Buying on Discogs?

Heavy Metal Hunting, record Q's & trivia, collector stuff. Rare or not, it all goes here.
User avatar
outlawrecordings
Posts: 23

Post#31 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:12 pm

So I've had some varied experiences as a buyer on Discogs... mainly because of the fact that a lot of people don't post photos/info about their actual copy of a record, they just hit the "sell your copy" button or whatever on a release listing page and set a price and that's it. SO the photos you see and think are of the 'copy you are buying' are actually just stock photos from the Discogs page. I've had this happen a few times, and this was the latest situation:

I found a copy of the "New Wave" comp Mexican pressing on Discogs listed for $50 (way overpriced) and I offered the dude $25 and he took it, so far so good right? Well when I got it today when I got it in the mail it was another Discogs deal gone bad.... I guess the guy pulled the photo he was using off the internet (instead of taking a photo of the actual item), and the copy I got in the mail was pretty hammered! Price sticker on cover, seams are slaughtered, and to top it off it's a water bomb on the bottom, wavy cover and stained!

So I wrote the guy and he admitted pulling the photo off this site, but only offered a $5 partial refund. I have to remember to always ask if the photo is of the actual item on here! Discogs can be worse than ebay for people mislisting shit.

This was the listing of the item:

http://www.discogs.com/release/4382113

and here's where he took the photo, you can see it's the exact same copy! Weak move right? I mean is it that hard to take a photo of your actual LP that you're listing for $50!?

http://recordcollectorsoftheworldunite. ... wwave.html

So anyways, I had gotten lazy and forgotten to "ask for photos of actual item" like I'd been doing on any Discogs purchase, so lesson learned again the hard way!

As far as contributing to Discogs, after you get the hang of it I'd say it's really pretty easy and a good way to share/document all the detailed (and somewhat trivial/useless) information about record pressings that is floating around in collectors heads around the world. I mean, if the people who pressed and/or have knowledge of actual pressing information/variations/numbers document the info on here it will be there for long beyond our years.... and hopefully lead to people not speculating on "the number pressed" and/or what variations exist on certain releases.

Of course the downside is that if people post the wrong information on there it can just cause more confusion.... but I think overall it's a positive thing to contribute too. When I first got on there I was very frustrated and had a lot of 'bad votes' posted on things I tried to contribute, but after I figured it out it became enjoyable to participate in.
***************************
http://www.outlawrecordings.net
***************************

User avatar
lunaboy
Posts: 1551

Post#32 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:54 pm

Bought a few times on Discogs and never ever had any problems.You need a lot of communication there.I remember wrote or received about ~ 10 messages each time I wanted to order item. Also asked for photos and details and all sellers sent pictures or provided all necessary info.

User avatar
Metal Knight
Posts: 60
Contact:

Post#33 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:56 pm

The same as Lunaboy. Specially for old records.
After it happens also on ebay where not 100% of items got the real photo.

ps: i had the record you bought (good one!) but in english, i didn't know that it exist with the title on spanish.

User avatar
Avenger
Posts: 8188

Post#34 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:26 am

I have only bought a handful of items from discogs but my experience has always been good.

This seems to be a classic case where you failed to ask the necessary questions and therefore ended up overlooking conditional issues. I would say this is both half your fault and half the sellers fault. Communication takes two sides.
bigfootkit wrote:"Your Steel Is Not True"
stormspell wrote:"I hate all my releases. I only listen to Korn and Limp Bizkit, don't you know..."

User avatar
outlawrecordings
Posts: 23

Post#35 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:45 pm

Avenger wrote:I have only bought a handful of items from discogs but my experience has always been good.

This seems to be a classic case where you failed to ask the necessary questions and therefore ended up overlooking conditional issues. I would say this is both half your fault and half the sellers fault. Communication takes two sides.
So let me get this straight, if you saw this listing with this grading:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Items -- Price
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Various - New Wave: Las Super Estrellas Del Punk Rock (LP) -- $25.00
http://www.discogs.com/release/4382113
Condition: Near Mint (NM or M-) / Sleeve Condition: Very Good Plus (VG+)

And this photo:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=4382113

And then you got an LP which is more of a VG grading cover with a sticker on it and seam splits, and you realize that the LP that there's a photo of on the listing that you bought the LP from is not even a photo of the actual LP the seller was selling (and you got in the mail)... you would feel like you were partially/half at fault?! I dunno man... to me that seems a little skewed.

I don't think I should have to ask questions like that. You should post photos of the actual item you're selling. You should post accurate grading. Those aren't things a buyer should have to dig for.

If selling an item, you should post of the actual item, you should grade it accurately and note flaws. Posting a photo of a better condition copy and then over grading it in the listing seems like a fraudulent attempt to sell something.

I don't have a problem with records that aren't MINT, but I don't like to make an offer and/or pay for something based on false photos and information. In this case, that's what I felt happened.
***************************
http://www.outlawrecordings.net
***************************

User avatar
outlawrecordings
Posts: 23

Post#36 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:11 pm

Oh yeah.... and I forgot to add the best part, the cover was also water damaged! You can see some photos of the actual LP I got here:

Image
Image[/i]
Image

I think if you compare those to the photo he had on the listing you'll see what I mean.
***************************
http://www.outlawrecordings.net
***************************

User avatar
lunaboy
Posts: 1551

Post#37 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:44 pm

outlawrecordings wrote:
Avenger wrote:I have only bought a handful of items from discogs but my experience has always been good.

This seems to be a classic case where you failed to ask the necessary questions and therefore ended up overlooking conditional issues. I would say this is both half your fault and half the sellers fault. Communication takes two sides.
So let me get this straight, if you saw this listing with this grading:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Items -- Price
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Various - New Wave: Las Super Estrellas Del Punk Rock (LP) -- $25.00
http://www.discogs.com/release/4382113
Condition: Near Mint (NM or M-) / Sleeve Condition: Very Good Plus (VG+)

And this photo:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=4382113

And then you got an LP which is more of a VG grading cover with a sticker on it and seam splits, and you realize that the LP that there's a photo of on the listing that you bought the LP from is not even a photo of the actual LP the seller was selling (and you got in the mail)... you would feel like you were partially/half at fault?! I dunno man... to me that seems a little skewed.

I don't think I should have to ask questions like that. You should post photos of the actual item you're selling. You should post accurate grading. Those aren't things a buyer should have to dig for.

If selling an item, you should post of the actual item, you should grade it accurately and note flaws. Posting a photo of a better condition copy and then over grading it in the listing seems like a fraudulent attempt to sell something.

I don't have a problem with records that aren't MINT, but I don't like to make an offer and/or pay for something based on false photos and information. In this case, that's what I felt happened.
But you even DID NOT asked for photos of actual LP.I mean It's just your own fault . As I said earlier I ALWAYS ask for photos.And it takes some time as well as A LOT OF COMMUNICATION. It's just your laziness. Blame on yourself.

User avatar
lunaboy
Posts: 1551

Post#38 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:48 pm

lunaboy wrote:
outlawrecordings wrote:
Avenger wrote:I have only bought a handful of items from discogs but my experience has always been good.

This seems to be a classic case where you failed to ask the necessary questions and therefore ended up overlooking conditional issues. I would say this is both half your fault and half the sellers fault. Communication takes two sides.
So let me get this straight, if you saw this listing with this grading:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Items -- Price
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Various - New Wave: Las Super Estrellas Del Punk Rock (LP) -- $25.00
http://www.discogs.com/release/4382113
Condition: Near Mint (NM or M-) / Sleeve Condition: Very Good Plus (VG+)

And this photo:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=4382113

And then you got an LP which is more of a VG grading cover with a sticker on it and seam splits, and you realize that the LP that there's a photo of on the listing that you bought the LP from is not even a photo of the actual LP the seller was selling (and you got in the mail)... you would feel like you were partially/half at fault?! I dunno man... to me that seems a little skewed.

I don't think I should have to ask questions like that. You should post photos of the actual item you're selling. You should post accurate grading. Those aren't things a buyer should have to dig for.

If selling an item, you should post of the actual item, you should grade it accurately and note flaws. Posting a photo of a better condition copy and then over grading it in the listing seems like a fraudulent attempt to sell something.

I don't have a problem with records that aren't MINT, but I don't like to make an offer and/or pay for something based on false photos and information. In this case, that's what I felt happened.
But you even DID NOT asked for photos of actual LP.I mean It's just your own fault . As I said earlier I ALWAYS ask for photos.And it takes some time as well as A LOT OF COMMUNICATION. It's just your laziness. Blame on yourself.
You should post photos of the actual item you're selling.
There's NO such option on Discogs.

User avatar
Warepire
Posts: 1356
Contact:

Post#39 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:47 pm

Shopping on Discogs is exactly like shopping on Amazon, except that most of the sellers reply.
What good is a life that leaves nothing behind, not a thought nor a dream to echo in time...
So what have I done in the eyes of the world, what have I done that will remain?

User avatar
outlawrecordings
Posts: 23

Post#40 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:00 pm

lunaboy wrote:
outlawrecordings wrote:
Avenger wrote:I have only bought a handful of items from discogs but my experience has always been good.

This seems to be a classic case where you failed to ask the necessary questions and therefore ended up overlooking conditional issues. I would say this is both half your fault and half the sellers fault. Communication takes two sides.
So let me get this straight, if you saw this listing with this grading:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Items -- Price
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Various - New Wave: Las Super Estrellas Del Punk Rock (LP) -- $25.00
http://www.discogs.com/release/4382113
Condition: Near Mint (NM or M-) / Sleeve Condition: Very Good Plus (VG+)

And this photo:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=4382113

And then you got an LP which is more of a VG grading cover with a sticker on it and seam splits, and you realize that the LP that there's a photo of on the listing that you bought the LP from is not even a photo of the actual LP the seller was selling (and you got in the mail)... you would feel like you were partially/half at fault?! I dunno man... to me that seems a little skewed.

I don't think I should have to ask questions like that. You should post photos of the actual item you're selling. You should post accurate grading. Those aren't things a buyer should have to dig for.

If selling an item, you should post of the actual item, you should grade it accurately and note flaws. Posting a photo of a better condition copy and then over grading it in the listing seems like a fraudulent attempt to sell something.

I don't have a problem with records that aren't MINT, but I don't like to make an offer and/or pay for something based on false photos and information. In this case, that's what I felt happened.
But you even DID NOT asked for photos of actual LP.I mean It's just your own fault . As I said earlier I ALWAYS ask for photos.And it takes some time as well as A LOT OF COMMUNICATION. It's just your laziness. Blame on yourself.
Well again, as I'd stated in my original post- in most of my Discogs purchases I have asked for photos, but in this case I did my homework and saw that the guy who had created this entry in the Discogs database was the SAME PERSON who also listed his copy for sale, and his grading seemed on par so I had NO REASON to ask more questions.

Why did he take a photo off the net instead of taking a photo of his own item? Probably because his was beat up! Why did he list it as VG+ and not mention the sticker or water damage on cover? Well because he was a good seller! And yet it was my fault for him grading the sleeve VG+ and using a photo of another copy? I guess so man, you're right, I'm lazy- it's my fault. Thanks for setting me straight!

I didn't realize that they didn't allow sellers to put their own photos up, that part is news to me and now that I do know that I will ALWAYS ask for photos. But as I said in this case I did check and thought since the guy was the same one selling it that it was a safe bet. For that I do admit making a mistake (not lazy, just a mistake) but I still think the sellers poor grading and using other people's photo played a big part in the problem.
Last edited by outlawrecordings on Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
***************************
http://www.outlawrecordings.net
***************************

User avatar
outlawrecordings
Posts: 23

Post#41 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:10 pm

Metal Knight wrote: ps: i had the record you bought (good one!) but in english, i didn't know that it exist with the title on spanish.
You had a UK pressing of it then? There's a lot of variations of this LP, check out the list at the bottom of this page! I'm working on finding all the ones with The Runaways on them- but there are certain pressings where they took the Runaways tracks off it- like the Holland and Greek pressings.

http://www.discogs.com/Various-New-Wave/master/102064
***************************
http://www.outlawrecordings.net
***************************

User avatar
Khnud
Posts: 2408

Post#42 » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:35 am

Why even bother to have a grading system on Discogs if the buyer's always responsible to ask for photos? It exists for a reason, so the buyer will know the condition of the items he's purchasing. If a seller is abusing the grading system, how can the buyer be at fault?
Laugh at you in ecstasy, wallow in the gore.
Blast you with their twisted minds, behold the Dogs Of War.

User avatar
Warepire
Posts: 1356
Contact:

Post#43 » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:11 am

Khnud wrote:Why even bother to have a grading system on Discogs if the buyer's always responsible to ask for photos? It exists for a reason, so the buyer will know the condition of the items he's purchasing. If a seller is abusing the grading system, how can the buyer be at fault?
Not everybody grades the same, I encountered the opposite too, a seller classed a CD booklet as G+ but it was in fact NM in my opinion (there was a light trace of the booklet being bent).

Also it could be a bootleg that is being sold as an original, until everyone becomes honest and grade after the exactly the same "rules", having just a grading system is not safe enough in my opinion.
What good is a life that leaves nothing behind, not a thought nor a dream to echo in time...
So what have I done in the eyes of the world, what have I done that will remain?

User avatar
Abyss
Posts: 316

Post#44 » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:03 pm

A lot of people will give a grade lower than it really is on purpose so there will be no arguments.

User avatar
Avenger
Posts: 8188

Post#45 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:51 am

outlawrecordings wrote:
Avenger wrote:I have only bought a handful of items from discogs but my experience has always been good.

This seems to be a classic case where you failed to ask the necessary questions and therefore ended up overlooking conditional issues. I would say this is both half your fault and half the sellers fault. Communication takes two sides.
So let me get this straight, if you saw this listing with this grading:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Items -- Price
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Various - New Wave: Las Super Estrellas Del Punk Rock (LP) -- $25.00
http://www.discogs.com/release/4382113
Condition: Near Mint (NM or M-) / Sleeve Condition: Very Good Plus (VG+)

And this photo:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=4382113

And then you got an LP which is more of a VG grading cover with a sticker on it and seam splits, and you realize that the LP that there's a photo of on the listing that you bought the LP from is not even a photo of the actual LP the seller was selling (and you got in the mail)... you would feel like you were partially/half at fault?! I dunno man... to me that seems a little skewed.

I don't think I should have to ask questions like that. You should post photos of the actual item you're selling. You should post accurate grading. Those aren't things a buyer should have to dig for.

If selling an item, you should post of the actual item, you should grade it accurately and note flaws. Posting a photo of a better condition copy and then over grading it in the listing seems like a fraudulent attempt to sell something.

I don't have a problem with records that aren't MINT, but I don't like to make an offer and/or pay for something based on false photos and information. In this case, that's what I felt happened.
Again, this could have all been avoided if you contacted the seller to clarify details or receive pictures. Putting blind faith in someone on the internet that is trying to sell you something and probably has a very different opinion on grading standards then you do is bound to bring you disappointment. These are basic concepts that anyone who has ever bought anything on the internet that isn't brand new has learned very early on.
bigfootkit wrote:"Your Steel Is Not True"
stormspell wrote:"I hate all my releases. I only listen to Korn and Limp Bizkit, don't you know..."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests