• 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.

Pokemon Mattster

Member
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for the reply! I currently have a handful of cards that have two 9.5 subgrades and two 9 subgrades, if I send these in still in the slab would they automatically be upgraded to the new 9.5 Mint Plus, or is regrading required regardless? In general, if I have strong 9's (without subgrades) and I want to see if they might now become 9.5, should I send them back still in the slab or remove them and send raw? And for both of these situations, would the standard grading fee apply, or might only a reholder fee apply for the first case with strong subgrades?
  2. I plan to test their new scale and consistency haha. Going to crack some of my 8's, 8.5's, and 9's to resubmit and see what happens, partially just due to curiosity, and partially because I need to figure out what to do with the rest of my collection (keep as is, relabel, regrade CGC, regrade elsewhere, or sell lol). I always felt CGC was the most consistent and accurate of the big 3 graders, but I need to know if I can still feel that way going forward. I do think getting my 9.5's relabeled a 10 while the $5 promotion is going on is a no-brainer though, as dumb as it is the psychology of a 10 over a 9.5 is real and I anticipate the new Gem Mint 10's to be valued more than Gem Mint 9.5's ever were. I always thought 9.5's were undervalued which is why folks would often crack them and try to cross them to PSA 10 (and often succeed). Seems like folks on ebay are buying up CGC 9.5's like crazy right now which may be a precursor (or just gamblers making a risky bet haha).
  3. As I understand the upcoming grading scale changes, Gem Mint 9.5 will become Gem Mint 10, while 9's and below will stay the same grade. Okay, makes sense, but aren't the 0.5 grades still going to be used? If so, it seems there will be a new "Mint+ 9.5" added to the scale, correct? Does this mean that immediately following the change the population reports will have zero 9.5's, but over time there will start to be 9.5 grades again? If so, I wonder how graders are going to differentiate between a Mint 9, Mint+ 9.5, and Gem Mint 10. I currently own hundreds of 9's and 9.5's and I often cannot find the reason for the 0.5 grade difference (soon to become a full grade difference), so now squeezing a new 0.5 grade between these seems almost impossible... unless the standards for 9 and below slightly change as well... Does this then mean if I crack and resubmit a "strong Mint 9" (e.g. currently has two 9.5 subs and two 9 subs) I might expect to get a Mint+ 9.5 on the new scale?
  4. But explain this to me. If a 9 stays a 9, a 9.5 becomes a 10, and they still use the 0.5 grades, they are essentially adding a new Mint+ 9.5 grade to the scale. Going forward how are they going to discern a 9 from a 9.5 from a 10? I currently own hundreds of 9's and 9.5's and I often cannot find the reason for the 0.5 grade difference. If I crack and resend a bunch of my "strong 9's" are they going to possibly be Mint+ 9.5s now on the new scale?
  5. Thanks for the reply. I can understand not designating this as an error, but are you also saying you would not grade and encapsulate the card as usual if it was submitted and authenticated?
  6. Hello CGC, I need your help! I have a Pokemon base set 1st edition Pikachu 58/102 (red cheeks variant) that I plan to submit to CGC for grading (pictures attached). When looking over the card I noticed it has a thin 1st edition stamp (thinner #1 with thicker "Edition" text). To my knowledge, thin stamps were only ever printed on holos, and the common belief in the collecting community is that there is no such thing as a thin stamp non-holo, only thick stamp. There are a few places I have read online that claim there may exist a few examples out there of thin stamp non-holos, and some say it was from a test run, but others claim they are all just fake (and I have not seen any examples that are graded, only raw). This means one of two things, the card I have has a fake 1st edition stamp, or is one of the few non-holos from base set to ever get a thin stamp. I realize CGC does not designate between think/thick stamps and you cannot say anything about the legitimacy of the stamp via pictures, so I instead have 2 related questions. 1 - Has the CGC team ever verified (or is aware of) any non-holos from base set with a thin stamp? 2 - If I submit this card for grading and the stamp is verified as legitimate, would CGC be able to put a special designation on the label, for example "Error" with the explanation of "Thin Stamp" on the back of the label? If this stamp is indeed legit and super rare then I really would love for it to be designated somehow on the label! Note: In the pictures the stamp is compared to a regular (thick stamp) Pikachu, as well as a thin stamp holo (which also looks slightly different and almost smudged a bit, but that is how they all look on my thin stamp holos, so perhaps the Pikachu stamp is fake, or thin stamps appear more crisp when applied to a non-holo...?). Thanks for your help! - Matt (Pokemon Mattster)
  7. Okay, thanks. Related question, if sent for grading as normal and a card is gray stamp, would CGC just grade as normal or change the label to gray stamp? I have seen several normal graded slabs that would likely qualify as gray stamp, but my guess is whoever sent them in didn't know and submit as gray stamp. I think this is something CGC should definitely try to do given how many people are unfamiliar with gray stamps, and more importantly to ensure the CGC pop reports are as accurate as possible. If a gray stamp submissions are graded as normal if they don't qualify, to me it makes sense for a normal submission to be graded as gray stamp if it qualifies, but perhaps some folks may not like that. Seems to be no perfect solution to this topic as there is a lot of gray area (pun intended) on what even constitutes a gray stamp, as well as how best to handle submissions when people don't know about gray stamps and/or how to spot them...
  8. Hello, I think it is really cool that CGC recognizes gray stamp 1st edition pokemon cards and I have several that I am hoping to submit for grading. That said, there are some that I am not sure if they would qualify as "gray stamp" as they are not very light, just barely lighter than usual. With this in mind, is there any rule of thumb I can use before submitting under the "gray stamp" variant of a card? Also, if CGC determines it does not qualify as a gray stamp, would you automatically grade it as a regular variant and update the label, or would this be something I would have to specify when I submit? For an example, below I attached a picture with 5 cards. For card 1 (farthest left/back) I am pretty confident it is a gray stamp, while card 5 (farthest right/top) is a normal dark stamp. Meanwhile, the 3 in the middle I am not too certain on. I think card 4 may be light enough, but cards 2 and 3 are just barely lighter than the normal stamp. I would like to submit cards 1-4 for grading as gray stamp, and if any turn out to not qualify, I would want them graded as normal. Is this possible? Thanks! Matt
  9. Hello, First things first I want to say that I am a huge fan of CGC and love your slabs, grading, website, set registry, and basically everything you do. I think you guys beat all other grading companies along every dimension. I am currently ranked 43 in the competitive set registry and hope to move way up the ranks soon, especially once I submit the 50+ 1st edition vintage holos that I have been collecting for some time now. All this to say, I plan for my entire collection to be CGC, and my goal is to complete the first 4 original sets in 1st edition someday Now for the question on grading surface...I have several CGC graded cards with subgrades and a few of them keep me up at night, specifically their grade for surface. I know you cannot speak to the specifics of your grading criteria, and I know that if a card has a wrinkle/crease the surface grade immediately drops to a 5 or so. That said, I have a 1st Edition Dark Charizard 4/82 that was graded a 5 on surface, even though on the back there are several dents, minor wrinkling near one edge, and a slight bend across the entire card (see pics 1 and 2). One of the dents is so major you can see it on the front and it caused decent surface wear. Meanwhile, I have a 1st Edition Venusaur 15/102 that is very solid, graded 8.5 for centering, 8 on corners, and 8 on edges, but got a 4.5 for surface...I was able to find a slight crease on the back of the card, which is why I could see a max grade of 5, but I for the life of me cannot figure out how it got a 4.5 while the Charizard got a 5 (see pics 3 and 4). I also have a Poliwrath that got 9 for centering, 8 on corners, and 7.5 on edges, but also a 4.5 for surface...I again looked very closely at the card and was able to find the slightest of wrinkling on the top back edge (see pics 5 and 6). All this to say, I cannot figure out how the Charizard could have scored a 5 on surface while these other cards got a 4.5. As a collector, I would much rather have a card surface in the condition of the Venusaur or Poliwrath, yet they scored lower than the Charizard. I would also bet that other collectors would feel similar. After comparing these 3 cards meticulously, there are only 2 conclusions I could reach. The first is one is simply that the Charizard was over-graded on surface. However, it is important to note that the Charizard was graded more recently, while the Venusaur and Poliwrath were graded awhile ago and have the older CGC slabs. I am not sure if/how grading standards have evolved/changed over time, but this would be my second guess (and the one I am hoping is correct). Given that the Charizard was graded recently and received a surface grade of 5, I ultimately am hoping to submit the Venusaur and Poliwrath for regrading to see if the surface might get upgraded to a 5. Both of these cards are in pretty amazing condition, and their surface is without a doubt better than the Charizard, yet their scores do not reflect this. This has literally kept me up at night as well as question grading consistency (which I know is a challenge for any company since humans are, well, humans). Do you suggest I resubmit the Venusaur and Poliwrath for regrading (assuming the minor wrinkles I mentioned are the only big issues) to see if they might grade a 5 for surface, or do you think the Charizard was simply over-graded? I really want to keep the Venusaur and Poliwrath in my collection but feel they weren't given a fair shake. Please let me know your thoughts!