BRENDAN FRANZ & THE OTHER VINYL RECORD COLLECTORS CLUB

Am I the only one who thinks that our system of grading records is outdated and in serious need of rethinking? Bear with me here and I’ll explain in detail why I think this – I’m also gonna use some examples to illustrate what I’m saying so if you’re one of those with a short attention span and nothing valid to contribute I recommend that you move on now in order to save the rest of us from your inane sarcasm in the comments section…

For a very long time we used 2 different – but similar – systems to grade records. In Europe there was the Record Collector scale, and in the US we had Goldmine. The modern shift has been towards the Goldmine system, especially with Discogs adopting the same abbreviations.

I know there will be the argument that the current system(s) of grading has ‘worked’ (more or less) for decades so why change it now?

For two very significant reasons: 1) The nature of how we buy records has dramatically changed in the past few decades. Once upon a time 90% of collecting was done face-to-face in real stores, record fairs, garage sales etc. We had the luxury of inspecting almost every item for ourselves and making a personal judgement as to whether the asking price fairly reflected the condition, and whether or not an item was acceptable to our own individual expectations.

These days I would suggest that the complete opposite is true, and a huge proportion of our purchases are made online, via mail order (whether it be Discogs, eBay, Amazon etc) whereby we are unable to inspect the items first-hand, and we have a much greater reliance on the grading system to assist us in making a decision.

2) Value. The value of vinyl records has skyrocketed in the past decade or so – what were once pocket-change records are now being traded for hundreds of dollars, and I think it’s more important than ever to recognize and determine the role condition plays in these values.

For everyone’s sake it is critical that we sort the wheat from the chaff, and that those wannabe resellers understand how the value SCALES against the condition. There’s far too much overpricing of sub-par condition records and I think much of it has to do with misunderstanding this principle. (And plenty of newbie collectors getting burnt by it – I am sure.)

So what’s WRONG with our grading system?

Well for a start, we must have the only hobby on Earth where the term “MINT” can be applied to an item which cannot be physically inspected. I am talking about sealed records here.

It’s nice to believe that what’s inside that shrinkwrap is a pristine example, however I’m certain that a large percentage of us can attest to the fact that it is NOT a reliable assumption. In fact it’s fairly common for a brand new record to have some flaw incurred during production, packing or transportation which is serious enough to impact the playability or to inflict visual distress – and therefore affect the value and grade of a record.

I can recount several instances of opening a sealed record to discover scratches or marks on the vinyl – two examples which spring to mind were my TOOL Lateralus picture disc set – which had a horrible audible gouge across one track, and my NIN Recoiled LP – which had similarly deep zig-zag scratches on one track.

In both instances the sellers offered to refund my money but conditionally on the provision that I return the records at MY EXPENSE. Having purchased them from overseas, this was simply inequitable (why should I have to pay an extra $30+ just to get the record I ordered?)

Just this week I got the wonderful “Wish You Were Here” 50th Anniversary 3LP set in a shrinkwrapped slipcase – purchased brand new in-person from a leading physical retailer, only to discover that when opened, the tops of all three jackets had been punched through by the heavyweight vinyl inside each one.

Fortunately it was fairly minor but excludes my copy from ever being graded as “MINT”.

I had a similar experience with the NIN “P.H.M.” RSD set a few years ago. Other commonly seen flaws include off-centre or defective labelling – which extends into the play area of the vinyl,

and inner sleeve seam-splits caused by the record moving around inside the jacket. But by far the most common is surely warpage, and I couldn’t even begin to count the number of times that members here have posted about brand new purchases being WARPED. It seems like it’s almost an epidemic these days.

Under NO circumstances should sealed records EVER be graded as “MINT” IMHO. It’s a dangerous assumption to make. (unless you have X-ray vision). And whilst on the subject, it seems these days like this grade is thrown around like candy at a child’s birthday party.

In actual fact this grade represents an ABSOLUTE. The highest possible state of preservation which cannot be exceeded and has zero flexibility. It’s a very rare state and the grade should be reserved only for those very few exceptional examples. Personally, I don’t think I have ever seen any record which GENUINELY meets this criteria – even most brand new records usually have tiny micro abrasions from insertion into the liner bag.

IMHO “Near Mint (NM)” is probably the most practical grade we have on the scale. It’s fairly easy to understand and when used correctly it describes a record which is in truly excellent condition with NO substantial flaws. This means: NO scratches, cover creases, writings (cover/label), ringwear or noticeable defects which would make a serious collector cringe. This is the most realistic expectation we should have – and understand that the value is LESS than what the aspiration “MINT” value prescribes.

VG+. Here’s where I have a serious problem. This grade is a blanket catch-all grade for mild flaws which include light scratches, scuffs, warps, jacket creases, minor tears, writings, ringwear and other mild flaws which are obvious. The biggest issue for me is that the same grade applies whether the record displays just ONE – or ALL of these defects simultaneously. To assign the same grade and value to both examples is simply ludicrous. It’s also confusing and potentially misleading when purchasing a record which you are unable to inspect personally.

It’s this grade which allows unscrupulous online sellers to list and sell records which you probably wouldn’t take home with you if it were in a regular store, and I am sure is a source of disappointments for many collectors who expected better (hands up, please! I’m raising mine…)

There needs to be far more clarity and definition within this grade – and perhaps a points system which adds/deducts for each and every flaw? (eg: VG+4 would mean that there were 4 notable flaws).

That brings us to the grade VG.

On what planet do the words “Very Good” mean really bad condition? Apparently on Planet Record Collector they do. Despite the fact that we still have grades like “GOOD”, “FAIR” and “POOR” beneath it, VG generally reflects the kind of bad condition which none of us want in our collections. VG has become a euphemism for “virtually trashed”, and we’re well advised to stay away from anything graded as such unless there are exceptional circumstances.

It’s probably not even worth trying to ascertain what those lower grades mean. Like HOW BAD do you wanna go? I’m assuming that you have to drive over the record seventeen times with a truck to qualify it as “POOR” these days…

To be fair here, there are still respectable dealers out there who apply grades conservatively and honestly – and who use the spectrum of our system much more reasonably – however they seem to be in the minority these days. IMHO we need a new – or overhauled – system which gives us greater scope and accuracy to clearly define the condition of records for the benefit of all.

How it would work? I could only tender my personal suggestions, but it would need to be a self-educating and self-explanatory system carefully devised by the collector community which allowed all sellers and buyers to be on the same page.

What do you think? What ideas do you have for a better system?