What is it with Discogs sellers? Post your horror stories here...

I was just having fun. I get it. Personally, I'm fine with visual gradings as long as they seem to be a reasonable seller if it had issues. Plus those sellers aren't going to go away. The issue should really be about the people who are sellers but don't actually care about the format.

 

All I can say is that this discussion is a large part of why I never, under any circumstances sell my unwanted records on ebay or Discogs.

Beat ones go to the charity shop. Good ones go to the local record store. The locals don't pay as much as I might get elsewhere, but I don't think the difference could possibly make up for the amount of headache that the more anal buyers would be serving up.

I'm forever thankful to the people who are willing to sell used records and who do their best to grade and list them accurately. One reason I like buying from the classifieds here.

 

I'm confused by your post. You say this:

.... to which I'd answer: If "anal" to you is defined as a buyer who simply expects the pressing listed and not much else, I don't know what to tell you. But then you say this at the end of the post:

.... which seems like you care about getting the pressing you expected.

 

Two aren't mutually exclusive.

If I care about a particular pressing, it is usually significantly more expensive than a standard one. In those cases, I have had success buying items off Discogs, but I also buy them from the forum here or occasionally on ebay. I have had mostly good Discogs experiences, but that is also because of the corollary:

I understand how records are graded and sold and don't have unrealistic expectations of sellers like some of the posters here seem to.

I have dealt with unreasonable buyers before, and it seems like they are still a minority of record buyers, but certainly a vocal and unpleasant one. I have zero desire to deal with the headaches associated with that niche, even if they are still a minority, as the money just isn't worth the hassle to me.

 

I personally believe the discogs rating system is not reliable.
This does not mean that you are not a good seller. I don't know you.
Just saying that I have had bad experiences with sellers with 100% feedback.

What proclamations?
It's just cautious behavior.

You should define unreasonable.

I'll tell you some of my recent experiences and you tell me if what I stated before is unreasonable in that light if you will..

All sellerss had 100% feedback.

1 - Bought a UK NM/NM 10' from a EU seller, for the benefit of avoiding customs, but still the record was quite costy.
He said it was unplayed.
The record arrived with unluckily both cover and inner sleeve damaged because they were packed inadequately.
After contacting the seller, he apologized and said his wife had packed it as he works in another location during the week.
He reimbursed me including shipping.
I felt he was being genuine and gave him back 50% of what he reimbursed me.
Yes,I am unreasonable. Unreal!

2 - Got a fair price from a seven record bulk offer from one guy. He managed to give me a good price due to quantity.
We are speaking anyway about almost 500€ worth of wax, so not cheap anyway. They were listed as NM/NM but not play graded.
I took a chance.
None of them was really nm . I was not about to complain anyway as i deemed them still acceptable.
Unluckily 3 of them were off center and once again unluckily, it could be heard.
I am saying this as someone who is not particularly sensitive to this issue. I have a few records pressed off center and also own of all the tone poets reported to have had pitch issue and I happily spin them with no problem whatsoever.
So I contacted the seller for reimbursement not because I want perfection, but simply because having paid some for these the moment they turn out to have pressing defects they are decreasing in value.
The moment I contacted the seller he reinforced with 'hey but I told you I hadn't listened '.. like I was disputing some grading nuance or something.
I simply told them I could not accept a pressing defect given the money paid.

Now, my consideration is:
The seller only had less than 20 records on sale. Had he bothered to give them a spin , would he have noticed the problem and described it thus avoiding to waste his money on shipping and my time ?
I think so

That's why I PERSONALLY usually ask to play grade items of a certain value. Not because there might be one click more than due.
If the seller refuses, it's in their right. I don't hold any resentment. Just move on.

If all this sounds unreasonable then you either refuse to get the real picture and acknowledge that some people might have a different mileage than yours or you are in bad faith and part of the problem. I believe the former to be true with regards to all the participants to this thread, hence this post which hopefully serves to give a better angle to those who are interested.

And to all those boasting about their gradings as if they did anything special.
I have 100% grading both as buyer and as a seller on discogs and ebay. So apparently no seller who has had to do with me had complaints.

 

I still don't fully understand your position. In your original post, it sounded like you were saying that buyers who expect the pressing to be the one listed by the seller are being "anal" and unreasonable. If that's your position, I respect your opinion of course, but it seems unreasonable in itself to me. I'm not some "anal" buyer; I simply want the pressing to be the right one. A "Jobete" With The Beatles in NM condition is worth a little more than a "Dominion" pressing in NM condition. They are both from the same year and label, and to a seller that doesn't care too much about those things, they might look the same. Am I being "anal" because I paid a little extra for a pressing that I don't have, when I have three "Dominion" pressings sitting on my shelf? Or should I just let it go and not worry too much about the £90 I just spent on a what ends up being a fourth copy of the same pressing?

I'll repeat, in other parts of your post(s), it sounds like you feel the same way as I do. If you do, I apologize. But I guess I'm just not clear as to what you mean by an "anal" buyer. Give me an example.

 

I completely understand and it's the exact same scenario with CD's that share the same catalog numbers with different countries pressings. I know I'll ask every time from now on going through a $14 loss, yeah I know 1st world problem, because of this same problem and an uncooperative seller.

 

Dave, I (and probably you as well) hate this "first world problem" saying. It's yet another put down of you or your opinion, much like "Boomer" and "It is what it is". All of these make want to cleanse the area around (and including) the person who uttered them with fire. Grrrrrrr
Happy New Year to you!

 

John, I have no time for hating anything these days, but I understand the dislike for that statement. I was just trying to convey that I know it's a pretty minor annoyance cost-wise for me compared to a lot of others in this thread, but still it should never have to be this way. Going to take a shower now.
And a very Happy New Year to you too.

 

At least he's spelling it correctly I love it when people type "all intensive purposes" instead of all intents and purposes. Or even better, "regiment" when they clearly mean regimen. "Have you seen my record-cleaning regiment?" "No, but if it takes an army to get it done, it must be intense!"

 

I've had generally good luck with Discogs over the years, but just had one of my strangest experiences. I've been on a classical tear lately and ordered an MFSL pressing of a Rachmaninoff symphony and a Mercury Living Presence pressing of Rachmaninoff piano concertos I wanted. A couple of days go by and the seller tells me he is having trouble finding the MFSL but to please be patient. Given it was the holidays, I told him I could wait a bit and to let me know when he found it. I wait 11 days hearing nothing then shoot him a note. Two days later he responds that he still can't find the MFSL but that he sent me a "care package." I write him back and ask him what that means - did he send me the MLP without the MFSL? Five more days go by before I hear from him again (just yesterday) telling me he sent me 3-4 LPs, but forgot to send the MLP and he would get that one out by the end of the week. Today I received the LP's he sent me and its 4 common classical LPs that I really have no use for.

So 20 days after putting in and paying for an order, no MFSL, no MLP (yet) and 4 LPs I don't want.

Weird thing is the seller has almost 4,000 positive feedbacks and a 99.9% seller rating. Seems like a nice guy who just screwed up and is trying hard to fix it. I wished he had just cancelled the order and refunded me my payment because I almost feel bad asking for a refund now!

 

I think a lot of people are clueless as to what grading is, it's visual and that's it period.

Expecting someone to listen to the record and then grade it from the sound quality they hear is absurd.

Old records just like new ones pressed today had quality issues. A brand new record just opened can be pressed on noisy vinyl, the same goes for a just opened old record. They are both considered mint if the out side is like factory delivered. Just because the vinyl is noisy doesn't change the fact these are mint records.

Now if they are both open and for all intent purposes never played, and these where graded as M or M- and you listen to it and felt the sound quality of surface noise didn't even make your grade of VG that really doesn't mater, it's still a M or M- record if the physical condition warrants it.

If you can't deal with this and it frustrates you maybe you should listen to music another way.

 

Says who?
Discogs gradings for NM (for instance) : "The vinyl will play perfectly, with no imperfections during playback."

I think you should stop accepting VG records graded NM.

 

Over 4000 transactions and probably 2000 that never bothered sending feedback. He knows how this works. I'd just ask nicely.

 

First off I don't believe in the use of the word Mint when it comes to records. Generally we see this being used more and more in resent years. Noobs thinking there are unlimited numbers of used mint records, looking and asking for them. It's a red flag when someone wants a mint record, for starters it's an unreasonable expectation on their part, they will always find a flaw when they get the record.

As far as me buying records I'v been doing it far longer than the internet, I hardly buy new or used records online. I go to record stores and buy records, where they don't grade, don't wash records and certainly don't listen to them. I look at them, determine what the condition is, and if I want to buy it.

I think you should stop thinking there are mint or near mint records.

I see you only want to read what you want to.

Discogs uses the Goldmine Standard for grading the condition of items listed in the Marketplace.

These standards have been expanded by our community of sellers to include definitions of CD-specific gradings.

But even that

Mint (M)
Vinyl
Absolutely perfect in every way. Certainly never been played, possibly even still sealed. Should be used sparingly as a grade, if at all.

Now here is the whole sentence you failed to post.

Near Mint (NM or M-)
Vinyl
A nearly perfect record. A NM or M- record has more than likely never been played, and the vinyl will play perfectly, with no imperfections during playback.
Many dealers won't give a grade higher than this implying (perhaps correctly) that no record is ever truly perfect. The record should show no obvious signs of wear. A 45 RPM or EP sleeve should have no more than the most minor defects, such as any sign of slight handling. An LP cover should have no creases, folds, seam splits, cut-out holes, or other noticeable similar defects. The same should be true of any other inserts, such as posters, lyric sleeves, etc.

Now while Discogs says they are using Goldmine Grading, they took it apon themselves to change it a bit.
Record Grading 101: Understanding The Goldmine Grading Guide
Most records are graded visually. This is because most record dealers have lots of records — hundreds of thousands in some cases — and they don’t have the time to play their entire stock. That said, some defects are easy to see, such as scratches and warps. Others are subtle, such as groove wear from using a cheap or poorly aligned tone arm.


MINT (M)
These are absolutely perfect in every way. Often rumored but rarely seen, Mint should never be used as a grade unless more than one person agrees that the record or sleeve truly is in this condition. There is no set percentage of the Near Mint value these can bring; it is best negotiated between buyer and seller.

NEAR MINT (NM OR M-)
A good description of a NM record is “it looks like it just came from a retail store and it was opened for the first time.” In other words, it’s nearly perfect. Many dealers won’t use a grade higher than this, implying (perhaps correctly) that no record or sleeve is ever truly perfect.

NM records are shiny, with no visible defects. Writing, stickers or other markings cannot appear on the label, nor can any “spindle marks” from someone trying to blindly put the record on the turntable. Major factory defects also must be absent; a record and label obviously pressed off center is not Near Mint. If played, it will do so with no surface noise. (NM records don’t have to be “never played”; a record used on an excellent turntable can remain NM after many plays if the disc is properly cared for.)

NM covers are free of creases, ring wear and seam splits of any kind.

NOTE: These are high standards, and they are not on a sliding scale. A record or sleeve from the 1950s must meet the same standards as one from the 1990s or 2000s to be Near Mint! It’s estimated that no more than 2 to 4 percent of all records remaining from the 1950s and 1960s are truly Near Mint. This is why they fetch such high prices, even for more common items.

Don’t assume your records are Near Mint. They must meet these standards to qualify!

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.


I suggest you go to Goldmine and read what they have to say about record grading. If you can read correctly in their grading I posted here, they only mention that a mark, or some scratch didn't effect the Sound Quality. In other words the whole record can sound crappy, but you can not hear the marks that are visually present. The record looked good other than some marks that are visually seen, grading is visual not listening to all records and then decide what quality of playback they have.

 

You're sooooooo wrong. Discogs gradings for NM (for instance) : "The vinyl will play perfectly, with no imperfections during playback."

The whole reason this thread is here is because buyers like me are so tired of the sellers who want to list as many records as they can ASAP and don't grade per Discogs grading scale. You can't visually grade a record on Discogs and call it NM if you never listen to it. Period. End.

It's definitely a buyer beware world on Discogs. From all these posts, I'm even more wary of Discgs than I was before. Visually grading deemed acceptable even in light of Discogs grading requirements. Few if any pics posted of the real item you're buying. Few if any descriptions of real item you're buying. Wrong releases/ pressings.

I depend on Discogs release info and pressing info, but as for buying anything going forward on Discogs no way. You sellers have made that decision for me.

 

I don't doubt your experience. The thing is that anecdotally you can easily pick apart any seller driven market like Discogs, or ebay, or take your pick and come up with some horror stories if you routinely buy high dollar items or in enough volume. When I was young and foolish I spent about 1500 USD on a bunch of trading cards that ended up being a dumb buy from a seller that was a total scam. It wasn't just my fault, it wasn't just ebay's fault, it was just a crap seller taking advantage of the market and making some money at a young mark's expense.

I was not trying to pick out any particular post on this thread as being textbook unreasonable, but as a seller of items of value (often more board games than music, in my recent past) I have encountered buyers who start giving me the third degree about the items I have for sale and for the past several years I have politely, but firmly told them that I would prefer that they do not purchase the item from me. My issue is that records are like board games in that if you want to look for any slight ding, any minor imperfection, then you are 100% going to find it.

I obviously have no issue with buyers who pick up items listed as NM and are not even VG+, but I do see a lot of people who also expect records to be pristine, and for sellers to sit and attentively listen to each and every thing they sell, and that just isn't the reality of record selling. In stores, online...unless the seller makes a point that they have played the record and have comments on that, you should always assume a visual grade.

If the matrix you are buying has a premium over the standard, then yes, it is totally reasonable to want that pressing. When I buy records from Europe or Japan I make a point of making sure the seller seems like they actually know for sure they have what they are selling.

 

I apologize for not responding sooner.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about the difference between the two pressings that you are talking about, or what "a little bit" means to you. For me, "a little bit" would mean that the record sells for at least 25 quid more than the standard pressing. If the difference was that or smaller, then I would, speaking personally, contact the seller and make sure the matrix they have is what I wanted. The problem is that most sellers will pick whatever the most recent pressing was for their region, and assume that the buyer doesn't care, they are just looking to get whatever was cheapest.

The anal buyers I was noting are the type I mentioned in my reply above, "I do see a lot of people who also expect records to be pristine, and for sellers to sit and attentively listen to each and every thing they sell, and that just isn't the reality of record selling. In stores, online...unless the seller makes a point that they have played the record and have comments on that, you should always assume a visual grade." I have had the occasional bad experience on both ebay and Discogs, but by and large I think most sellers are trying their best. The reality is that record selling, on an online site, is a nightmare situation, because you have items that are usually visually graded, and that will sound better or worse depending on the equipment that the buyer has access to. I have bought perfectly VG+ looking 7" records that were totally trashed jukebox specials, but I don't really blame the seller for those buys, it is just the reality of buying records blind, and I scale what I am willing to pay for items, like 7"s, based on my experience with problems like that.

 

Discogs is no authority in the record world and they even say


Discogs
March 06, 2018 07:37


Discogs uses the Goldmine Standard for grading the condition of items listed in the Marketplace.

They then go on and deviate from what it says on the Goldmine Grading scale. Again it only takes a little reading comprehension, so read it.
Record Grading 101: Understanding The Goldmine Grading Guide

I'v already stated I'v never bought or sold anything on Discogs, never sold anything on eBay either.

The way some of you act is not in anyway being an informed and reasonable buyers. I'll state it again, buying a record listed as Mint or Mint - is the fault of ill informed buyers. IMHO I hardly ever have seen a record I'd call mint and I handle and look at around 10,ooo records a year. Then the fact I'd bet most of you guys buy new records off Amazon so you can return the same new title until you get something that meet what you call Mint. Sooner or later this mentality will burn the bridges down. What would happen if more and more sellers stop selling used record online because they just don't want to deal with unrealistic peoples expectations? How about the big online stores starting to flag people because of too many returns. Or they say they are going to stop selling records because it's too much hassle? I know one thing some of you would never be able to shop in a small local store, they would kick you out with this type of behavior and never sell you a record again.

You might be happier buying records that are listed as VG+. If Goldmine says records are very rare to qualify as mint, and just a few that meet the near mint standards, why are you thinking that there are all these mint records to buy? Because someone selling a record calls it mint? Are you new to this or what?

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I understand your position now, and I agree with you. I was concentrating on pressings, and that is it. Correct pressings are admittedly very important to me, as I am mostly a collector of Beatles early and 1st UK pressings (and to a lesser extent, US and other countries). In many cases I have several copies of the same album, same year, but different pressings. In the With The Beatles example I bought up, the people putting the record together incorrectly listed the publishing credit for the song Money as"Jobete Mus. NOB." In pressings put out only a couple months later in the same year, the credit was changed to "Dominion. Belinda (Ldn.) Ltd." There's other different variations as well; 23 different ones in 1963 alone. Some of those variations involve nothing more than how the track names are physically laid out on the label. They fixed things up over time to make them look more neat and tidy. Other pressings involve Garrod & Lofthouse sleeves instead of Ernest J. Day & Co. There's different tax codes on the labels.... and I haven't even gotten into stamper numbers!

It's an album I like collecting the variations of. When I was younger, this album cover represented classic early historic UK pressings more than any others because the photo on the cover is so iconic. So I concentrate on it. And I know I'm not unique. Most Beatles collectors fixate on certain albums. Either way, it's not fun to spend over $100 on an expected pressing and getting something else, one that I already have. And the thing is, it isn't hard to locate your pressing on Discogs or other places like the Spizer book that describe and differentiate the various pressings. It's all laid out and plainly described, and there's photos to make absolutely sure. I'd go as far to say that it is almost impossible to make an error if you visually check yours against the photos on Discogs of each pressing. Laziness or sloppiness is the only excuse for getting it wrong. And when you are selling a record in the US$80 - $150 range, it should be important to you as the seller to get it right. I wouldn't care as much if it was a $10 expense.

As far as physical quality of records, grading the media/sleeve, etc., yeah I understand if that is what you were getting at with the "anal" comment. But this is the game we play. One seller's VG+ is not identical to another seller's. In a perfect world, it would be. As long as it is close, I don't complain much. I generally try to buy NM Beatles records only, now. If someone sells me a NM record and it has a couple light hairlines but otherwise is in excellent shape, well it isn't technically NM to me, but I don't cause a scene and get all angry about it. I'm a little disappointed but as I said, this is the game we play. I just likely don't buy off that seller anymore. Their loss. I am definitely not anal in that aspect.

 

I've had a couple bad experiences as a buyer but nothing major. Most was easily sorted. Being a seller I've had a few too where the buyer said it arrived all damaged despite the box looking fine and me knowing it was a brand new record I put in there. Sometimes I wonder if I ambling scammed with the old switcheroo. Another time I sent without tracking internationally to save the buyer money, buyer said it was taking too long despite being told it would take several months made a paypal claim and got refunded from them since I sent without tracking. That was a valuable one too.

 

Right. But you're following the standard you're choosing, not the standards of the platform sellers are advertising one and selling one. Honestly, what don't you get?

If sellers follow the Discogs guidelines then if I bought a NM record it would play perfectly, with no imperfections during playback. And anything else I bought on from anyone else would sound the same. It's their platform Discogs can specific the standards they expect. If a seller ignores it then they should not be selling on Discogs.

Not new to this. I have purchased many albums that play NM, or close enough that I'm happy. Records shops they're fun but I don't buy much from them unless it's a really cheap album and they have a return policy.

Just fed up with getting poorly-playing albums from Discogs sellers advertised as NM. Follow the Discogs platform guidelines as sellers or just don't sell on Discogs. Sell on eBay and note in bold "Hey this album looks near mint I don't see any issues but hey I have no idea how it will sound I have too many albums to list and ship to bother with actually listening to them. Take a chance if it's not NM when you play it send it back to me but you pay the shipping." At least that would be honest.

 

I'm not following anything, Discogs made a statement at the top of how to grade a record and that they use Goldmine Grading. Just because you don't like what Goldmine says the grading formate and how to do it doesn't negate it is the standard in the record collecting world.

I think your conflating "Play Perfectly" with the record is perfect and the sound quality is perfect. If a record skips and that's from a scratch or something then it's not playing perfectly. If the record is pristine and plays through but the vinyl is niosy, it's still is playing perfectly as delivered by the factory. Hell you can get five more and they will all have the same noisy vinyl but may have other visible damage one can see and give it a lower grade.

Yeah I'm sure you'v burned your bridges to shop in person, they are not going to deal with people who are OCD with records. There is no way they are going to replace new records until they meet your demands of what you think the record should sound like.

Grading is a visual inspection of a records condition, we give the grad for that. You seem to thing everyone needs to judge the sound quality of the pressing for you and that's grading, I'm sorry it's not.

If you want to buy records that have been evaluated on sound quality only maybe go to Tom Ports Better records.

 

There are sellers who play grade. I generally only buy from eBay sellers with 100% positive reviews, that listen and grade based on playing the album, and have several pictures of real album and cover. I'm not so much interested in pics to determine sleeve and cover condition as I am to validate the cover numbers of release match the album label. That's where I do my buying most of the time now. Still a gamble but still less risky than Discogs. I just use Discogs for release data, which is a very valuable tool. But not so much for buying anymore.

 

So I ordered the same MFSL LP from another Discogs seller yesterday, and he sends me a message this morning telling me he can't find the record either! What are the chances - 2 orders of the same record from 2 different sellers and neither of them actually have the record. And another seller on another Mercury Living Presence I ordered on Friday just did the same thing too. 3 sellers listing items they don't have and cancelling the sales in the past few days. I think its happened only once before in all the years I've been buying on Discogs. Either sellers are getting worse or I just ran into a string of bad luck!