). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume. Jacket has no significant ring wear and no seam splits."





3. What about "Excellent"? Your proposed guidelines don't include that grade. Personally, I don't think EX is appropriate for this forum's grading, especially if the grading is supposed to reflect Goldmine standards. I'm not a fan of "Excellent", but could work with it if it was an option. I totally respect the fact that some popular and reputable sellers here really like to use the term. Do they have a say in the guidelines, or is management here gonna get rid of EX? And what if sellers here continue to use EX, despite the new suggested guidelines? In the past, I noticed several situations here involving sellers being chastised for using EX by Gorts and other forum members. But, this hasn't happened in a while (a year and a half maybe?).

Whatever the "rules" are, I think they need to serve the community--not us serving the rules. The whole idea of this thread is to improve communication between buyers and sellers, so everybody's happy.

Again Randy, thanks for all you effort! I think this is a good thing.

 

I'm not Randy, but I'd like to give an opinion on this one, if I may:

I think this is where the slippery slope of play-grading always runs the risk of coming into effect. That is, things like groove wear and inner-groove distortion aren't *always* going to be a cut and dry affair when different setups are involved. Case in point: Different styli profile, arms, etc., can exacerbate, and on rare occasion, even virtually eliminate what someone else might be hearing in their setup in terms of IGD or the like. Ditto for groove wear, tracking or surface noise. Using personal experience, I've had records literally sound like two different pressings simply by switching cartridges or setups, or how the cartridge "rides" in the grooves. It doesn't always happen, but it *can* happen. I'd go so far to say that those audible effects have "changed" the play grade -- even significantly in rare instances -- on more than one occasion.

Thus, I think we have to keep in mind that grading is never going to be a 100% exact science, or remove all points of possible contention. It's for this very reason that visual grading also became an accepted from of record grading, years ago, within the Goldmine scale. On the other hand, there are some things, in terms of play-grading, that *should* be cut and dry, and there obviously are instances where play-grading will yield better results than visual grading ever could. I'm also sympathetic to the fact that when a dealer is dealing with a large quantity of records for sale, it's not always possible to play-grade ever single second of a record, or cross-check on multiple setups. Hence, the grading acceptance of the "spot-check," perhaps combined with visual grading, as well. Most importantly, none of this should excuse or allow for gross misgrading or intentional deception.

In this regard, this is what makes record grading, as an exact science, so much more difficult than many other collectable mediums. So many variables. As I stated before, the most important thing is to have clearly defined grading points, with no huge drop-off or upswing, so that, hopefully, it can be "roughed in" as close as humanly possible.

Just my two pesos. As always, others' mileage may vary.

 

Well said, David. You also saved me a bunch of typing.

I do think groove wear can be less noticeable with certain stylus shapes. However, if it is present on the seller's system, then it should be assumed that it will also show up on the buyer's and should be described as an added caveat (i.e. Some IGD on "Michelle"). When it is not present on the seller's table, but is noticeable on the buyer's is when communication between the two parties to resolve any issues becomes more critical.

Still, I think including the non-presence of "groove wear" in the "unexpected surface noise" description and also under VG+ is a good idea. The word "Cover" has also been added to VG++. See updated proposed SH vinyl grading below.

As for using EX, I think we have extensively covered why using this term could become problematic. If anyone wants this explanation again, please refer to my earlier posts in this thread. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.


Proposed “SH Classified Forums Vinyl Grading” system:

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

Please note that the Goldmine grading scale has audio quality descriptions for NM, VG and G, but not for VG+. Please also note there is a reference to a grade between NM and VG+ called VG++:

http://www.goldminemag.com/collector...rd-grading-101

For our purposes, we will be including the grade VG++ to fill the gap between NM and VG+, just has been done with CD grading. We have also added a brief audio quality description to VG++ and VG+. All visual grading assumes a bare 100W bulb is used.

Sellers and buyers are encouraged to read the Goldmine link above for accurate grading descriptions. Sellers are encouraged to describe their items in more detail, including any audio issues, when possible. Here is a guide to SH Classified Vinyl Grading. Please Note: "unexpected surface noise" is any noise (such as a pop, tic, crackle or groove wear) not normally present on a brand new, unplayed album:

Near Mint (NM or M-): Near perfect record and cover. No visible flaws or defects (any manufacturing scuffs should be noted). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume.

Very Good Plus Plus (VG++): Only a very small number of minor flaws present (ex. a couple of faint hairlines, a light scuff). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume. Cover shows no significant ring wear, nor seam splits.

Very Good Plus (VG+): More slight signs of wear but still an excellent condition record that plays well. Any surface noise is very minimal and the record is still an enjoyable listen. No groove wear. Cover may show minor defects including very light ring wear.

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

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

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

If the buyer or seller have any questions with how a purchased item has been graded, they are encouraged to PM each other before posting feedback in an attempt to reach a satisfactory agreement.

 

Your definition of VG+ says it all, albeit unintentionally

 

I'm not sure it was unintentional, as at least one person claimed to just like the sound of "excellent" in describing records, regardless of how the term is used in the UK context. By including the word in the definition of VG+, it still allows sellers to have the meaning of that word attached in some way to the grade, without the ambiguity caused by (some) UK sellers using EX to mean "doesn't skip."

 

If folks think we should include EX next to the description for VG+, we can do that, although I personally think it could be confusing with VG++ right above it. Plus it would be at odds with the SH Classifieds CD grading scale.

Here's a synopsis of my previous explanation of EX and its use in the proposed grading scale:

If we are to continue to use Goldmine as the basis for grading vinyl on the SH Forum Classifieds, then Excellent cannot be used as a grade above VG+, because Excellent and VG+ are equivalent (of the same equal value) according to the latest Goldmine grading scale:

http://www.goldminemag.com/collector-resources/record-grading-101/2

 

Good explanation, and thanks to David, too! You're right that a killer system can sometimes conquer groove wear. Actually, the systems where groove wear can be hardest to identify are on super muddy junky systems that reproduce no sounds above 5k (sometimes found in used record stores, and usually with speakers located under a cabinet ).

Sounds good to me.

^^^I sure don't want the editing to drag on forever, 'cause this is such a a huge improvement over the current guidelines.

The VG description could also mention "cover", for clarification :
Very Good (VG): More obvious wear. Surface noise evident on playing, especially in soft passages, and during a song's intro and fade but never overpowers the music. Ring wear and other defects evident on the cover. (etc.)

 

OK, guys this getting near the end for comments. The following goes to Gary and Steve for final approval tomorrow:


Proposed “SH Classified Forums Vinyl Grading” system:

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

Please note that the Goldmine grading scale has audio quality descriptions for NM, VG and G, but not for VG+. Please also note there is a reference to a grade between NM and VG+ called VG++:

http://www.goldminemag.com/collector...rd-grading-101

For our purposes, we will be including the grade VG++ to fill the gap between NM and VG+, just has been done with CD grading. We have also added a brief audio quality description to VG++ and VG+. All visual grading assumes a bare 100W bulb is used.

Sellers and buyers are encouraged to read the Goldmine link above for accurate grading descriptions. Sellers are encouraged to describe their items in more detail, including any audio issues, when possible. Here is a guide to SH Classified Vinyl Grading. Please Note: "unexpected surface noise" is any noise (such as a pop, tic, crackle or groove wear) not normally present on a brand new, unplayed album:

Near Mint (NM or M-): Near perfect record and cover. No visible flaws or defects (any manufacturing scuffs should be noted). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume.

Very Good Plus Plus (VG++): Only a very small number of minor flaws present (ex. a couple of faint hairlines, a light scuff). No unexpected surface noise or other audible issues at normal listening volume. Cover shows no significant ring wear, nor seam splits.

Very Good Plus (VG+): More slight signs of wear but still an excellent condition record that plays well. Any surface noise is very minimal and the record is still an enjoyable listen. No groove wear. Cover may show minor defects including very light ring wear.

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

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

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

If the buyer or seller have any questions with how a purchased item has been graded, they are encouraged to PM each other before posting feedback in an attempt to reach a satisfactory agreement.

 

Well, after a month of discussion and two weeks of refinement we have a new vinyl grading system in place.

Gary has posted the modified “SH Classified Forums Vinyl Grading” system here:

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

The Goldmine link needs to be replaced and made to work, but otherwise it is the same as the proposed system in post #86.

I believe these changes will be helpful to both sellers and buyers of vinyl on this forum. If for some reason this system does not work, someone else can take on the job of making it better.

I want to especially thank Tom (timusic) for starting this thread. Without his initial question none of this would have happened. Thanks also to everyone else who posted or sent PMs. I really appreciate all your feedback, comments and suggestions.

 

I agree with you 100%, but I think you are even a little too cautious in what you are saying. Different cartridges that match better or worse with different arms can make a tremendous difference in the amount of perceived groove wear, IGD, etc. Over the last few years, I have started writing my impressions of the sound etc on LPs when I listen to them, then sticking that piece of paper in with the album. I've never had bad groove wear sounds or super-excessive IGD, but on some albums on some cartridges it is perceptible. Changing cartridges to ones that track superbly instead of just very well has made massive differences in how given LPs sound. Some which I remember having some noise and which is confirmed in detailed description on the little cards have no noise at all with a different cartridge. Truly astonishing differences, to the degree where albums I was going to get rid of became keepers after listening with a new cartridge.

By the way, it is not just a question of stylus shape, since I believe all of my cartridges have microline shape or something similar. I think it often has to do with how well the cartridges mate with the arm, what the resonances are, etc. I just think that one needs to figure out how to get really excellent tracking, and that that quality of a cartridge choice should really take significant precedence over over factors.

To get back to the question of play-grading: I worry a little that if I use playgrading with my current optimized setting which tracks extremely well and has almost no perceptible groovewear sounds on most LPs, that buyers will have setups that track less well, and will be disappointed by playgrades that I give. It makes me feel like not putting any playgrade down in descriptions, even if I could, although I don't think that's really rational.