Instead of broadening VG+, I’d love to bump up VG a bit. (Not realistically going to happen, I know). VG+ for records played infrequently and carefully, VG for records played more often, but still carefully, G for “averagely” played records, F for records that suffered a few mishaps, but still with retrievable music, and P for records played by badgers in a chicken coop.

I guess ideally I’d love common usage of the VG grade to step up a bit to cover a some of the VG+ range, but I don’t see that realistically happening. So VG+ (for cover and record) might reflect careful usage, VG careful but frequent usage, G “normal” usage, F damaged but not irredeemable, and P played by raccoons and stored in a chicken coop.

As these items get older and older and more and more scarce, I feel like the mid-grade category definitions need to broaden a little, while what falls into VG++/NM- and above tightens even more to recognize only the crème de la crème. There are already so few pristine items left in circulation that those deserving of a coveted NM- or better grade are going to receive it indisputably. But the VG+ range should, in this collector’s opinion, broaden a little to acknowledge that anything below NM- is simply going to have some imperfections — even if it’s simple science, like old paper turns yellow and starts to split — but that doesn’t mean it’s a hunk of junk. It’s still pretty darn impressive for something that’s 60 or 70 years old and was created to be held, handled, and played and not hung on the wall like a painting.

Do I get any “Amens” from the congregation?