Bought a record off Discogs last month. Listed as Near Mint. Arrived with a mark across half the A-side that was visible from across the room and audible as a tick every quarter rotation. Seller had 4,000 transactions and a 99.6% positive feedback rating.

This isn’t a one-off. This is what Discogs has become, and it’s what the global used record market has become, and anyone pretending otherwise hasn’t been buying recently.

What the grades used to mean

The Goldmine grading scale, which Discogs uses, has been the standard for decades. Mint means unplayed and perfect. Near Mint means played carefully a handful of times with no audible or visible flaws. Very Good Plus means light surface marks, plays cleanly without distraction. Very Good means surface marks visible, may have light pops in quiet passages. Good and below means it’s playable but you’ll hear it.

Those definitions haven’t changed. The application of them has.

In 2026 a typical NM listing on Discogs is what we used to call VG+. A typical VG+ listing is what we used to call VG. Most VG listings are honestly Good. The grade has slid by a full step, and possibly two, depending on the seller and the country.

Why this happened

Three things converged. First, the demand for second hand vinyl exploded between 2020 and 2024 in ways the supply couldn’t keep up with. When demand outstrips supply, sellers have less incentive to grade conservatively because everything sells eventually. Second, Discogs’s feedback system rewards transaction volume over grading accuracy, so a seller who lists everything one grade higher than they should and offers refunds on complaints actually outperforms a seller who grades honestly. Third, the platform has refused to introduce a stricter grading mechanism despite years of complaints from the buyer side.

Discogs themselves have made noises about improving this but nothing material has changed. The grading dispute resolution process still favours sellers in most cases.

The international tax

Australian buyers get hit twice. First by the grading inflation, then by the freight. A record that’s a $30 mistake from a domestic seller becomes a $70-80 mistake from an overseas seller once you factor in shipping and the inevitable customs delays. Returns on overseas purchases are functionally impossible because the return shipping costs more than the record.

This is why I’ve been pushing customers towards domestic Discogs sellers and Australian record fairs all year. The grading inflation exists here too but at least when you’ve been burned you can drop into the seller’s shop and have a polite conversation.

How to actually buy used in 2026

A few rules I’ve been telling customers and that I follow myself.

Read the seller’s description, not just the grade. Sellers who describe specific marks (“light hairline on side B”, “small mark in lead-in groove not affecting playback”) are graders you can trust. Sellers who only put a grade with no description are sellers who haven’t actually inspected the record carefully.

Check feedback for grading complaints, not overall rating. A 99% positive seller can have 1% negative that’s all about grading misrepresentation. Read the negative reviews. Two minutes of reading saves you from $50 mistakes.

Buy from Japanese sellers when the record is Japanese pressing. Japanese sellers grade conservatively. A Japanese NM is genuinely NM. The freight is brutal but the certainty is worth it.

Avoid US sellers for shipping to Australia unless the record is genuinely worth the hassle. The grading from US sellers has slipped further than European or domestic sellers, and the freight equation is the worst.

What about price guides

The Discogs price guide is now a problem rather than a solution. The median sale price reflects the inflated grades, which means a genuinely VG+ record looks underpriced when the median includes records sold as VG+ that are actually VG. You’re not getting a deal, you’re getting what you paid for. The median has shifted around the grade slide.

This affects what I pay when I’m buying collections too. I have to grade the collection myself, then check the price guide, then mentally adjust the median down by a step to figure out what the collection is actually worth. It’s added work and it’s why my buying offers can look low compared to what people see on Discogs. I’m not lowballing. I’m just grading honestly.

In-store still wins

The thing that hasn’t changed is the in-store buying experience. You can pull the record out, look at it under proper light, ask to play it on the shop deck if it’s a high-value piece. The grade is whatever you decide it is when you’re looking at the record in your hands.

This is partly why I keep emphasising the local shop angle even though I run one and have an obvious bias. The grading slide on Discogs has effectively given physical record stores their main competitive advantage back. Buyers who got burned a few times are coming back to buying in person, and the foot traffic data I track in the shop reflects that.

ABC’s Drive program ran a piece last month about the resurgence of physical music retail and the grading question came up. Wasn’t surprised. It’s the conversation everyone’s having.

The fix that won’t happen

Discogs could fix this in a week if they wanted to. Mandatory photos of inner labels and surface for all NM and VG+ listings. Mandatory dispute mediation that actually penalises misgraders. Public seller grading accuracy ratings based on actual disputes, not just star ratings.

They won’t, because the platform’s revenue is tied to listing volume and any friction reduces volume. So we’re stuck with what we’ve got, which is buyer beware and the slow shift back to in-store.

If you’re buying online, lower your expectations one full grade. If the seller’s listing reads like they actually looked at the record, give them the benefit of the doubt. If it doesn’t, assume the worst.

Mick “Digger” Brennan