Soul Source Grading System Not Working For Me

[Pete S]

It's really easy to give a proper description of a record though - play it and write down what you hear - look at these entries off a list I did today, nothing ambiguous about it, I'm sure it's obvious how the records will sound?

 

 

SOUL BROS - TNT / MARCIA GRIFFITHS - MR. EVERYTHING - RIO 121

G++ TO VG NO CENTRE HAS CRACKLES AS PER A RECORD THATS NEVER HAD A SLEEVE

I BOUGHT THIS DESCRIBED AS EX MINUS, SOMEONE NEEDS GLASSES

£15

 

THE UPSETTERS - RETURN OF THE UGLY / I'VE CAUGHT YOU - PUNCH 18

LOTS OF MARKS BUT PLAYS WELL WITH SOME NOISE

G+ TO VG  £15

 

DERRICK MORGAN - ME NAH GIVE UP / BEVERLEYS ALLSTARS - DREADNAUGHT - PYRAMID
6053
Awesome early reggae tune from Derrick and 'Johnny Melody'. Crackles a little
at the start, improving as it progresses. No centre and small writing on label.
Essential Skinhead reggae. Classic Ska instrumental on B side but that is only
G+/VG
VG/VG++ £35
 

[Northernjordan]

I don't think they use Ex at CM's......at least I don't remember seeing it used.  Their VG+ is going to be in very nice condition when it arrives 99% of times.

 

I don't mind the Ex grade at all, as it's far less confusing than all the ++++++ signs sometimes seen.  In fact I think the seller should be able to use whatever grading system they like as long as it's absolutely clearly stated and accurate.  It would help to have a standard that everyone used but that will never happen.   Including good scans/pics alongside audio samples from the actual record for sale is by far the best way a seller can try to indicate condition.  Way better than any grading system or description alone.

 

As far as Mint goes it would have to be still sealed, in shrink or whatever, to qualify in my opinion and I reckon VG- is as low as it gets......rough.

 

OK so flipping the thread on it's head, should we actually be discussing the VG- and lower grades not the EX grade, which seems quite obviously to indicate an Excellent, but not Mint, condition disc, and makes a lot of sense to use as far as I'm concerned.  However records graded as G, presumably to indicate Good, are anything but and in any other field would most likely fall foul of the Trades Descriptions Act.  Therefore do away with G and use Poor, or even Bad!  This brings us onto VG- where, using your description above, the record looks shall we say "tired" but plays somewhat better than visual.  I would suggest Fair would be a more obvious choice than VG-.

 

As I said this is purely hypothetical, I'm certainly not trying to rewrite the age old accepted grading system(s) but if I was an outsider looking in then the most obvious choice would perhaps be Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent, Mint.  I'd have a better idea of what I was getting rather than all this +++ & ---- nonsense.

 

We are where we are , where we always were, with the existing grades......along with all the elation/frustration when the record lands on the mat.

 

Anyway now off to buy another record I've just seen listed on eBay,   VG++++++++

 

I would say this was the post common sense post on the thread. I am a young collector, so therefore relatively new to record grading. Anything less than VG+ is well beat up, so how can it be described as a VG record? I think Poor, Fair leading up to Very Good would give a more defined step between each level and make things clearer. Where as with just using varying degrees of VG, its easy to add more plusses to make the record more salable.

 

I also like it when people actually give a brief desription on how the record plays like Pete is suggesting, it really does make deciding to spend your money on the record easier.

 

All this is a little less important on low value items wich shouldnt sell for much more than a fiver. However, when you are starting to pay £15-20+ thats getting to a fair bit of money to pay for one maybe two songs if you are lucky and gettign a double sider.