Your VG Record Might Sound Better Than Your EX Record: What’s Wrong With Vinyl Grading?

Most grading systems ask one media grade to describe two different things: what the record looks like and what it actually sounds like. Those usually correlate — until they don’t.

I did not set out to redesign record grading. I set out to catalogue my collection properly. Which, in hindsight, was probably the first mistake.

Once I started actually cleaning records, inspecting them under decent light, playing them properly and writing down what I heard, one thing became obvious: a single media grade can be surprisingly unhelpful.

The problem with one letter

If somebody tells me a record is VG, what does that really mean? Does it have obvious scratches? Does it crackle? Does it have one horrible click every revolution? Does it look battered but play silently? Most systems try to compress the physical appearance and the listening experience into one overall judgement.

That works reasonably well when appearance and playback line up. An immaculate-looking disc often plays beautifully. A heavily scratched disc often sounds worn. The problem is the interesting copies in the middle.

Then Scoundrel Days happened

My copy of a-ha’s Scoundrel Days has noticeable surface marks. Visually, I would not call it EX and I definitely would not call it Near Mint. It is a straightforward VG visual copy.

But it plays beautifully. On the listen that triggered this whole argument with myself, I could not hear the crackle, pops or obvious surface noise that the scratches suggested should be there. As a playback experience, it was effectively NM.

If I record only Media: VG, I have thrown away the most interesting and useful fact about that record.

So I added another grade

The system I am using for my own collection is deliberately simple:

LP Visual Grade — what the physical vinyl looks like.

LP Playback Grade — what the physical copy actually sounds like.

Sleeve Grade — the outer jacket, kept separate as usual.

I do not average the two LP grades into an overall score. That would put us straight back where we started. VG visual / NM playback is not a contradiction that needs fixing. It is the description.

What about skips?

This is where playback grading earns its keep. Imagine a disc that looks almost perfect but has one repeatable skip caused by damage. Visually it might still deserve EX. Playback-wise, I would downgrade it hard because a skip is a material fault, even if the rest of the album sounds lovely.

That gives you something much more useful: LP Visual: EX / LP Playback: G+, followed by a note saying there is one skip on a particular track and the rest plays cleanly. The visual condition has not magically worsened because the stylus jumped. The playback condition has.

This is not about pretending grading is objective

Record grading will always involve judgement. Different lighting, cartridges, systems and ears matter. I am not trying to produce laboratory measurements from a turntable in my house.

I just want the catalogue to answer two honest questions instead of making one letter do both jobs: what does this record look like? and what does this record sound like?

Apparently this is how hobbies escalate. First you clean some records. Then you catalogue them. Then you decide the industry’s grading language has a hole in it and add another column.

Seems reasonable.