Glen Campbell

I have submitted many vintage football cards and have had many returned ungraded (specifically 1954, 1955 and 1956 Bowman) due to being “too large for holder”. Has CGC found a solution for this yet, or is it still a common problem? I ask because I have been trying to finish a 1954 Browns team set for a couple years, but have grown frustrated with trying to find high grade cards that will fit in your holders.

Why are color variations permissible within the same registry set for some products, but not others? Donruss Optic color variations can be added to the same set, but Mosaic color variations can not.

I like the 9.5 Mint +. Not having it (read PSA), creates criteria that is too broad. It is why so many PSA 10 cards look like they have no business being a 10.

I just had 3 sent back too big for holder. I know they have some graded, but clearly not all. I have had multiple cards returned as too big from all the oversized years…52 large, 53, 54, 55…

When is CSG finally going to get cases to accommodate vintage cards that are slightly oversized from the 50’s?? As a vintage collector, I am trying to build sets from this era and every single order I am getting cards returned ungraded due to cards not fitting in the holders. My order that just popped today has 3 cards from 1954 Bowman Football that all graded 8 or higher, but are being returned to me unslabbed because after two years, CSG still doesn’t have a holder that can accommodate this. I am trying to support CSG and their registry, but I am really getting frustrated that I have to send high grade vintage cards to other companies to get them graded / encapsulated. This screws up my collection and I have to buy new copies if I want to include them in my registry set - which I clearly do. This doesn’t even include all the cards that get returned as altered that are then graded without issue at other graders (SGC, specifically). I would really like to understand this. I am considering sending my vintage cards somewhere else consistently if CSG continues to have these repeat issues.

Yep…same Glen!

It ended up taking 23 business days. Guess it was hung up on a 1992 All World Jim Brown Autograph…not sure why. The lead grader reached out to me and told me he had to approve the card to be graded. Think it may have to do with the graders not knowing there were 1000F (foil) and 1000R (rack) versions of the card, but cannot be sure.

My opinion…a BGS 9 has a shot at higher with CSG…a PSA 9 doesn’t stand a chance…

Just wondering if variety within a submission causes delays in the grading process? My collector friend and I commonly submit bulk orders around the same time and every time his order is processed faster than mine. Even when mine is received sooner, I pay sooner and it moves to grading sooner…his always ships out days better than my turnaround. The only thing I can think of that would consistently cause this is that he sends primarily modern / ultra modern, standard sized cards. I usually send a mix of ultra modern / modern / junk wax / vintage. I send autographed cards. I send standard / mini / oversized cards. I send 35 pt. up to 180 pt. cards. All in the same bulk order. Is this potentially why my order takes longer or does CSG just have terrible FIFO control?

Mostly just on vintage. I watch videos of guys saying “this should have got x grade” or “PSA would never have graded this high”…makes me laugh every time I hear it. I think a large percentage of the hobby talks on all grading companies other than PSA to protect their investments as opposed to actually speaking with facts. New collectors getting into grading will have to change the narrative. Those heavily invested in PSA will defend them to their graves regardless of how lenient or inconsistent they are.

I agree. 1950 Bowman Marion Motley rookie with only 75 copies graded 8 or higher across CSG, SGC, PSA and BGS is worth less points than a 2018 Jim Brown Auto /10 graded 10 and a 2020 Nick Chubb Stained Glass graded 10. I get the two latter cards are excellent, rare cards, but the Motley is 72 years old! How many more copies are out there that will grade 8 or higher? Let’s not for forget the historical significance of Motley on top of that. The vintage baseball scores are obnoxiously high compared to other sports too! I have seen people in the top 50 with only 1 or 2 cards!

I have noticed this. They take your money when it goes to SFG…not sure why it goes backwards after that, but it is kinda annoying.

Check out Deviation Sports Cards on YouTube, I did a few crack and sub videos on vintage that I think provide good evidence against the “soft” vintage grading story line.

My current favorites! I grade a lot of vintage and think they are very comparable to SCG, which seems to be the most trusted vintage grader out there.

Awesome news! Thanks!

I understand what you are saying in regards to the why they might not grade it. The reason I asked was because the card was produced by Little Rock and issued as a certified autograph (not noted on the card, again I get that) by the same company. It is not aftermarket, it was issued that way. Regardless, I would totally understand if they won’t grade that card. I was arguing with you because every response you made seemed hell bent on trying to convince me it wasn’t authentic, when I know that it definitely is.

I am done arguing with you. If you want to believe some random dude made a bunch of certificates and circulated them all over the country, be my guest. It says right on the damn certificate that he is the production manager. CSG is looking into it and is going to get back with me. I will take their answer over any other.

Multiple examples pulled from similar products currently listed on eBay

Okay buddy, clearly you are an expert authenticator. A simple search will show you these cards are authentic. My question is will CSG grade them, not does some random self proclaimed expert think they are authentic.

It is legitimate. I assume this one needed PSA DNA because they didn’t have the original Lime Rock certificate. Paul Golden’s name is spelled the same on all the certificates.

I am wondering if CSG will grade these cards? If they do, will I need to send the certifications with the cards? Any help would be appreciated.

So if I don’t reholder my old 9.5 gem, my registry score will be based on the new mint + 9.5 and not the new 10 gem? If accurate, this means my registry score is being unfairly docked because I didn’t (or don’t want to) pay the reholder fee?

Curious how the elimination of Pristine 10 will impact the registry scores. Will all my 9.5 gems and 10 pristines now get the same score under a gem 10?

I actually don’t have any cards that I feel would qualify to make the jump from 9.0 to 9.5. I am just trying to make sense of the change. if 20% of all submissions paid for subgrades, that is approx. 150k cards and roughly $1.5 million in revenue for CSG. If, rough guess, 30% of old Mint 9.0 should qualify for the new 9.5 Mint+, I think it is that the collectors who already paid a premium to get their cards graded with subs should have to crack and resubmit to get what was already earned. It really would be as simple as creating a one time conversion chart for cards with sub grades over to the new scale that actually created a space for the 9.5 Mint+. In regards to me loving my old 9.5s, I am okay with the change to a 10. I just want it to make sense and right now it doesn’t.

Actually, I am not. The old Gem Mint 9.5 definition is exactly the same as the new Mint+ 9.5 definition. If you read their grading standard and not the title of the category, they are identical. I don’t disagree with what they are doing, but they need to update their definitions to reflect what they are doing.