Discussion in 'Marketplace Discussions' started by StevenC, Sep 12, 2018.
Bowie box was bad. Ray Staff and Tony Visconti acted as if their ears had been chopped off.
Pathetic.. and my favorite period too.
1. Ok, just to be clear, the original post does kind of imply that these are replies you've had from the seller, but I don't think that's the case as you later said you were awaiting a reply. Absolutely you should get a refund, no question, but to be fair I think this should be clearer.
2. Is a massive-selling album from 1987 really now a $50 record???
I like to say listening to music on your PC or even streaming if you have to is fine... but even I know this is crap.
2xLP missing a record is absolutely not even close to NM.
The only bad experiences I ever had on Discogs were some sellers from Italy who heavily overgrade their records...otherwise I bought around 500 LPs / CDs in the last 8 years from private and business sellers from all over the world and hardly had any issues...
All the best solving your issue with the incomplete LP set !!!
claim money back. put in a complaint. that's not near mint, its ruined and incomplete
open up a case in PayPal and don't forget to send it back registered. And request refund for return shipping costs
It certainly does not sound like what I would call "Near Mint", but the terms "Mint", "Near Mint", "Very Good", etc are defined somewhere on Discogs for reference. From memory, the only thing that disqualifies an otherwise perfect copy from being Mint and relegates it to Near Mint is if it's been opened, and therefore potentially played at least once. Mint is literally as good as new, same quality as you would get by buying the new copy straight from the factory.
In the worst case, if you don't get a proper response from the seller you can give them a thumbs down which affects their reputation and potentially makes it harder for them to sell stuff in the future. First though I'd make the effort to sort things out to your mutual satisfaction.
I've never had any trouble with ordering from Discogs.
Lucky then. Half the records I have bought were not right but sellers always happy to refund without question. They use their customers to do the QC and rely on people being too timid to complain. In the OPs case this is really taking the piss. Open a case with Paypal and give seller negative feedback if he refuses refund. Not sure there is a complaints procedure with Discogs themselves. BTW Prince record should be no way near $50.
Some of the people here attack the seller in this case as a dishonest seller. This may be the case but in my experience as a buyer and seller is that it is probably a mistake. It is a terrible mistake but some sellers may not even know that it is meant to be a 2 LP set. Not all sellers are music lovers or Prince specialists.
The real question is what reply you will get. If I was the seller then in a case like this I would ask you to keep the record and offer you a full refund. I won’t be surprised if this is the reply you will get. If the reply is not satisfactory then you can leave the seller negative feedback and sort it through PayPal.
You demand your money back. If they are not forthcoming, contact your credit card company or paypal and get them in on it.
I am done with discogs. I am in the process of trying to get money back from some guy that never even sent my discs ..... At least ebay will step in, all discogs has is a rating and if you get screwed by the seller, you're stuck
I have bought many CDs on Discogs. The only less-than-perfect experience was a CD not turning up for over a month, which I assumed meant it was not going to arrive. When I advised the seller, he refunded my money immediately, no dispute whatsoever.
The album showed up shortly afterwards in my letterbox. It turned that the delay was dut to Australian Customs hanging on to it to inspect it and make sure the package contained nothing beyond what was declared on the pack. Of course I then got back to the seller and paid again. Karma, and all that.
Full refund and seller pays return shipping or put in a Paypal dispute; that’s ridiculous.
It will come up again, just keep it in your wishlist.
Pay with PayPal and you’re not stuck!
IMO no degree of damage or dirt to the shrink wrap affects a record's condition. A record can be NM without any shrink at all. WOC means just that -- writing on the cover itself, not the wrapping.
However, if one of the records of a double set is missing, I think you have grounds for a Paypal dispute and serious negative feedback for a false listing. I have complained about false listings for less serious infractions than this (wrong color vinyl, failure to mention drill hole).
I did. I contacted paypal and still waiting
Yes they do have a process which allows the person you've started a dispute against 20 days to respond if you don't escalate to a claim which it sounds like you wouldn't need to wait to do anyway if they haven't been responsive outside of PayPal - escalate to claim, if seller doesn't respond they automatically decide in your favor, if they do then when the seller can't prove they sent you the items it will again be in your favor. You're definitely protected when using PayPal, which makes Discogs just as safe a marketplace as Amazon or eBay.
As a seller PayPal is quite biased in favor of the buyer, so you just have to take care to protect yourself by using a shipping method that's trackable, add signature confirmation and always match the addy on Paypal not the addy on Discogs. If buyer has a mismatch, I tell them I can only send to PayPal addy.
Sounds like your seller is a douche and you should have no issues getting 100% refund via PayPal's dispute/claim process providing you started the dispute within 180 days I think they allow now.
The seller should (a) pay for return shipping (b) give you a refund, no question. That is awful quality control.
Get paypal involved if you get any pushback.
Your dispute with Sharpie marking on the shrink wrap is bogus. NM only applies to the Jacket and the records. It doesn't pertain to the inner sleeve either. But, if anything is missing outside of download cards, I think it should be mentioned. He does owe you a 2nd NM record. If he can't produce it and ship it to you without extra charge, you are owed a refund. And Sharpie isn't permanent. It is easily removed with alcohol.
I am never that comfortable ordering from Discogs. The reason is that there is a broad range of sellers there some of whom do not know how to grade properly. They throw NM/M- gradings out without understanding what that is or should be. That being said though, I have had satisfactory transactions with many sellers but I am always wary, to be honest.
My most recent transaction however is the straw that has broken the camel's back. I ordered two NM/NM albums from a seller in Norway and as usual asked that the records be placed securely outside their sleeves to avoid seam splits. When I received the shipment yesterday, I noted that the seller had carried out my instructions but had put the records in their inner sleeves in a separate compartment, within the packet, with bubble wrap on one side and harsh brown wrapping paper on the other. The records, in their inner sleeves, had not been placed in a plastic protective sleeve so it was obvious that the records could move during transportation and rub against the harsh brown paper. That is exactly what appears to have happened. When I opened the package, I noted that the record on top had moved outwards from its polylined inner sleeve and had been scuffed or grazed at the start of the first track. After a thorough cleaning (wet and ultrasonic) this damage does not reproduce on replay, which is some consolation, I guess. The second album, a two LP set, did not fare as well. There is damage around the first track on Side 2 of Disc 1. I am well used to seeing various patterns on U.S. pressed discs due to lacquers not being de-horned, and I thought that maybe there would be no issue on replay. To my disappointment however, the track in question has a very loud scratch for 20 seconds or more because the record has been damaged, possibly from the poor packaging job? The seller made no mention of any scratch or loud click on the record before I ordered it. It was graded NM/NM both for vinyl and sleeve. If I had any inkling that there was a problem like this pre-order, I would have opted out immediately. There is no way that a record like this can be called NM, if the damage existed before it was shipped. The seller has 100% feedback and on that account alone, I am mystified at the careless/inattentive packaging job? Records are delicate and need total protection when they are being shipped. You have to be professional and anticipate the possibility of damage and eliminate it, before you ship! Right now, I am just trying to be calm while I consider what I need to do. I doubt that I will use Discogs. again unless it is with a trusted seller with whom I have dealt previously.
Most of my purchases from Discogs are first rate. But I've noticed an overuse of "mint" there. (Less so on eBay because seller there typically post pictures.) To me, mint for an LP means (or at least should mean) sealed. Unless play-graded, you cannot tell if a record is mint just by looking at it. I've bought NM records that truly look mint but sound VG or VG+ because of hairline scratches, visible only with a magnifying glass, or heavy/uneven groove-wear. I don't fault the seller for those. If it looks perfect held up to proper lighting, that's NM at best. I now make a point of asking before I buy. Just yesterday I ordered a record that indicated it was "mint" and "still in shrink wrap". I had learned my lesson from a previous transaction, so I inquired. Sure enough, the jacket was in its original shrink wrap, but it had been opened and the record could be removed (and presumably had been and played). I'm sorry, but that ain't a "mint" record in my book. I'm not sure if these sellers are trying to be deceptive or just ignorant about proper grading and selling practices. (I note that CDs are different in my book. I think you can inspect a CD and legitimately claim it's mint.)
thanks for the feedback. I have had some bad luck with grading on Discogs. They publish their grading expectations, not as a guideline but as a hard rule. In summary, if you have a sleeve with a seam split, with a hole it in, with "Jimmy" scribbled across the front in Sharpie pen, the sleeve is NOT near mint. Period. My gripe is: list it accurately because everyone's buying criteria is different and I CHOOSE which copy I want to spend my money on. If I want NEAR MINT by Discogs definition, that's up to ME, NOT The seller. ME... and I could have passed on the flawed copy for a better one listed on Discogs. And, "Everyone has a different definition of Near Mint" because it essentially says on the rules of selling and buying page "Near Mint is exactly this." Not, "the seller's definition may override Discog's definition". How you present the record is important and if I pay $80 for something you list as NEAR MINT and it shows up in "Good Shape" but not Near Mint, a 10% refund ain't going to cut it. I have too many records as it is - what on earth will I do with a non-near mint copy I never intended to buy?!?!
in my experience unless its unopened then anything bought on discogs or ebay is always around 2 grades lower than advertised.
"Mint" has to be one of the most ab- and overused terms in record collecting. In fact I don't trust dealers who refer to everything as "M" or "NM". It's suspicious.
In theory a record that is Mint has to be unplayed. Totally flawless. De facto (too) many people are looking at a record and go "Well, it's 40 years old, it's not too badly scratched.... must be Mint then!"
If people would grade conservatively and solid everything down to "Very Good +" would be totally collectable and worth ordering. Looking at the sellers profile helps.
Separate names with a comma.