The Soul Source Grading System guidelines in which there is no Excellent grade, just varying degrees of VG+.

In my opinion this has just not worked, which is why I refused to follow it and stick to my own gradings which include EX.  There is a big leap from VG to Mint.  I said if you did not have an EX grade people would regard the various stages of VG as being poorer condition records and I honestly think that seeing all these VG++ records is putting people off buying.  It certainly does with me anyway.  I've no idea why this idea was approved, we do not use Goldmine gradings in the UK, the standard grading is via Record Collector magazines grading system of P/F/G/VG/EX/M and variations upon that.

Like I say, just my opinion, but the idea is to make life easier for buyer and seller, not to cloud the issue with multiple plus signs.

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.