The thin line between VG+ and VG vinyl

I'm sure record grading has been a much posted about topic here so forgive me, I'm new.

Lately, I've been paying more for better pressings after doing my research (how I actually found out about this forum). I don't want to buy a record twice. I've been increasingly bummed by records I've received as VG+ on discogs. If you buy a VG+ record you expect no pops, clicks, or skips right?

As per discogs:


Very Good Plus (VG+)
Vinyl
Generally worth 50% of the Near Mint value. A Very Good Plus record will show some signs that it was played and otherwise handled by a previous owner who took good care of it. Defects should be more of a cosmetic nature, not affecting the actual playback as a whole. Record surfaces may show some signs of wear and may have slight scuffs or very light scratches that don't affect one's listening experiences. Slight warps that do not affect the sound are "OK". The label may have some ring wear or discoloration, but it should be barely noticeable. Spindle marks may be present. Picture sleeves and inner sleeves will have some slight wear, slightly turned-up corners, or a slight seam split. An LP cover may have slight signs of wear, and may be marred by a cut-out hole, indentation, or cut corner. In general, if not for a couple of minor things wrong with it, this would be Near Mint.


Very Good (VG)
Vinyl
Generally worth 25% of Near Mint value. Many of the defects found in a VG+ record will be more pronounced in a VG disc. Surface noise will be evident upon playing, especially in soft passages and during a song's intro and fade, but will not overpower the music otherwise. Groove wear will start to be noticeable, as with light scratches (deep enough to feel with a fingernail) that will affect the sound. Labels may be marred by writing, or have tape or stickers (or their residue) attached. The same will be true of picture sleeves or LP covers. However, it will not have all of these problems at the same time. Goldmine price guides with more than one price will list Very Good as the lowest price.


As a buyer do expect these sellers of large volumes to listen to each record fully so that you have an accurate grade? How often do you send vintage records back?

Its weird because this is a tough time for record stores as we all know but simply visually grading a record after cleaning isn't fair to us buyers. I mean do I complain about a 53 year old record skipping? It just doesn't seem like the right thing to do right now. Problem is if I sold said record I'd have to sell it as Good + so that I can sleep at night.

 

Although I am happy to attempt to fix skips on records with a toothpick, many are not, so if it’s advertised as VG+ and skips, that isn’t a VG+ record. If people are still selling overgraded records like it’s the “right thing to do right now,” then it’s the right thing to by all means complain right now. As it would be at any other time with anything wrong with any other record. These guys don’t get a pass because of COVID. I wouldn’t bother selling that record, though...you’ll get a pittance for it, and probably some of the tracks are still good. I am sorry you’ll have to buy another copy—I’ve been there many times.

 

I've always interpreted this to mean very little surface noise, certainly not a crackle. But if you hear a very slight tick in between tracks, then this is fine. And mostly you can reduce the tick with a good cleaning or two. A skip is definitely out, and so is a loud pop, but very minimal noise is expected especially at the run in.

 

Online sellers notoriously over-grade records. A good rule of thumb is, expect at least 1-2 grades lower than described when you buy online. Very often, I buy a VG+ record online, and when I go to listen to it, its either groove worn, has skips, or repetitive clicks/pops. Sometimes all 3. I don't put up with that anymore though. The first few times I let it slide, or accepted a partial refund from the seller, but now, that junk gets sent back on the sellers expense. Sometimes genuine mistakes are made, but sometimes and I think this is pretty often, the seller is just careless and expects the buyer to not put up a fuss when they get a junk record. IMO, if you're going to sell a record online, you need to be honest and describe any flaws it has. Don't just glance at a record, see that it doesn't have any deep scratches and then list it as VG+. Or if you do, lower your prices a couple grades. If you don't have the time to play test, then you should accept that you'll get less for your records that are just visually graded. That's simply my opinion. Any record more than $20 needs to be play graded IMO. As a seller, if you aren't willing to give a full refund and let the buyer keep the record while you take a loss, you need to play grade your records. For the more expensive records, you should be willing to pay for return shipping for the buyer to send it back. I'm probably a bit more picky than most people with this, but I've been burned so many times, and often when I tell the seller, they act nasty towards me when it was they who graded the record wrong. Once I even had a 2 month long ebay dispute fiasco where the buyer accused me of putting a different record in the sleeve and telling him it skipped to try to get a return. He was 100% sure that I was trying to take advantage of him. That was the last time I ever bought something from someone with less than 100% perfect feedback.

 

I completely disagree with those Discogs criteria.

First off, album covers should be graded separately from the vinyl itself, and my disapprovement of the guidelines is basically with the vinyl-grading points.

So, in accordance with Discogs description of VG , a lower grading of VG- or G+ would actually be not good. They need to look up the definition of the word *good* in a dictionary. To call something *very good minus* (VG-) that should actually be at best Fair , which is a grade below Good , is just utterly useless and devoid of meaning.


My standard:

(M) Mint = never been played and is flat, and perfectly free of any visible defect.

(NM) Near-Mint = has been played only once or twice, and is otherwise Mint.

(VG+) Very Good plus = has been played but not to the point of groove-wear. No surface noise. Any slight signs of wear are cosmetic only and do not affect play. Warps are NOT okay !

(VG) Very Good = Very slight surface noise is detectable in between tracks but NOT during quieter passages, and NO ticks, NO pops.
Warp still NOT okay !

(G) Good = some surface noise detectable during quieter passages of music, a few ticks, but no pops. Slight visual warp not affecting play is acceptable.

(F) Fair = expect surface noise to be noticeable throughout, including ticks and pops but NO skips.


Monetary value is based soley on what someone is willing to pay and has nothing to do with grade.

 

This is how records SHOULD be graded. The first thing I tell anyone who's never bought a graded record is "good does not mean good condition". I don't really understand how the "good/G" grade is basically a warped, groove worn, skipping piece of trash. Makes no sense to me.

 

And how do you manage to do that ?

 

Right. It is only FAIR that a record should not skip !

 

They pay return shipping. I'll say directly in the email to them that since the item was not as described, either I'll accept a return if they pay for shipping, or I'll open a dispute with Paypal or eBay. Usually they just pay the return shipping and the problem is solved. Sometimes like I mentioned the seller gets defensive and blames me for their overgrading, and unfortunately it has happened more than once, hence why I'm not willing to put up with this anymore.

 

Ok thanks.

 

In my experience I've found Japanese sellers are the biggest under-graders. Selling me records as VG or VG+ when they are basically like new. Amazin'!

 

VG - heavy surface noise, no skipping whatsoever
VG+ - less surface noise
VG++ - quiet surface noise that doesn't hurt quiet parts of the music

If it's anything worse, automatically a G or less with description of why, I wouldn't buy anything marked lower VG blindly, and if it's VG you may want to ask.

 

I'm surprised that skipping is such an issue. The last years I've been buying 57 used records from Discogs sellers, shops and record fairs. Most of them VG+ or VG, some NM. All of them in the Netherlands and Belgium. None of them skipped. Actually I've never had or heard a skipping record.
Once I had a new records that kept playing the same groove and needed a little push to continue, but that's not what is meant by skipping, is it?

 

I mostly try to get around this by paying what I would consider to be a reasonable price for the same record a grade or two below what the seller describes it as. Obviously you have to be pretty patient and willing to put time into monitoring auctions etc. if this is your approach though, the times I decide to trust the grading and pay more because I want something quickly I'll generally end up regretting it. Even sticking to it I still regularly find myself feeling burned.

 

What do you mean by surface noise?
Is it a generic term for all the slight ticks, crackles etc you can hear?
Or
Is it the noise the needle is making while going through the groove (i.e. ticks and crackles are excluded)?

 

The most important part of buying graded records is to lower your expectations. If you buy a NM record, if it’s not from someone you trust, chances are it’s going to be VG. Expect that so when you get it you don’t feel as burned and you adjust the amount you spend on it accordingly. It’z really important to keep track of sellers you trust. Often I’ll buy something from them that I only have passing interest in because I know I’ll be getting a nice record that I can resell if I don’t like it.

 

It’s anything besides the recorded music. Can be anything from hiss, distortion, crackle, pops, ticks, anything that you hear that isn’t part of the recording or the mastering process. (EQ, Panning, etc). Then there’s also groove wear which is something different IMO. This is permanent damage that ruins the sound completely. You lose the actual recording, instead of just having extra noise sprinkled in here and there. Personally I can usually deal with some surface noise, but groove wear is a huge no-no.

 

Unfortunately, your system will render a LOT of new vinyl as VG.

Surface noise comes standard from many pressing plants on brand new vinyl, as do warps!
I've gotten severely warped LPs from QRP, Furnace, Pallas, even MusicMatters! I can fix warps, but not noisy pressings.

I sold a rare 3LP set on Discogs (Jamie Johnson's Guitar Song), and listed it as NM since I opened it new, played one time, and sold.
Buyer accused me of lying about it due to surface noise.

"Beautiful music. I love this 3-record set but I have to say, there's too much surface noise on these records to believe seller opened, listened once, then re-sleeved for sale.
More use than described, for sure."​

I tried in vain to explain the fact that it was pressed at United, and there was even a write up to this effect in one of the reviews when it came out how it was a shame they did not seek a quality pressing plant, and that this was the reason for the less than dead quiet vinyl.

I offered full refund including return shipping, but he wanted to keep it since it was 'rare' and ding me on feedback instead.

 

I know.

It's not my rating system that renders new vinyl VG, it is manufacturing doing that ! The problem there is that an unopened, unplayed record may only ever be (actual) VG+ at best, and in all likelihood, not even that.
*Mint* as a designation is only theoretical anyway, since in order to determine if it is actually free of surface noise is to play it - which then automatically renders it NM.

Perhaps *Mint* should be changed to
(U/O) unopened, or (U/P) unplayed.

Then if it is in fact perfectly quiet, flat, looks pristine and is played once only, it earns the grade of (SM) Stone-Mint.

 

Your standard here is excellent. Skips are never ok. A warped lp that doesn’t skip is only good.

The only thing I would mention is this...Mint means never played, which should imply never opened, which means, you can’t tell the condition of the record. But that’s ok, because that’s with any record newly purchased. If a record is played a lot, but is kept perfectly clean, calling it near near mint is fine by me, because there is no such thing as groove wear with a properly weighted cartridge.

 

"Very Good condition" for a brand new LP would be okay though, if the correct grading scale was used. Very Good would mean almost perfect. And yes, most new records would be VG or VG+. Mint also rarely means free of defects. It just means unplayed. I've even seen people describe a played record as "mint" if it has no noticeable defects.

 

I'm just curious - by listing your standard, are you just defining things "as you think they should be" or "as you'd like them to be"? While I do think Goldmine is too lenient and subjective, your grading is extremely stringent and would place a vast number of new records into the G category. By saying that NO ticks and NO pops are allowable even at the VG level, there's very little difference audio-wise between your VG/VG+/NM gradings - just very slight surface noise only between tracks allowed for VG. 90% of the new records I buy, whether non-audiophile or from audiophile labels like Analogue Productions, Music Matters, etc have an occasional stray tick or pop. Getting a totally silent record is a rare experience for me. Maybe 1/3 of AP records have a light wrap that DNAP.

You see certain eBay sellers define their own grading, which always seems to find a way to have multiple levels of Excellent, some of which (E minus minus) are really more like Goldmine VG, so that kind of grading is definitely bogus.

Even if someone attempts to grade honestly to Goldmine, there's still way too much room for subjectivity.

"Defects should be more of a cosmetic nature, not affecting the actual playback as a whole." - what is "actual playback as a whole"? People can interpret that very differently.

"Record surfaces may show some signs of wear and may have slight scuffs or very light scratches that don't affect one's listening experiences." - "don't affect one's listening experiences" - also very very subjective.

 

My grading is stringent (what I'd like )

Okay, so surface noise is slight between tracks - that's where most listener's would notice it, but if it is there it is in the grooves too only the music drowns it out. So not dead quiet. Now - what is a *tick* versus *slight surface noise*
then ? A *tick* as I define it is a faint, infinitesimally brief (¹/20 of a second), single sound that rises just above the hiss of slight surface noise. A *pop* is much louder and will obliterate a small fraction of a second of the music.

The difference between NM and VG+ on my scale is only that VG+ may appear with slight signs of visible wear , but otherwise is NM as it is flat and quiet.

VG on my scale allows for slight surface noise, so not dead quiet.


The whole point is to not come to expect new records to have surface noise with ticks ! If they do have surface noise AND ticks , then that to me is not very good !

 

It is possible to have software solve the issue of ambiguity as to what constitutes *slight* noise; i.e.- *faint* crackle, *tick*, *pop* etc. .
Even the scale of grading, while arbitrary as far as terms, can be standardised based on a numeric value assigned by its measurement.

 

QUOTE="angelo73, post: 24469232, member: 82247"]It is possible to have software solve the issue of ambiguity as to what constitutes *slight* noise; i.e.- *faint* crackle, *tick*, *pop* etc. .
Even the scale of grading, while arbitrary as far as terms, can be standardised based on a numeric value assigned by its measurement.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Is the outputsignal of the turntable going into to some software device? Where can you buy it?