I bought an Edison record on Ebay and it's clear the seller misrepresented the condition as excellent. There appears to be spots and areas of mold damage? I'm not sure what it is but it does effect play. I payed under $20 for it so I'm inclined to not send it back. I tried isopropyl alcohol and it's not coming off. I tried to take a photo, but it's hard to show the problem. Please click on the photo for a larger size. Any idea how I might remove it?
What Do I Do with my Edison Record? SOLVED
- audiophile102
- Victor IV
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 12:50 pm
- Personal Text: Say to yourself I am so happy hurray!
- Location: Brookfield, Illinois
What Do I Do with my Edison Record? SOLVED
Last edited by audiophile102 on Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You can't take the phonographs nor the money with you, but the contentment the phonographs bring may well make your life better, and happier lives make the world a better place."
- Curt A
- Victor Monarch Special
- Posts: 6437
- Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:32 pm
- Personal Text: Needle Tins are Addictive
- Location: Belmont, North Carolina
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record?
You probably already know this, but DO NOT USE WATER... Typically, DDs aren't affected by mold, so you probably have some sort of residue that has accumulated over time. Since that record is worth more than what you paid, you shouldn't return it. Something you could try is WD 40 sprayed onto a rag or paper towel and wiped in a circular motion around the grooves. WD 40 will NOT hurt the record, but don't get it on the label. I have used this method for removing old residue on records and it has worked well for over 20 years with NO ill effects... This is not a guarantee that it will remove whatever is on there, since I can't tell what it is from your picture... GOOP used sparingly in the same way, may also work...
"The phonograph is not of any commercial value."
Thomas Alva Edison - Comment to his assistant, Samuel Insull.
"No one needs a Victrola XX, a Perfected Graphophone Type G, or whatever you call those noisy things."
My Wife
Thomas Alva Edison - Comment to his assistant, Samuel Insull.
"No one needs a Victrola XX, a Perfected Graphophone Type G, or whatever you call those noisy things."
My Wife
- Marco Gilardetti
- Victor IV
- Posts: 1398
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:19 am
- Personal Text: F. Depero, "Grammofono", 1923.
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record?
It's not that clear, I might say. The standard ratings for records are nonsense and are shamefully in favour of the seller. Some of the standard definitions would possibly be ranked as an intentional fraud in a trial, however for some reason nobody has ever proposed a more balanced scale.audiophile102 wrote:it's clear the seller misrepresented the condition as excellent.
Records rated as EXCELLENT (I will quote) may show some slight signs of wear, including light scuffs or very light scratches that do not affect the listening experience. Slight warps that do not affect the sound are OK. Minor signs of handling are OK, too, such as telltale marks around the center hole, but repeated playing has not misshapen the hole. There may be some very light ring wear or discoloration, but it should be barely noticeable. This is exactly as your record looks in the picture you posted (although you specified that it looks better in picture than in reality).
Please also note that the definition of GOOD implies that it has significant surface noise and groove wear, and the label is worn, with significant ring wear, heavy writing, or obvious damage caused by someone trying to remove tape or stickers and failing miserably. This is obviously so far by everybody's definition of an object in "good" conditions that I really wonder why this misleading scale has ever been conceived at all.
-
- Victor IV
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:18 am
- Location: Luxembourg
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record?
I agree that the rating system used in the record trade is quite useless, starting from the very definitions when, like Marco says, a record rated as GOOD actually is a PIECE OF JUNK! I have restricted my purchases to reliable dealers that I buy regularly from (which are very few and don't use the standard rating), or to sales in bulk, of which I expect varying quality anyway. Some dealers actually play the records and rate their condition based on that, which is the only good way to assess a record quality (provided that the dealer is honest). Unfortunately the ones that do that are maybe half a dozen worldwide. Evidently there is the practicality of doing that, if one has to listen to hundreds of records every week, so this approach becomes restricted to dealers that sell higher value records. I could apply this reasoning to the Edison record above: it visually appears in good condition, however Edison records in particular can only be assessed when played, I have dozens of Edison records that look pristine and sound horrible. As to misleading advertisement, if the seller indicated that only a visual inspection was made, then the risk is with the buyer to get the lemon. If on the other hand the seller advertised that the rating was based on listening, then he should have identified any aural flaws including the one caused by the stains, and that to me would configure false advertisement.Marco Gilardetti wrote:It's not that clear, I might say. The standard ratings for records are nonsense and are shamefully in favour of the seller. Some of the standard definitions would possibly be ranked as an intentional fraud in a trial, however for some reason nobody has ever proposed a more balanced scale.audiophile102 wrote:it's clear the seller misrepresented the condition as excellent.
Records rated as EXCELLENT (I will quote) may show some slight signs of wear, including light scuffs or very light scratches that do not affect the listening experience. Slight warps that do not affect the sound are OK. Minor signs of handling are OK, too, such as telltale marks around the center hole, but repeated playing has not misshapen the hole. There may be some very light ring wear or discoloration, but it should be barely noticeable. This is exactly as your record looks in the picture you posted (although you specified that it looks better in picture than in reality).
Please also note that the definition of GOOD implies that it has significant surface noise and groove wear, and the label is worn, with significant ring wear, heavy writing, or obvious damage caused by someone trying to remove tape or stickers and failing miserably. This is obviously so far by everybody's definition of an object in "good" conditions that I really wonder why this misleading scale has ever been conceived at all.
-
- Auxetophone
- Posts: 2587
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:01 am
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record?
Denatured alcohol is typically what people clean DDs with (NEVER use this on a regular 78, it will dissolve). Windex is another thing I've used with good success on both Diamond Discs and Blue Amberols. I don't personally care for WD-40 mainly because I can't stand the smell. Whatever you use, it's a good idea not to wet the edge of the record, as the core is absorbent.
- audiophile102
- Victor IV
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 12:50 pm
- Personal Text: Say to yourself I am so happy hurray!
- Location: Brookfield, Illinois
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record?
,Curt A wrote:You probably already know this, but DO NOT USE WATER... Typically, DDs aren't affected by mold, so you probably have some sort of residue that has accumulated over time. Since that record is worth more than what you paid, you shouldn't return it. Something you could try is WD 40 sprayed onto a rag or paper towel and wiped in a circular motion around the grooves. WD 40 will NOT hurt the record, but don't get it on the label. I have used this method for removing old residue on records and it has worked well for over 20 years with NO ill effects... This is not a guarantee that it will remove whatever is on there, since I can't tell what it is from your picture... GOOP used sparingly in the same way, may also work...
Curt, you are brilliant! Having failed to remove the old residue with rubbing alcohol I decided to try your methods. First I tried WD 40 and I think it helped a little, but I was hoping for a better result. Next I tried GOOP and it worked like magic! I am now the proud owner of a excellent condition great jazz DD that only cost me $19.50. Pretty great. Curt, I urge you to add your DD cleaning advise to the Tips AND Tricks section of the forum. Thank you Curt. I intended to give the Ebay seller a negative review, but now I'm not so inclined.
"You can't take the phonographs nor the money with you, but the contentment the phonographs bring may well make your life better, and happier lives make the world a better place."
- Curt A
- Victor Monarch Special
- Posts: 6437
- Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:32 pm
- Personal Text: Needle Tins are Addictive
- Location: Belmont, North Carolina
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record? SOLVED
Thanks, finally someone thinks I’m brilliant...
The other thing that would work is a Magic Eraser, but I haven’t tried one yet...
The other thing that would work is a Magic Eraser, but I haven’t tried one yet...
"The phonograph is not of any commercial value."
Thomas Alva Edison - Comment to his assistant, Samuel Insull.
"No one needs a Victrola XX, a Perfected Graphophone Type G, or whatever you call those noisy things."
My Wife
Thomas Alva Edison - Comment to his assistant, Samuel Insull.
"No one needs a Victrola XX, a Perfected Graphophone Type G, or whatever you call those noisy things."
My Wife
- gramophone-georg
- Victor VI
- Posts: 3995
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:55 pm
- Personal Text: Northwest Of Normal
- Location: Eugene/ Springfield Oregon USA
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record?
Even then, playback equipment can vary widely. As a very long time record seller I've always offered a no questions asked guarantee: If the buyer is not happy for ANY reason- including bought it but don't like the music- the buyer can send it back and I'll refund fully including shipping both ways on receipt of the return. I think I've had two takers in over 20 years.CarlosV wrote:I agree that the rating system used in the record trade is quite useless, starting from the very definitions when, like Marco says, a record rated as GOOD actually is a PIECE OF JUNK! I have restricted my purchases to reliable dealers that I buy regularly from (which are very few and don't use the standard rating), or to sales in bulk, of which I expect varying quality anyway. Some dealers actually play the records and rate their condition based on that, which is the only good way to assess a record quality (provided that the dealer is honest). Unfortunately the ones that do that are maybe half a dozen worldwide. Evidently there is the practicality of doing that, if one has to listen to hundreds of records every week, so this approach becomes restricted to dealers that sell higher value records. I could apply this reasoning to the Edison record above: it visually appears in good condition, however Edison records in particular can only be assessed when played, I have dozens of Edison records that look pristine and sound horrible. As to misleading advertisement, if the seller indicated that only a visual inspection was made, then the risk is with the buyer to get the lemon. If on the other hand the seller advertised that the rating was based on listening, then he should have identified any aural flaws including the one caused by the stains, and that to me would configure false advertisement.Marco Gilardetti wrote:It's not that clear, I might say. The standard ratings for records are nonsense and are shamefully in favour of the seller. Some of the standard definitions would possibly be ranked as an intentional fraud in a trial, however for some reason nobody has ever proposed a more balanced scale.audiophile102 wrote:it's clear the seller misrepresented the condition as excellent.
Records rated as EXCELLENT (I will quote) may show some slight signs of wear, including light scuffs or very light scratches that do not affect the listening experience. Slight warps that do not affect the sound are OK. Minor signs of handling are OK, too, such as telltale marks around the center hole, but repeated playing has not misshapen the hole. There may be some very light ring wear or discoloration, but it should be barely noticeable. This is exactly as your record looks in the picture you posted (although you specified that it looks better in picture than in reality).
Please also note that the definition of GOOD implies that it has significant surface noise and groove wear, and the label is worn, with significant ring wear, heavy writing, or obvious damage caused by someone trying to remove tape or stickers and failing miserably. This is obviously so far by everybody's definition of an object in "good" conditions that I really wonder why this misleading scale has ever been conceived at all.
I just apply my collector's mentality to it.
"He who dies with the most shellac wins"- some nutty record geek
I got PTSD from Peter F's avatar
I got PTSD from Peter F's avatar
-
- Victor Monarch
- Posts: 4172
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:23 pm
- Personal Text: I have good days...this might not be one of them
- Location: Albany NY
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record? SOLVED
NO- Magic Eraser is a fine abrasiveCurt A wrote:Thanks, finally someone thinks I’m brilliant...
The other thing that would work is a Magic Eraser, but I haven’t tried one yet...
-
- Victor III
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:43 pm
Re: What Do I Do with my Edison Record? SOLVED
Did you use GOOP or GOJO?