The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

billybob62 wrote:Did you use GOOP or GOJO?

phonojim wrote:Could you hear any noise from the spots before you cleaned the record before you cleaned it?

alang wrote:Does anyone know if GooP or GoJo would damage a regular 78? I know that alcohol is a no no, but I think those products are based on mineral spirits. Obviously not for every record, just for some of those really nasty stains you sometimes cannot get off with the usual water + detergent...

Andreas

CarlosV wrote:

Marco Gilardetti wrote:

audiophile102 wrote:it's clear the seller misrepresented the condition as excellent.

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.

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 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.

audiophile102 wrote:I followed up with Windex.

HisMastersVoice wrote:

audiophile102 wrote:I followed up with Windex.

*WARNING*

Never, ever, ever, ever...EVER use Windex on a regular 78. Alcohol is a primary ingredient. Alcohol DISSOLVES shellac.

*WARNING*