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.

On 9/23/2022 at 12:57 PM, mrl66 said:

On 12/2/2022 at 9:25 AM, redfoxdutchman said:

There are 1954 Bowman cards slabbed by CSG. They have holders that can accommodate those cards. They use their standard older Topps sized holder and crimp a plastic sleeve around those in the bigger holder. CSG can't grade cards like 1969 Topps tall boys in basketball, but they have holders for your cards.

From CSG, "CSG currently grades cards that measure 2-5/8" x 3-3/4" or less." 1954 Bowman football are  2½" by 3¾". They will fit in CSG slabs.

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.

On 11/29/2022 at 2:28 PM, micky 8 said:

thats weird sounds like a low pop card ha Is your youtube channel Deviationcards? same Glen? i

Yep…same Glen!

On 11/27/2022 at 9:25 PM, micky 8 said:

I heard this is a major problem at psa, if you got all ultra moderns ya'll get cards back along with turnaround times, but if you have 1 vintage card in your order can jack up your order for 3 extra monthes ha cause only certain employees can grade vintage 

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?

On 10/31/2022 at 9:12 PM, micky 8 said:

🔥🔥👌 awesome!! I been hearing a lot of Csg being leniant on vintage, they dont use measurements or any tangible evidence, they dont compare to the scale, I just hear things like looks more like a 5! Based on what? I seen you grade a lot of vintage and cross over a bunch of vintage and csg is more consistent and more accurate. Just because psa throws out random vintage grades dont mean they're accurate. Its annoying to hear csg is too tough for a year and now they are too leniant wtf is that?!  Have you been hearing that lately? 

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.

On 6/20/2022 at 4:12 PM, Maribeth 1694433772 said:

The CSG Registry has updated Gem Mint 9.5 cards to have the same score as Gem Mint 10 cards, consistent with CSG’s recent update to its grading scale. This change is to ensure an equal playing field for all collectors, regardless of whether their cards have been reholdered.

Awesome news!  Thanks!

On 5/9/2022 at 7:30 PM, northkorea said:

The easiest way to explain the signature grading is by example. In 1994, Nabisco issued autographed sets of four cards signed by alumni members of the MLBPA. The players were Bob Gibson, Jim Palmer, Frank Robinson, and Duke Snider. These were ONLY issued as signed items. As such, CSG would likely be willing to grade the cards and charge $2 for an autograph grade. The autograph grade is *not* an opinion of authenticity of the autograph. Instead, it is a grade of how complete the signature looks.

Unlike the Nabisco issue, the Lime Rock Griffey family holograms were issued as both signed and unsigned versions. There is no way to differentiate between the two versions, so CSG won't grade it, as the signature must be assumed to be an after-market issue.

Just submit the card to PSA. That's the simplest solution. They even have a sale on grading for Hall of Fame members right now.

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.

On 5/9/2022 at 5:39 PM, northkorea said:

I still have no clue who Paul Golden actually is, but it seems like he's just some dude who made COAs that has no connection to any of the brands in question.

As shown in the above photo, the actual COAs from Lime Rock look nothing like the Paul Golden ones you posted.

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.

On 5/9/2022 at 6:48 AM, northkorea said:

 

Those two signatures are not penned by the same hand. Lime Rock's President was named Paul Carroll. Paul Goldin was the CEO of Scoreboard. He was Ken Goldin's dad. Tim Flatt was the President of Front Row & Spectrum.

I have NO IDEA who "Paul Golden" is supposed to be.

Multiple examples pulled from similar products currently listed on eBay

On 5/9/2022 at 6:48 AM, northkorea said:

 

Those two signatures are not penned by the same hand. Lime Rock's President was named Paul Carroll. Paul Goldin was the CEO of Scoreboard. He was Ken Goldin's dad. Tim Flatt was the President of Front Row & Spectrum.

I have NO IDEA who "Paul Golden" is supposed to be.

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.

On 5/8/2022 at 10:53 PM, northkorea said:

They'll grade the gold signature ones, but I don't think they'll grade the Lime Rock one, since the signature was after-market. You would need that authenticated by PSADNA or BAS.

Edit: Personally, I don't think the Griffey signature is authentic. The fact that the certificate misspells Paul Goldin's name really doesn't help matters. Either way, the signature doesn't look legitimate to me.

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.

On 4/5/2022 at 11:35 AM, Maribeth 1694433772 said:

Hello, 

The CSG scoring program recognizes the grade listed on the label of your card and in our database.  

All cards previously assigned Gem Mint 9.5 and Pristine 10 will now be Gem Mint 10 if submitted for our ReHolder service. All other cards will retain the previously assigned grades. CSG is offering a discounted ReHolder rate of $5 per card until June 30, 2022. 

Thank you.

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?

On 3/28/2022 at 1:08 AM, micky 8 said:

you have a good point but its a new scale theres gonna be a few things that dont make 100% sense with a big transition, I would just take the gem mint 10 and be happy, instead of arguing for a 9.5 mint plus because of the old sub grades, if ya like your 9.5 so much then keep it!! it would be a logistical nightmare to regrade every card according to the old subgrades, its cool there turning 9.5 gems to 10 gems lets not get crazy, you can always crack n resub and try to get that 9 to 9.5 mint plus with the new scale, i think were gonna have to sub and relearn this new scale and the way csg is gonna grade going foward your right the 9.5 is still really strict still 

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.

On 3/28/2022 at 9:46 AM, Charles Perry said:

You're focusing too much on the number and not the scale definitions. The number is irrelevant, it's the scale definition that matters.

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.