Discogs - Help, Tricks, Secrets And Tips

So here’s one. Got a message from a buyer saying that they got a record of mine and the condition was not as they hoped. I’m usually very cautious but sometimes thing slip by. However, this buyer indicated that the cover was completely trashed and missing half the top. I was naturally skeptical and told him to send me some pics before he sent it back to me for a refund.

He sure as hell wasn’t kidding:

362662C6-3967-4C22-901D-1F6543927658.jpeg

anyone know of any idea of how that would have happened? Buyer indicated that there wasn’t any damage to the package. Obviously I did not send it like that. Also, what are any steps I can take with the post office, if any? This has never happened before. I mean I’ve had some sleeve seam splits in transit but nothing like that in a box that wasn’t damaged.
 
mitchwagz said:
So here’s one. Got a message from a buyer saying that they got a record of mine and the condition was not as they hoped. I’m usually very cautious but sometimes thing slip by. However, this buyer indicated that the cover was completely trashed and missing half the top. I was naturally skeptical and told him to send me some pics before he sent it back to me for a refund.

He sure as hell wasn’t kidding:

View attachment 89282

anyone know of any idea of how that would have happened? Buyer indicated that there wasn’t any damage to the package. Obviously I did not send it like that. Also, what are any steps I can take with the post office, if any? This has never happened before. I mean I’ve had some sleeve seam splits in transit but nothing like that in a box that wasn’t damaged.
Click to expand...
Dammit! Just got some more photos and it looks like the post office repackaged it in a big box and threw another label on it. Here’s the box they threw it in. No padding or anything. Fucking bullshit. I’m assuming the record was damaged in transit and they just said F it and kept it going to the buyer in a different box. Thankfully it wasn’t an expensive record but that’s just plain awful by the post office. I’ve never had a problem like that and I’ve sold maybe 500 records or so. Never received one like that either in my thousand plus packages. Anyone know what the red slash means?

27CED103-3321-4674-AF39-C955E2AD05E9.jpeg
 
mitchwagz said:
Dammit! Just got some more photos and it looks like the post office repackaged it in a big box and threw another label on it. Here’s the box they threw it in. No padding or anything. Fucking bullshit. I’m assuming the record was damaged in transit and they just said F it and kept it going to the buyer in a different box. Thankfully it wasn’t an expensive record but that’s just plain awful by the post office. I’ve never had a problem like that and I’ve sold maybe 500 records or so. Never received one like that either in my thousand plus packages. Anyone know what the red slash means?

View attachment 89286
Click to expand...
damn that’s rough. If you shipped it media mail I’m not sure you have any recourse. Could always file a claim and see what happens. Or file a claim with your credit card to at least get refunded on the shipping.
 
Melt Face Molly Drop said:
damn that’s rough. If you shipped it media mail I’m not sure you have any recourse. Could always file a claim and see what happens. Or file a claim with your credit card to at least get refunded on the shipping.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m not going to fight too hard. It was only $15. Things like this is part of the reason why I insure every package over $50.
 
mitchwagz said:
Dammit! Just got some more photos and it looks like the post office repackaged it in a big box and threw another label on it. Here’s the box they threw it in. No padding or anything. Fucking bullshit. I’m assuming the record was damaged in transit and they just said F it and kept it going to the buyer in a different box. Thankfully it wasn’t an expensive record but that’s just plain awful by the post office. I’ve never had a problem like that and I’ve sold maybe 500 records or so. Never received one like that either in my thousand plus packages. Anyone know what the red slash means?

View attachment 89286
Click to expand...
That is wild that it was that damaged and they just completely repackaged it. Like how would anything even get THAT damaged? I feel like I get soo soo soo many packages delivered and never seen anything like that [I think I just jinxed myself haha]. Good thing it was only a $15 record, but that still shouldn't be happening. It looks like someone ripped the corners off the album cover. Was the record still playable?
 
Ericj32 said:
That is wild that it was that damaged and they just completely repackaged it. Like how would anything even get THAT damaged? I feel like I get soo soo soo many packages delivered and never seen anything like that [I think I just jinxed myself haha]. Good thing it was only a $15 record, but that still shouldn't be happening. It looks like someone ripped the corners off the album cover. Was the record still playable?
Click to expand...
I didn’t even ask. But yeah I have no idea how that would even happen. Looks like a dog ate it.
 
Question on making an entry. I just got Foxing "Dealer" from Amazon and it's just a standard black copy. The only black copy on Discogs is a 180g limited to 500 first press ( this copy is not 180G). Every other entry is a limited color version. The Triple Crown website had a "Black vinyl" for sale. My theory is that at some undetermined point a standard black version went into print and is now just the widely available version.

So how do I enter that? Unknown Date? Is it a repress or a reissue?
 
dbarila said:
Question on making an entry. I just got Foxing "Dealer" from Amazon and it's just a standard black copy. The only black copy on Discogs is a 180g limited to 500 first press ( this copy is not 180G). Every other entry is a limited color version. The Triple Crown website had a "Black vinyl" for sale. My theory is that at some undetermined point a standard black version went into print and is now just the widely available version.

So how do I enter that? Unknown Date? Is it a repress or a reissue?
Click to expand...
Dates are weird. I've seen arguments for and against entering the repress date, or the original press date. I think the consensus is if there is no known or published date, don't enter a date. I like to put in the notes "Original released in ####."
 
cul8er said:
Dates are weird. I've seen arguments for and against entering the repress date, or the original press date. I think the consensus is if there is no known or published date, don't enter a date. I like to put in the notes "Original released in ####."
Click to expand...
Having an "unknown date" is kind of annoying but in my searching I can't find any definitive date that the standard black went into circulation.
 
dbarila said:
I'll just put unknown since this version wasn't available in the initial run. But does that make this a repress or a reissue?
Click to expand...

My opinion is that if it wasn't the original release, it's a reissue.

A repress is only when they use the same plates as a prior release.

So anything that is a repress is also a reissue.

I've had discussions on this were most people disagree with me on this in the Discogs forums though.


I think it's all semantics around the terms "pressing", "release", and "issue".

My thinking is you can't use a prior used plate without a prior release.


Blank dates do suck, but it's better than an incorrect date. And someone may know the right one eventually.
 
Last edited:
LeeVing said:
My opinion is that if it wasn't the original release, it's a reissue.

A repress is only when they use the same plates as a prior release.

I've had discussions on this were most people disagree with me on this in the Discogs forums though.


I think it's all semantics around the terms "pressing", "release", and "issue".

My thinking is you can't use a prior used plate without a prior release.
Click to expand...
I'll enter it as a re issues with an unknown date and prepare for the very reasonable Discogs community to politely explain what I did wrong.
 
LeeVing said:
My opinion is that if it wasn't the original release, it's a reissue.

A repress is only when they use the same plates as a prior release.

So anything that is a repress is also a reissue.

I've had discussions on this were most people disagree with me on this in the Discogs forums though.


I think it's all semantics around the terms "pressing", "release", and "issue".

My thinking is you can't use a prior used plate without a prior release.


Blank dates do suck, but it's better than an incorrect date. And someone may know the right one eventually.
Click to expand...

nothing more to add other than stuff gets more out of hand when labels use hype language like "repress" when what they really mean is "reissue".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top