What do I look for in used records?

Having bought several hundred used records in the past year, here are my observations.

I have looked closely at my used records which have persistent noise under a microscope and found that they have a slight roughness or tearing to the otherwise smooth groove walls that was presumably caused by damage from a bad needle. These are LP's that to the naked eye appear in excellent condition. The noise you will hear is a slight static or distortion at the more intense points of the music. Unfortunately, this type of damage is very hard to observe unaided but it seems to be quite prevalent. Visible scratches may or may not be a problem as many are just along the record surface and do not impact the needle as it plays deeper in the groove.
I agree with the posters above that stereo recordings are not better than their earlier mono versions. In general, I have found that the reissues from the early 80's on, even the ones claiming to be "audiophile" versions are inferior to earlier recordings. To me they just sound like the CD with the analog noise. They lack completely the "presence" that makes well recorded vinyl superior to digital. This unfortunately, confirms that vinyl is dead except for those who, like me, want to sour the earth for real old records. If you're planning on making up your collection from vinly recorded after 1984, I suggest you just go with high quality digital.

Thanks everyone for the detailed help. How is the quality with some of the other labels I'm seeing; such as, Angel, Tops, Vanguard, Vox, Westminster, and Seraphim?

By the way, I went back and picked up 7 more:

Brahms Sonata no. 2 - Piatigorsky/Berkowitz - Columbia ML 2096 (This one is a 10" disc, Long Play Microgroove, whatever that means)

Ravel Concerto in G - Munch/Schweitzer - RCA Victor LM-2271 - 1959

Sibelius Symph. 6&7 - Karajan - Angel 35316

Tchaikovsky/Moussorgsky - Mitropoulos - Columbia ML 5335

Respighi Fountains/Brazilian - Angel 35405

Beethoven Pastorale - Stern - Tops L-1618

Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherazade - Rossi - Vanguard SRV-103

I'm not seeing dates on most of these.

Unfortunately, these will probably just sit on a shelf until I can spring for a phono stage and perhaps a new cartridge/stylus.

Obviously it varies from record to record, but here are my impressions based the few in my collection. Serious collectors could tell you more.

Angel - okay to good
Tops - thought they made baseball cards
Vanguard - okay
Vox - okay to good
Westminster - easily the class of this list; glorious mids, detail and presence; older records have restricted frequency extremes but are still wonderfully alive
Seraphim - same as Angel, more or less

OK, I’ve finally purchased a phono stage and a new cartridge (along with too many more records to bore you by listing), and have moved the turntable to my main system.

It can be hit and miss on what kind of shape they’re in. Some are obviously scratched, some it’s hard to tell if it’s just dirt. I hope I’m not grinding the needle to an early grave.

Others sound remarkably well.

For example, I agree with the comments above regarding some of the old mono records; they can sound pretty good. I had naively expected the sound to be localized to the sides with each speaker, but was pleasantly surprised to find everything right in the middle. So you don’t have the instruments spread across the stage like with stereo, but there’s a fullness and warmth that’s very nice.

Eldartford mentions that mono and stereo records appear different. I think that I see what he’s talking about – the stereo tend to have a more fuzzy look to them it seems?

I’ve found an old Rimsky-Korsakoff set, RCA Victor DM-504, that has an even different look to it altogether, and each record weighs a lot more than anything else I’ve come across. It looks like maybe the grooves are deeper or perhaps more pronounced? I’m not sure what the significance of this is.

Also, most of these old ones don’t have a date anywhere on the jacket that I can find. How does one figure this out?

It's possible that the DM-504 set is a 78 RPM set. 78s are heavier and thicker. The groove size is also much, much larger than an LP. If the set is packed in a book like package, with paper sleeves attached to the binding, it's almost certainly a 78 set. (Although, I have seen one LP set from the very early fifties that is packed this way.) If this is a 78 set, be careful--the records were fragile, and should NOT be cleaned with an alcohol based cleaner. You might save such a set to play with--there are many people who still play 78s.

As for the stereo/mono question, it's actually easy to tell with many records recorded in the earlier days of stereo--the earliest stereo records would advertise the fact on the record label and the sleeve. But, some companies (like RCA) would have a fancy name for their mono records, and a promise that the record would sound good on your phonograph today, and even better on a stereo phonograph. These mono records might have been better than stereo--in fact, they often were (if nothing else, it took a while to work out the stereo bugs.) But, they are still mono records.

In time, if you have enough mono records, you might look into getting a setup where you can have a cartridge just for mono LPs. The sound is supposed to be much better--although it requires cartridge or stylus swapping, or else a second turntable.

Finally, the "microgroove" label is just talking about the long playing record technology. The LP groove is much smaller than a 78 RPM record, and the groove was called "microgroove."