• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by oluckydayo

  1. Interesting, wasn't aware of that rule. I knew the grade could only be .5 higher than the lowest.
  2. Sorry for your loss, it's a very fun collection you've been left with. If you're still holding I'm interested in some of the Star Wars. I'll have to browse through and see which ones I need but I'll message you directly soon. Also worth noting now that the the word is Marvel/DC cards may be accepted very soon at CGC, so might want to keep an eye on their main page.
  3. Isn't the 9.5 Mint+ by intention a subjective grade to designate a card that has a gem mint appearance to the naked eye? (this is my understanding, I don't know for sure). If that's the case, then I could see a definite weighting being used in regards to the subs. Edge grade would be nearly inconsequential between 8-10 grade, most people can't see it at all or the difference between small increments at high grade (especially in a slab). Centering would be weighted the highest, it's the easiest to spot a clear issue, even at 55/45 to spec for gem it can sometimes noticed on the right design. Corners would be the second highest again as an obvious or apparent defect if lower grade. Surface is hit or miss. If it's a 9 surface grade the mark or imperfection could be on the back, the issue could be with coloring, it could be dinged under a difficult to spot area (white, text, business on the design). If something like the above is correct, perhaps the key for 9.5+ is 9.5 or better on centering and corners and more lenience on the edge/surface. That would align with your overall 9, since corners have a possible perceivable imperfection.
  4. I'm not a buyer, but that's a really cool set and a fair price. Good luck with the sale.
  5. This thread is from last year before they had thick holders. That size is perfectly fine now.
  6. Bowing or a slight curve to the card make no difference as long as there is no crease or damage to the card surface as a result. Put them in a sleeve and top loader for a little while and they'll begin to straighten out a bit.
  7. Good luck with your bulk sub. I had a 54 card order go from received to shipped in 15 days, expected to be back tomorrow for a turnaround of 3 weeks. Capacity seems to be under control right now.
  8. This is an awesome turnaround. Nice. Curious about what kinds of cards you submit on an order of that size as well, if you're interested in posting the results in another thread when they're back.
  9. I don't believe PSA/SGC grade the sawcut card unless it's an auto only grade.
  10. You'd have to post a picture for anyone to give you that advice. Don't get your hopes up. 1 of 726 is a pretty common numbering system for old junk cards that weren't truly printed in rare quantities.
  11. When you build the submission it's just to put your card on file, you're not being charged. You are charged when your order shows as 'Scheduled for Grading' on the website.
  12. Definitely, I was impressed. It was a split of vintage and modern, which might have helped. Since they have different graders for each, it may have progressed through each queue simultaneously.
  13. When you submit your order, choose the declared value that you believe is the closest to the card value at the time of submitting. If they feel it is obviously too low, they will correct it and charge you accordingly when they enter the order.
  14. The shipping you're paying for is return shipping for the cards from CSG back to you. You are responsible for getting the cards to their facility.
  15. I noticed this too and I'm hopeful/expecting that they're going to decertify the old numbers.
  16. 36 of my cards were ultra modern: 10: 15 cards 9.5: 11 cards That being said, these were all PC cards that I only had one copy of, not cards where I was picking and choosing to make sure I got a gem for resale. In my notes before sending I wrote down that I thought 20 of them had a chance to gem, so I was within an acceptable margin of error in my screening/predictions. Out of those 20, only one card that I wrote I expected a gem missed at least 9.5, and it got an 8.5. Looking at the scan on the sub I believe I can see a scratch I missed that is fairly prominent. Conversely I also received 10s on two cards that were not on my list at all and I'm very surprised. In both cases the back centering was fairly off and I was helped by the new 70/30 rule. If I wanted to choose another 50 to send in and only chose cards I believed to be gem, I'd feel pretty confident they would come back with a very high success rate.
  17. Screen your cards properly and they'll grade them fairly. My 54 card sub that just shipped: 10: 16 cards 9.5: 15 cards 9: 10 cards 8.5: 8 cards 8: 2 cards 7.5: 2 cards 5.5 1 card Of the cards that graded below a 9, six of them are legit vintage from pre-1980 that I knew would be lucky to get above an 8 (and one did). There were very few surprises outside of about +- .5 grade on many cards.
  18. I'll share a dissenting opinion and say that I worked in the shipping department of a company years ago where we would ship Fedex at a volume of about 50-60 packages per day (and quite a few coming in as well). It was a very rare occasion that one didn't arrive as expected or on time. UPS which we shipped in much less volume had many more issues. USPS is still fantastic and I trust them as well, though they are the only company I've received massively damaged items from on a couple of occasions.
  19. No Marvel cards yet, but CGC just added some new types of cards recently (they were doing mainly pokemon to start), so I think Marvel should be coming at some point in the near future. https://www.cgccards.com/
  20. Yes, it should be designated as an error for 'No Copyright'. All of the Griffey cards from that set have the spelling error, so these are uncorrected errors, and not usually denoted. If you didn't specify this on your form when sending it in, you will probably need to reholder it for the correction.
  21. If you don't have a tracking number and they aren't showing under your submissions on the page, you won't be able to verify them before they're checked into their system. They are delivered to a PO Box and then taking to their facility where they're stored securely before the package is opened and the submission is entered. Right now, this step is taking about 3-5 days from the day they are delivered to the post office box. So depending on what type of service you used to send the cards and the ETA on their arrival, you should be close to seeing them appear in your account (for reference, my last . To check that they've been received, log into your account, click on your name on the top right side of the side, and choose 'My Submissions'. Press 'View Status' on the next page and it will show you any orders received and that have been started.
  22. Depends on what you're grading it for. It's not a high value card even if it gets a perfect grade, which is normal for cards from this era outside of a few cases. This card would likely be worth less than the cost to grade unless you're sending in at the bulk rate of $12 (and then it would be close in a 10). If it's for your personal collection, don't let it stop you. Nothing wrong with getting it authenticated and encased for presentation, but for the majority of cards made between about 1987-1998 unless you're confident it's an absolute 10 there's not much value in grading.
  23. Exactly. The purpose of this method is to prevent a scenario just like this from happening. I think using the lowest grade as a base value is essential. Whether .5-1 point maximum from that lowest is appropriate may be up for debate, but you certainly can't average a 10/10/10/6 into a 9 overall grade when that 6 was given for something like a tear, or a corner entirely missing, or a crayon drawn on the card.
  24. Pujols had a weird rookie release. He was added as a short print to 2001 Series 2 Chrome, but it wasn't even on Chrome stock, it was foil (even though the card said Chrome). That's the one that says 'Late Addition' on it that you mentioned. Then, because that was sort of a release, they released the same card in the Topps Traded Chrome that year (without the 'Late' tag). And the Traded Chrome that year wasn't a full set, it was an SP subset inserted into the paper Traded sets.