romanos27 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Now that I got my smart-ass post out of the way, here's my real answer (for what it's worth). My experience has been that sealed records tend to sell for more (sometimes considerably more) than non-sealed copies of the same records. No hard, fast rule, but that seems to be the general rule of thumb. So, if it's a valuable record you don't plan to play, and you want to see it keep its value, I'd say keep it sealed. As for the shrink-wrap causing damage over time: I'd say it's a possibility. You can tell on some records that the plastic is really tight, and you can see it actually pulling the corners up. I don't think it would damage the record, but I think it could damage the cover. If you have one of these, you have to decide if it would be better sealed (but possibly bent) or open but in mint condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 But what about those people that buy a record for $20 with no initial intention to sell it, listen to it, and then sell it for $100? It's seems like most people are fine with this. How is this okay, but flipping is not okay if the result is essentially the same? It seems like both of them should be condemnable. The difference is time. Since I'm a financial kind of guy I follow the same regulations on records as I do for stocks, one year. If you have had a record for over a year go ahead and sell it for as much as the market allows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthemforadoomed Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 They're doubles! I have one that I play.. But I'm also fairly sentimental over albums I love, and not just not ready to sell them. I was just curious if the shrink wrap would degrade it.. haha I really did deserve the response I got though. Sorry! mmhmm, esbe and jonnystorm777 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The difference is time. Since I'm a financial kind of guy I follow the same regulations on records as I do for stocks, one year. If you have had a record for over a year go ahead and sell it for as much as the market allows. That just seems like a poor way of justifying selling used records at a premium. This illusory grace period of a year between owning a record and selling it is very subjective and it still involves a party selling a record for an extremely high price to another party that may really want to listen to the record. This is essentially the same process as flipping a record, except for this alleged grace period. To put things into perspective, no one would complain if someone flipped a record for the retail price right after they purchased it. Therefore, the only tangible difference is the amount of money paid, which in both cases of selling a used record and flipping a new record amounts in a premium. If you're going to go by the market, then flipping records should be alright since people are willing to pay astronomical prices for these OOP records. If the demand is as great as the price, people will pay premiums for records even though these prices may be greater in the secondary market. Therefore to reiterate, I guess my overall argument is that if people disagree with flipping records, they should also disagree with the selling of used records at a premium regardless of any grace period. EmoVeganBoy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek™ Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 If you disagree with the idea of paying premium prices, stay off of eBay. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 unfortunately, it's not simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 If you disagree with the idea of paying premium prices, stay off of eBay. Simple. It happens on here too (i.e., anytime someone lists a rare record and asks for an offer). I know this is going to be unpopular but just to be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with selling records at a premium in any capacity. I'm usually fine with the market playing its role. Sure, it's unfortunate that I can't have all the records that I want at the prices that I want, but that's just how the free market works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 unfortunately, it's not simple. I totally agree. However, I think it's a good and progressive idea to discuss the intricacies of it instead of simply berating record flipping and not evaluating similar actions like selling used records at a premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icecream Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That just seems like a poor way of justifying selling used records at a premium. This illusory grace period of a year between owning a record and selling it is very subjective and it still involves a party selling a record for an extremely high price to another party that may really want to listen to the record. This is essentially the same process as flipping a record, except for this alleged grace period. To put things into perspective, no one would complain if someone flipped a record for the retail price right after they purchased it. Therefore, the only tangible difference is the amount of money paid, which in both cases of selling a used record and flipping a new record amounts in a premium. If you're going to go by the market, then flipping records should be alright since people are willing to pay astronomical prices for these OOP records. If the demand is as great as the price, people will pay premiums for records even though these prices may be greater in the secondary market. Therefore to reiterate, I guess my overall argument is that if people disagree with flipping records, they should also disagree with the selling of used records at a premium regardless of any grace period. Obviously there is no proper period of time besides the obvious short period the thing is we can go by this whole moral code of oh hey i'm going to sell it to this guy at a reasonable price because he genuinely want's it for the music. Then what happens when he needs money for a car repair,bills, or some super rare record he want's shows up on ebay. Not all are like this and I try to offer fair prices on here but at the end of the day if I can get more records for an earlier/1'st press and grab the most recent re-press,then turn around and buy more records I will do it. After all is said and done if the band doesn't currently have a record coming out then sometimes I can get that same 1'st press for cheap. At what point dose the person who got the good deal on a rare record feel vindicated to flip it or are they going to pass on the savings ? Some of the outrageous prices you can blame on naivety/impatience related to new releases which i'm sorry I don't feel bad for them. It's just all part of the cycle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That just seems like a poor way of justifying selling used records at a premium. This illusory grace period of a year between owning a record and selling it is very subjective and it still involves a party selling a record for an extremely high price to another party that may really want to listen to the record. This is essentially the same process as flipping a record, except for this alleged grace period. To put things into perspective, no one would complain if someone flipped a record for the retail price right after they purchased it. Therefore, the only tangible difference is the amount of money paid, which in both cases of selling a used record and flipping a new record amounts in a premium. If you're going to go by the market, then flipping records should be alright since people are willing to pay astronomical prices for these OOP records. If the demand is as great as the price, people will pay premiums for records even though these prices may be greater in the secondary market. Therefore to reiterate, I guess my overall argument is that if people disagree with flipping records, they should also disagree with the selling of used records at a premium regardless of any grace period. Let me guess you have been collecting records for less than a year. The reason I say a year, besides the tax precedent, is that it shows that you have a long term interest in records. You probably considered keeping it for a while. You probably played it a few times. The difference besides time is also intent. You are taking a chance by holding onto a record for a year. The band may lose popularity, records could become the new cds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Obviously there is no proper period of time besides the obvious short period the thing is we can go by this whole moral code of oh hey i'm going to sell it to this guy at a reasonable price because he genuinely want's it for the music. Then what happens when he needs money for a car repair,bills, or some super rare record he want's shows up on ebay. Not all are like this and I try to offer fair prices on here but at the end of the day if I can get more records for an earlier/1'st press and grab the most recent re-press,then turn around and buy more records I will do it. After all is said and done if the band doesn't currently have a record coming out then sometimes I can get that same 1'st press for cheap. It's just all part of the cycle I agree. Therefore, I don't see there should be any problem with letting the market do its role regardless of intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 i almost consider it trading- the way i go about it at least. basically, anything i sell that ends up in my paypal account, whether it be on here, discogs, or ebay... and more often than not, it just funds my next vinyl purchase. like this week for example, made a good amount of money on discogs, and was able to afford to jump on kevin devine's kickstarter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Hundred Fifty-Two Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 A lot of records that go for huge sums of money now were available for years and years before they went out of print. They were pressed in large numbers and people bought them because they were good records. They never planned on making any money. Over time the band got more popular and the record label finally sold through all their copies and one day the record was nowhere to be found in the primary market. For a while after it went OOP it was still selling for cheap. But then the band got even bigger and the record became even harder to find. The person that bought it 10 years ago and didn't keep up with the band probably threw out his copy or gave it to a friend for free. This way of a record becoming valuable/rare I find more natural or pure rather than a /100 variant that 99 copies end up on eBay the day they get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Let me guess you have been collecting records for less than a year. The reason I say a year, besides the tax precedent, is that it shows that you have a long term interest in records. You probably considered keeping it for a while. You probably played it a few times. The difference besides time is also intent. You are taking a chance by holding onto a record for a year. The band may lose popularity, records could become the new cds. Could you reiterate what you mean by taking a chance by holding onto a record? Are you talking in terms of someone who's interested in selling, or just someone as a a collector? Sorry, I'm just kind of confused. It might be my 1AM brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icecream Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 i almost consider it trading- the way i go about it at least. basically, anything i sell that ends up in my paypal account, whether it be on here, discogs, or ebay... and more often than not, it just funds my next vinyl purchase. like this week for example, made a good amount of money on discogs, and was able to afford to jump on kevin devine's kickstarter. exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 i almost consider it trading- the way i go about it at least. basically, anything i sell that ends up in my paypal account, whether it be on here, discogs, or ebay... and more often than not, it just funds my next vinyl purchase. like this week for example, made a good amount of money on discogs, and was able to afford to jump on kevin devine's kickstarter. I guess you could consider it trading if your purchases remain in the world of vinyl. However, if you make a large premium on a record, that means you have more purchasing power, even if it is just for vinyl. Therefore, it may not be ideal for the consumer who buys your record at a premium (even though they decided to buy it), but I guess it's a somewhat noble thing to put that money back into supporting other artists. But like I said before, I have absolutely no problem with this. I actually think the way you do it is the best way of dealing with selling records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 A lot of records that go for huge sums of money now were available for years and years before they went out of print. They were pressed in large numbers and people bought them because they were good records. They never planned on making any money. Over time the band got more popular and the record label finally sold through all their copies and one day the record was nowhere to be found in the primary market. For a while after it went OOP it was still selling for cheap. But then the band got even bigger and the record became even harder to find. The person that bought it 10 years ago and didn't keep up with the band probably threw out his copy or gave it to a friend for free. This way of a record becoming valuable/rare I find more natural or pure rather than a /100 variant that 99 copies end up on eBay the day they get it. I totally agree. Nevertheless, I think the selling/purchasing of vinyl is somewhat different now than it was 30-40 years ago. During those times, vinyl was the primary method of music consumption and therefore, all of the records were mass produced to bring it to as many home as possible. People who initially bought records during that era most likely didn't harbor the idea that some of these would become very rare and valuable. Rather, they purchased it for the sole intention of hearing the record, since it was one of the only ways to hear recorded music aside from the radio. This is similar to what the CD was like before Napster. Yet, because there are many more (affordable) ways to consume music these days, whether its Spotify, Rdio, Grooveshark, YouTube, free downloads, piracy, etc., the resurgence of vinyl had to be coupled with something for which consumers would be willing to pay. This resulted in many ideas, one of significant ones being of scarcity. Many records are released in limited amounts, and thus, an immediate value is attributed to them solely based on the limited quality of them. It's getting more and more difficult for a record to reach a state of natural rareness, since the rareness is already attributed to them via the limited quantity. Therefore, if you look on eBay today, you can see a colossal amount of older records being sold at considerable prices due to their rare nature. At the same time, you can also see records released within the past 2-3 years being sold at significantly high prices due to their rare nature as well. However, this rareness didn't take time to develop, since it was already marketed as an item that was limited. Like I said before, I totally agree that it is more natural for a record to become rare and valuable over time. However, I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for this phenomenon to occur with the attributed limitedness bestowed by the record companies. The record companies know that by cutting the supply to be lesser than the demand, it increases the demand for the overall product of vinyl records and in turn, creates buzz about each upcoming release. This is a huge way that the record companies are perpetuating the reawakened world of vinyl, by creating immediate scarcity/rareness, and riding the wave of the buzz of the limited releases. Both of these weren't really as significant issues as they were back in the heyday of records. However, I totally agree with you about the former process being more natural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedannychang Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm glad we're discussing this, by the way. Thanks all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudeboydh Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I still don't understand variant collecting. I buy records to listen to them. Also, I don't believe in buying a single LP record for more than 30$. If I can't get it under that price, I'll wait for a repress or just won't buy it. Maybe some exceptions would apply for some of my favorite bands, but it would have to be a really good deal on a record that is usually alot more expensive. firefoxUSSR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipsterasfolk Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 If you can't listen to it, why buy records? Chump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamover Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I BOUGHT A SIX YEAR OLD SEALED RECORD ONCE. I COULDN'T WAIT TO LISTEN TO IT. I PEELED OFF THAT SHRINK WRAP AND IT REMOVED THE INK ON THE COVER. TRUE STORY. MORAL: OPEN YOUR RECORDS LET THEM BREATHE. If you're selling a sealed variant on eBay, most people will be reluctant to buy it sealed cause how can you know for sure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 "The Hobby" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhulud Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So much expertise and a great wealth of knowledge up in here!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajismetal Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I am pretty sure if someone wants a record bad enough they will pay a certain amount of money whether it is sealed or not. These artists make this music for people to listen too, not for people to profit. And the artist themselves make little or no profit from selling them (smaller labels of course). In the end do what makes you happy, since our opinions won't sway you either way because you probably already have your mind made up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipsterasfolk Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 All my records are sealed on my shelf, framed, and some on my Crosley (That I got from Urban Outfitters.) vinyl are rly kewl! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.