northkorea

BTW, I get it if you want to grade the cards for your personal collection, but, to be honest, if your intention was to grade them for resale, you likely will never recoup the grading fee. This isn't a commentary on CSG, but rather one on Spectrum. These cards were never really authorized by MLB, and, with the specific exception of Front Row Jeter rookies, never really will hold any value.

For anyone curious, this is how the redemption card for 389/833 looked (notice Paul Carroll name, not Paul Golden):

This is what the redemption cards (redeemable through a cardboard insert added into some packs) look like with the #/833:

No. You're equivocating. While under a black sub system you would have 9.5x3/9, that would be a black 9.5. You would have needed a green 9.5x3/9 to get a black 10.

I would do the following: Write an email to customer service. Include photos of the card, stating that you intend to have it reholdered, but you only want to do so if the card will get at least a 9.5 grade on review. There's 0% chance (based upon the rules and tiers, as I understand them) that the card would upgrade to a 10, since the 9 surface plus any other 9.5 grade would preclude the card from getting higher than a 9.5 overall grade. That said, the question becomes "Is it worth $12 to change the green 9+ (for lack of a better explanation) into a black 9.5?" For me, the answer is probably not. If the fee were simply the $5 reholder fee (or, preferably, free, given you paid for the subs and would be surrendering those), then it's a no brainer. However, for $12, your total outlay for that grade ends up being $35 ($12+$9+$2 for the green grade, plus another $12 for the black grade). Some would argue that most of that is sunk cost, but it really isn't. Think of it this way: "Would you pay someone $12 to trade you a black 9.5 for your green 9+ with subs?" Edit: In retrospect, it might actually cost you $14 for the regrade, as CSG would likely bill you once again for the $2 auto grade fee.

Lime Rock autographed cards (as issued by Lime Rock) were part of a series of 833, not 500. The Spectrum(?) issued cards were not connected to the original issue, as the COA cites the card as a part of a series of 500. Again, since there's no way to differentiate between an autographed and non-autographed version of the card, it would need to be authenticated by someone who does that (BAS, PSADNA, JSA).

I agree that he's not saying the second half of it, but I don't believe CSG (by policy) would allow for the first half of it. Effectively, no company wants to admit openly that they have looser grading standards than another company. As such, if you request min grade CSG 10 on a BGS 9.5, you basically are paying CSG money to send you back the BGS 9.5.

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.

They will tell you that they will grade the cards, but they don't do autograph authentication, so, since the signed card is the same as the unsigned cards, they won't accept it. He's the production manager of what company? It seems for Spectrum. That makes the autographed card an after-market product. Just submit it to PSA for PSADNA authentication. Again, CSG doesn't authenticate signatures, and they won't grade them if the cards weren't issued as signed, which the Griffey was not.

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.

It's no longer on the website, but the standards for a perfect 10 Green were much higher than those listed for a perfect 10 Black.

It's publicly announced. If they don't "make good" on the 10, have an attorney get involved. They'll correct things faster.

That would require you to "Min Grade 10" on the card. That poses an interesting question, as BGS 9.5 is Gem Mint, like the Green 9.5. I think, although CSG has been trying to make that argument, they would have some instances of someone deciding "This would be at least a CSG 9.5" and cracking it out for grading.

That would be the definition of the grade inflation from Green to Black. Unless you absolutely want a new label, consider not crossing that one up, since, a Perfect 10 would include even lower graded cards than that one, in theory. Now, that said, I think this reinforces my thoughts on time limits on transitions from green to black. So long as the transition window is open, people can simply hypothesize about such grade swaps, which will lead to eBay "Green 10 with subs!!! Better than Black Perfect?!?!?!?!" titles. By changing the definition of reholdering, CSG could claim that Green label cards be treated as a different brand card, thereby insisting that they can only offer min-grade X. That said, I'm surprised to see Ryan openly admitting that BGS 9.5s would be eligible for "Min Grade 10" crossovers. Refreshing to see such honesty, even if it likely devalues the brand in the long run.

Kyle, I've been trying to get CSG to acknowledge that since they decided to change the grading scale. So far, the official answer has been "Green Mint 9.5 & Pristine 10 will transition to Black Gem Mint 10. All other cards will have the same grade." They can't state what you said about the 9 becoming a 10, as that theory of mine is completely contingent on the front centering of the card. During the first generation of the grading scale, back grading was weighted equally with front grading (at least in wording). The new scale definition allows some leeway in front centering, while also making back centering far more liberal. If you have a centering issue card (let's call them "Green 10 (OC)"), there is a possibility that a lower grade card could transition to a Black 10, if the single issue is 75/25 rear centering. For a similar reason, the 9*2/X/Y Green 9s can't be given a standardized upgrade to a 9.5. It would be nice for CSG to explain which two non-nine categories merit a 9.5, but that is likely considered proprietary information.

Simple economic theory. The standards for a Green Perfect 10 are higher than a Black Perfect 10, as published. That stated, no one would send in a Green Perfect for a new label, since, again, Green Perfect > Black Perfect. Past that, they were hard to come by, as it was, so it's entirely possible that no one is selling the ones they have. That's good that they settled on a label design. Did they happen to send you a sample image?

That question was answered in the first reply. They'll likely grade the ones that aren't signed in live ink, and they won't grade the signed one, because there's nothing to identify (on the card itself) that the company guarantees the signature.

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

No. and... No. There is a chance that an old 9.5/10*3 (10 Pristine) to as low as an old 6/10*3 (7 NrMint) could end up as a perfect black 10, but only if the non-10 grade is centering, and the card exhibits 55/45 or better centering on the front (both ways), but 75/25 centering on back. The rear centering would have resulted in a lower grade on the green scale than the black scale.

I think #2 is ridiculous, to be plainly candid. If you paid $12 for the original fee plus $9 for the subs, you're going to be charged another $12 to have a label change color. This *really* sucks for the last bulk batch before the black label. CSG should just decide, internally, that they made a mistake in saying "all green 9s will reholder as black 9s." If people paid for subs, and the 9.5*2/9*2 (or better) is the threshold for Mint+, just let people do the $5 reholder deal. That said, after 30 June, CSG should stop guaranteeing that green 9.5s will cross to black 10s. By making it a "lifetime" policy, collectors are incentivized to NOT convert to the black label, as they will assume they can maximize future value. By having a hard end date to the numeric "upgrade," it forces green label holders to take action now, rather than sitting on greens.

Last update was that they didn't settle on a design yet. Realistically, there's no reason for anyone to reholder existing (green) perfect 10s. They have a fixed supply at this point. By contrast, perfect 10 blacks have a limited, yet potentially infinite supply.

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.

CGC only grades gaming cards, specifically Magic & Pokémon, currently.

Can you show the back? Is it worse than 75/25?

1) Although this contradicts all the PR behind the new labels, I would think 9.5 would cross 9.5. Are you allowed to say minimum grade 10? I think that simply isn't possible, since CSG grades are so surface sensitive. 2) It would be submitted as a full resubmission. There is a clause *somewhere* that says cards can get damaged when removed from the holder, so your grade might suffer. I think this would be the specific instance where that would apply.