Should vinyl records no longer be sold “sealed”?

Sealed records as collectibles is fine. But as the video points out, there is absolutely no assurance that a sealed copy will contain a mint record. This is particularly significant for audiophiles. Many know that Classic Records issued a ton of dished 200g records back in the day. In addition to dished, warped and scratched records, off center pressings and other manufacturing defects that could be hidden, there are oddities like the recent Mobile Fidelity Simon & Garfunkel One Step that often contained two copies of disk #1. Or missing photos or inserts (very common).

Worst of all is the damage to new records caused by certain plastic inner sleeves. RTI, a great pressing plant used pink inner sleeves in the 2010’s that were coated in an oily substance that left a residue on the record. It affected many pressings that sell for high prices in sealed condition - Rhino US pressings, the Sony Dylan mono box, ORG and Analogue Productions titles. With careful wet cleaning it seems that most of the residue from the pink sleeves can be removed, but not all. RTI (and other manufacturers) also sometimes used plastic inner sleeves that were abrasive, resulting in hundreds of micro scratches on the records.

Many Classic Records titles were affected. I own sealed sets of many Classic titles including all of the Led Zeppelin 33-1/3 so it is not in my interest to say so, but I would not pay high prices for a sealed Classic Records title - it’s just too risky. There is also glue residue from inner sleeves. I purchased a copy of Pearl Jam’s PJ20 on vinyl, and album that sells for super high prices today, and one of the records had a line of glue along one end of the record - totally unplayable. The famous Cisco Records reissue of Steely Dan’s Aja that can sell for $300+ In sealed condition is often found with glue residue. Better to buy an open copy you know doesn’t have this issue.

That said, with certain companies and time periods, your odds of getting a nice pressing are much better. MOFI is usually a good risk. Analogue Productions are relatively reliable especially after they began using QRP. But there is always some risk.

Long story short. I liked sealed vinyl to collect but I do not like paying huge premiums for sealed copies of out of print records. It’s just too risky.

 

I HATED that aspect of GameStop when I worked there, (and it was long enough ago it still wasn't called GameStop) and I still hate that. Biggest reason I don't buy new from them. Best Buy did it with laptops too when I worked for them. Pre setup. Fine for the neophytes, but when I bought a gaming laptop from them for stupid money, you better believe I made them go back up the ladder to fetch a truly sealed box.
To bring this post back on topic, I want my new records sealed. If I'm paying for new, I want to deflower that virgin vinyl myself and an unsealed "new" record makes me feel like someone else claimed Prima Nocta on my new record. Just my $.02

 

That's quite an overreaction. "Presumed Mint" means just that - that the seller hasn't broken the seal and presumes that the record inside is mint. Which is a logical presumption if the record is sealed, since the overwhelming majority of new records sold are indeed mint. It's ridiculous to think that everyone who lists a sealed record as mint or presumed mint is being sneaky - that attitude is what's total crap. Just because you got screwed by an a-hole seller doesn't mean that all sellers are out to lie to you and screw you.

 

One more thought that I had, if records don't come sealed, where are places going to put the price sticker? Because you know at many places it'll just go on the cover....And they won't have easy peel of stickers either.

 

It's not an overreaction, it's my opinion. You are having an overreaction by personally attacking me for my opinion. Maybe you don't buy many new records or have a different definition of 'mint'. If you did, you would know that the overwhelming majority come out of the jacket as far less than mint. If it's so obvious that sealed records are mint, why does a seller have to even state it? if the seller can presume it's mint, the buyer can presume it's not. I clearly didn't say everyone is being sneaky. I clearly didn't say anything about personally getting ripped off by a seller and I certainly never have, so don't put words in my my mouth. Did you assume, presume or just decide to make up those things to help your argument?

 

Ever consider anger management classes?