Evan
Junior Member
Posts: 99 
|
Post by Evan on Dec 5, 2016 0:01:38 GMT
Hello all.
I'd like to poll you on what you consider to be near mint condition in records. I'm particularly interested in what you consider to be the lower limit for NM. What imperfections in a record would you say explicitly rule it out of the NM grade?
I'd also like to ask what you usually do when a record falls narrowly outside this range. Do you return it for a refund, request a partial refund, get PayPal involved? Or do you suck it up?
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Dec 5, 2016 16:14:18 GMT
First of all, I buy records to listen, not look at, as many of us do. For NM or NM-, the record had better be damn near silent except for the music. Anything other than a non-feelable hairline paper scuff is out. Clouding? Fingerprints? Those mysterious 'patches' that play fine but look like death? Out! It should be essentially perfect, perhaps the only flaw being the attraction of a few particles of dust due to static electricity.
However, VG+ or above is fine for me, and I rarely return records as long as they grade there or above, despite what the listing said, unless it was particularly expensive. However, I do leave feedback to that effect. positive, but mentioning the overgrading, since I am happy but someone else might not be.
|
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Dec 6, 2016 9:22:09 GMT
Let's leave aside the question of NM covers, because here there seems to be significant differences of opinion. But as regards vinyl, NM should mean that the vinyl looks scarcely used. Apart from dust (permissible), it should look very much as it did when it was purchased. The odd smudge from fingerprints is permissible around the label and lead-out but personally if it has fingerprints across the playing surface then that too would nudge it down a notch as far as I'm concerned. I notice that the dealer I regularly use simply doesn't employ the term NM for older records -- let's say anything earlier than the 1970s. I think his reasoning is that fifty and sixty year-old records simply cannot be classed as NM.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Dec 6, 2016 20:52:37 GMT
I like your dealer, alun. Fewer let-downs! That being said, I do have a few records of that vintage that I would absolutely grade NM, but they must have been purchased and placed vertical and a shelf with perfect temperature and heat control for 60 years. Although I got those by chance, and do not require utter perfection.
|
|
Evan
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by Evan on Dec 8, 2016 6:04:23 GMT
Thanks for that. Just wanted to check that I'm not ridiculously picky. I bought two supposedly NM records recently and both had defects that would certainly have prevented me from listing them as near mint. Not these two sellers though. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by gst on Dec 8, 2016 16:27:25 GMT
Let's leave aside the question of NM covers, because here there seems to be significant differences of opinion. But as regards vinyl, NM should mean that the vinyl looks scarcely used. Apart from dust (permissible), it should look very much as it did when it was purchased. The odd smudge from fingerprints is permissible around the label and lead-out but personally if it has fingerprints across the playing surface then that too would nudge it down a notch as far as I'm concerned. I notice that the dealer I regularly use simply doesn't employ the term NM for older records -- let's say anything earlier than the 1970s. I think his reasoning is that fifty and sixty year-old records simply cannot be classed as NM. I agree with this. Also I'm aware that even unopened records can have small "defects," and I would accept small anomalies that don't affect the sound (e.g. very minor sleeve scuffs) as NM. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Dec 20, 2016 3:56:09 GMT
Let's leave aside the question of NM covers, because here there seems to be significant differences of opinion. But as regards vinyl, NM should mean that the vinyl looks scarcely used. Apart from dust (permissible), it should look very much as it did when it was purchased. The odd smudge from fingerprints is permissible around the label and lead-out but personally if it has fingerprints across the playing surface then that too would nudge it down a notch as far as I'm concerned. I notice that the dealer I regularly use simply doesn't employ the term NM for older records -- let's say anything earlier than the 1970s. I think his reasoning is that fifty and sixty year-old records simply cannot be classed as NM. I agree with this. Also I'm aware that even unopened records can have small "defects," and I would accept small anomalies that don't affect the sound (e.g. very minor sleeve scuffs) as NM. gst, that's exactly why Goldmine opted for *near* mint being the highest grade a record can be. No record is perfect, not even straight off the press. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Dec 20, 2016 4:00:54 GMT
Interesting topic. As a seller, I rarely grade a record NM--the highest grade I use--unless it is legitimately brand new and never played. Almost every near-flawless vintage record I list gets graded VG++. By my standards, I would estimate that 1% of all vintage jazz records legitimately look and sound like they have never been played. If not 1%, even less, which is probably much less than the amount of vintage jazz records that get graded NM on eBay.
To elaborate a little, I don't think VG++/EX is halfway between VG+ and NM, I think it's closer to NM. NM and VG++ are very similar to me. VG++ is basically the same as NM but there is some small imperfection that indicates that the record is not brand new. Let me add that I follow Goldmine in that I believe VG++ and EX should mean the same thing and be one grade under NM.
|
|
|
|
Post by sztiv on Feb 18, 2017 20:55:47 GMT
If it still sticks to the inner sleeve when I get it out then I normally claim NM as long as it isn't damaged of course.
|
|
