What are your Discogs pet peeves?

Sellers that have an incomplete product or defective and list it for the same sale price as complete, equal condition items, for instance a deluxe box set of 'In Rainbows' that was missing the lp's, condition put as NM despite missing products, same price as other NM products.

 

i don't even bother with the daily e-mail anymore in part because of this. i just visit the site and filter down via "items i want" and browse. a better experience overall.

 

I still keep it up in case something gets posted that’s either never available, or someone lists something at a screaming deal, how I landed a KPG cut abraxas for $35 recently

 

right, but you'll get an actual "live" update if you just visit the section of the site itself rather than wait for the e-mail. if you're looking for screaming deals they may be gone by the time almost random time the e-mail shows up in your inbox.

 

Here's another one that I've encountered TWICE this week. I bought some UK and German Pink Floyd records. Early stuff from 1969-1971. What I got were very clearly ~1977 represses with LC numbers on the labels. Actually the worst of all was a supposedly NM A3/B2 Dark Side. What showed up is an A9/B8 HTM late 70s 5th press. Still should be a great sounding record, but for $137 total, it's a rip-off. Maybe for ~$50. You'd think if you're going to sell high value and sought after records you could make sure you know what you're selling so you aren't ripping people off. The real kicker was, the description of the Dark Side 5th press said "UK second pressing" and the discogs entry is for A3/B2 or A3/B3 as a variation. So I could understand getting an A3/B3 which would technically be the 3rd/4th pressing, but A9/B8? Get real. And this seller clearly knows what runout info is with the amount of nice records they're selling.

Can't be bothered to read the runouts? Maybe don't just guess at what you've actually got... It’s not like discogs entries usually leave much to the imagination.

 

Buyers that don't leave feedback. Obviously must be fine with the product but don't bother leaving positive feedback.

 

Sellers who don’t understand run outs and other essential ID points.

I had a seller send me what I thought was a sealed pressing from 2013. I paid extra for it. Turned out to be a 2021 reissue but there was no way of knowing before opening it. When I complained he directed me back to the master release page! He said it’s the same record.

And to top it all off he wouldn’t return my money unless the record was sealed.

And to top that off discogs wouldn’t remove the retaliatory bad feedback he left me. This guy has since earned a 60% positive rating based on multiple complaints.

 

What the correct move usually is there is to refund the buyer the amount extra they paid to equate to what pressing they actually got. That Dark Side I mentioned a few posts ago, I sent the seller a link to what the pressing he sent me goes for and asked for a refund of the difference. The record sounds great and I’d like to keep it but I expect to pay a fair price for it, not double what it’s worth.

 

Or not satisfied but don’t care enough to hassle with it. I’ve bought a few records that I didn’t pay much for but to send it back and wait for a refund just wasn’t worth the effort, the money for postage, etc, so I just didn’t leave feedback. Probably not the best move on my part, but I’m not going to go through the hassle of the seller asking me to remove negative feedback, or if they can refund me partly on a $10 record. I suppose I could leave a neutral review but that’s some kind of huge no-no for discogs sellers for some reason.

 

But in my case I would rather pay more for a sealed copy. No way to reseal a wrongly sent record. That guy should eat the cost and take back the open record for a full refund.

 

I have to disagree with you there, simply because if there's no way of telling without unsealing the record, you cannot guarantee any sealed copy is going to be 2013 or 2021. Really the only right thing to do is to refund you the difference. Sending it back to the seller for a full refund burns the seller because maybe they paid what a sealed 2013 pressing would cost, and now you're sending back something worth less. It sucks when this happens, but when here's no way of knowing, that's on the buyer for taking the risk. I've been in your spot before, I've bought sealed 60s albums which were listed as sealed 60s Columbia 2 eye pressings but the only way to know for sure would be to unseal them because the jackets were identical to the first pressings. I ended up with 1971 represses, but that's not the fault of the buyer. I ended up just keeping the records, because where else am I going to find brand new never played, AAA Moby Grape records anymore? I could have probably asked for a partial refund, but, see previous sentence, there was nothing to base the value off of. Not to mention, I only paid a little more than a VG+ 60s pressing from a few years earlier anyway, and I knew the risk going in if it would be the 1971 repress. I wanted an unplayed copy though to have a baseline for what it should sound like on my system, and I still got that.

 

Hav

Have had this convo before and completely disagree, it’s the sellers responsibility to not sell the wrong item, and if they do not know they should sell it at the lower price point

 

W

Where were the records you bought listed. Conveniently under the first pressing listings? I could see if someone were to post here and say: it may be this or that. But on discogs there should be a special category saying: it’s a grab bag surprise.

 

It was listed under first pressing yes. However IMO it was up to me to do my homework. Buying sealed 50 year old records is going to be a crapshoot either way and I knew that there could be a 1971 repress instead of a 1967 first press in the jacket. If I hadn't done my homework and saw that the first and second pressings had the exact same jackets, I probably would have been disappointed but then realized that it was on me. The seller sold me the album as sealed, and it had been in that jacket for over 50 years. IMO in no way is it on them if I don't get the exact pressing I was hoping for, since you know, there was absolutely no way for the seller to know 100% either way.

Your every day average person who doesn't know the difference between a first and second press isn't super likely to be buying sealed records that old, and if they did buy the sealed copy I did, they'd learn real quick to do their homework. I just cannot agree that opening an item which is sealed, when the seller has no idea what's inside, and then being mad that it wasn't the exact pressing inside is the sellers fault.

There's risk with buying sealed records just as there's risk buying used records. If you want a mint copy of an exact pressing, it's really up to you to hunt it down. Let me put it this way: What if you did get the 2013 pressing inside but it had non fill or was warped? Would you expect a refund then? If I had sold you the record I would have probably told you to get lost, and not offer anything back since you opened a sealed record I had kept sealed. Of course that's common policy on sold records, you open it, it's yours. Change your mind? Sure, send it back still sealed for a full refund, no problem.

The right move would have been to ask for a partial refund from the seller, and if you don't want to keep the record, sell it as never played but opened for about the price of a 2021 pressing. Then you've got all your money back and nobody gets ripped off.

 

Feels like a pretty different scenario when we are talking about something 50+ years old, and say Daft Punk- Random Access Memories, where someone should pretty clearly know if they have newly purchased in print version, or if they’ve had it lying around for years, kinda ****ed up to go buy one off the shelves for $25, list it on Discogs for $100, then not offer a refund once the buyer opens it and realizes you’re full of crap

 

I get the point here. But what’s to stop a seller from loading up on brand new daft punk sealed records and then listing them as 2013. And then saying: oh well. Could have been a 2013. You’re out of luck. I’ll refund you the difference for a 2020 pressing (which you may already own). Im surprised to hear you make this argument in a forum that has so much invested in the distinctions between LP releases.

But—again—I think it’s tricky in the older cases. I wonder what the discogs rules are on this.

 

Precisely the scenario I found myself in.

 

Did you get yours from Turkey? Mine sold quite a few like this but he did refund my money fortunately.

Unfortunately the best you can do with this album now is buy unsealed. I tried getting confirmation from people, offered to pay for the record, let them open it, and ship if they could confirm it was a Chab cut, but return it if it wasn’t, and they wouldn’t go for that either, which leads me to believe these people knowingly are trying to pull a fast one on people.

 

No. Right in the US.

 

for higher value or rarer stuff i'll just go ahead and ask the seller to confirm what they're offering matches the data on the release page exactly. no biggie if they don't bother to respond because that itself is telling enough to me that i probably wouldn't want to buy from someone like that.

 

I was adding my (sealed) Jethro Tull 'Songs from the Wood' box set
to my Discogs collection page when I saw a UK seller was offering their sealed set for
£499.95+£500.00 shipping about $1,315.72 total.
Is this a joke or am I missing something?

 

Newish (several months old now) Discogs shipping regulations make it very easy to produce a result like that. The dealer actually had little to do with it. Basically if you see a reasonably priced record with an insane shipping price you can blame it on Discogs's flawed systems and expect you could straighten it out with the seller if you actually wanted it.

 

How long would you all give a seller before you ask them to cancel and refund your order? I placed an order for a few things from Australia to save on shipping and the person states that their inventory isn’t always accurate since they sell at flee markets etc., and said they will just refund anything not in stock. I asked a couple of times for them to confirm that the items were in stock so they didn’t just ship some and not all due to cost of shipping, as it was all or nothing, and they have done absolutely zero in terms of responding to messages, updating orders etc. It’s been 3.5 days, not an inexpensive order, am I asking too much to have a response by now?

 

Discogs is about *the* best generic info resource for collectors and taggers.
As a dealer on eBay, and collector in my own right over decades, I would say as a general observation that Sellers with standards too low to have survived the evolving thresholds on eBay have migrated to Discogs (and Amazon too).
eBay is a safe Buyer environment even if gradings amateur at best. I avoid buying on Discogs.
There ought to be league tables for Sellers who grade properly/badly. Sellers describing VG vinyl as NM are a public nuisance and should be banished.
The feedback system on Discogs is a joke.
Discogs won't help you deal with bad Sellers - law of the jungle.
The new layout (Master Release Beta Version) vs. "old" - what's that about. Horrible.
In short I wish Discogs were a professional marketplace to match its credentials as an info resource.

 

If you don't know the version of a sealed record and state that fact in the description, I don't think a refund is called for.
If the buyer feels otherwise, they should message the seller asking if they will get a partial refund before they purchase.
Have you ever been to an auction?