Watching Jazz Vinyl Prices on The Rise
Here’s some jazz vinyl we were watching on eBay:
Clifford Brown Quartet, Blue Note 5047. This was an original 10-inch Lexington Avenue pressing. The record was in M- condition and the cover looked like it was probably VG++. The price was $900.12. That’s the highest price we’ve ever recorded for this album in the Jazz Collector Price Guide.
Speaking of new highs, this was one from the recent Jazz Record Center auction: Grachan Moncur III, Some Other Stuff, Blue Note 4177. This was in M- condition and sold for $775.43. As we’re seeing pretty consistently, these later original Blue Notes are really increasing in value. I had sold a copy of this record for around $500 a couple of years ago and that was, by far, the highest price we’d seen up to that point.
Sonny Clark Trio, Time 70010. This was an original pressing rated VG++ for the record and VG+ for the cover, even though the headline stated it was M-. Pretty interesting/deceptive move by the seller. It sold for $699.99.
Look at the price on this original Riverside:
Kenny Drew Trio, Riverside 224. This was an original pressing with the white label. The record was rated in VG++ to M- condition but the cover was only fair. The price was a whopping $637. I’m sure even the seller was surprised. Happy, but surprised.
Dizzy Reece, Blues in Trinity, Blue Note 4046. This was an original pressing with the deep grooves, West 63rd Street address, etc. It was listed in M- condition for both the record and the cover. It sold for $634.99.
Agree that it’s confusing when the heading condition doesn’t match the description condition. I saw a similar tactic recently where a high grade, say VG++ would be in the headline, while the description would be a range of two conditions, as in VG+ to VG++. That’s a little soft and dubious. I know as a seller one can make mistakes by using one auction as a template for the next, maybe that’s what happened here…
A cheap Lexington KENNY BURRELL s/t RARE JAZZ LP Blue Note 1543 Mono WARHOL just $ 61.00,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/360453424167?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2648#ht_500wt_1202
versus
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=370605480647&nma=true&rt=nc&si=Z92Zkm5WWAE5hZOX7CySlKEEChI%253D&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_5092wt_783
The sneaky mismatch between title and description has me thinking an interesting(although perhaps tedious) side project for this site might be to follow up a month or two later on some of these auctions and see what kind of feedback the buyer left. People always say the old Blue Notes play better than they look. But, while I can’t afford original Blue Notes, I buy a lot of records on ebay. And I know how often I get a “NM” record that shows up looking absolutely trashed. It’s annoying enough with a $30 record, but I sometimes wonder how many of these NM or VG++ records that sell for $1000+ show up in VG-/G condition. Even if it plays better than it looks, that’s still a big difference. Anyway, I wonder how many of these records result in feedback like “Smooth transaction, easy to deal with” or other faint praise that sound like they could have been return/refund situations.
But that would involve combing through feedback, and would be kind of a pain in the butt.
Here’s the same seller I mentioned who uses the “range” approach, evidently not by accident. Maybe it means it’s in between the two, though he tends to always put the higher grade in the title. I did get some good records out of this guy’s estate lot.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BENNY-CARTER-and-The-Oscar-Peterson-Quartet-LP-ALONE-TOGETHER-VERVE-V-8148-VG-/290697342519?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item43aee96e37#ht_883wt_1056
Maybe I’m to anal, but any seam splits to me, means VG at best. I’ll accept sligh ring wear and edge wear for VG +, but no split or tape seams .