northkorea

They posted this same question before. They want to know what the standard thickness is (without having to pay for the thicker holders).

You may need to pay for the extra thick holder (7.25mm), but I don’t know if they plan to still offer them under CGC. Based upon a pt of thickness being 0.01% of an inch, 7.25mm would be about 285 pt in thickness.

The “error” (in this case) being the off-center/miscut centering.

I was wondering if this card would be regraded as an 8/8.5 Error by CGC. :P

I think I dropped from 38th to 99th or something. My Desert Shield values are: Larry Walker 10 - 32,852 George Brett “Record Breaker” 10 - 16,125 Robbie Alomar 10 - 10,955 Eddie Murray “AllStar” 9 - 2,035 Jose Canseco 8.5 - 2,024 Matt Williams 9 - 1,357

What is the error?

Where are you listing?

I’m curious about why the number never changed. I guess, maybe, the numbers only changed when green 9.5 were reslabbed as black 10.

Based upon my personal experience, they will grade them, but they don’t end up counting for any Registry points, so it might be an overall waste of time/funds to have them graded. That is, unless you’re mainly hoping to have them put into better protected holders.

Go back and reread the light test or rewatch whatever YouTube video you saw. 1) The test doesn’t apply to 1959 Topps, which is known to have used thinner card stock. 2) It might not apply to other years, depending on where card stock was sourced. 3) It might only work for phone lights, because they put out less lumens than actual LED flashlights. If you look at how strong the light shines through the 1959 compared to the two others, it’s certainly possible that your lightsource is simply too strong for the test. Beyond that, I’m sure Andy Broome taught his team to use methods beyond the light test, since he was one of the first to publicly talk about the test, itself.

All acrylics have some degree of UV absorption by design of the plastic itself.

It doesn’t, since it still counts in the Pop Report as the original year.

Is there a reason why you think CSG wouldn’t?

Perhaps it got locked for your response to my comments about how printing defects are typically viewed as just that: a defect… After I wrote this, you made some comment about my not being a CSG employee (which I never claim to be, as you can see below). “The lack of properly applied ink would usually be a detractor, as a print defect, not a specialized category. The exception is when it results in significantly observable changes (NNOF Frank Thomas being the most widely accepted). The reason this is generally the case is doing otherwise would result in the entire problem that gets encountered with the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson "Marlboro visible" vs "Marlboro partially obscured" red version.” Have you asked PSA or the CU boards what their thoughts are on Topps “yellowless” cards?

For the “Conversion Reprint” cards, why do you label the flips with the year of the style instead of 2019 or later?

Did anyone else notice that the $25 membership should be automatically included for bulk orders? Membership fee: $25 Bulk Grading fee on 25 cards: $300 10% discount: $30 Net cost of membership: -$5 For the $149 tier: Membership fee: $149 $150 voucher 10% discount: $30 Net cost of membership: -$31 For the $299 tier: Membership fee: $299 $150 voucher 20% discount: $60 Net cost of membership: $89 The break even point on the $299 membership is 125 cards submitted in a year using bulk.

I noticed that a lot of cards with black borders (or completely black) backs have significantly more chipping that is to be expected for the grade with CSG black label cards. Have others noticed this? The chipping issue I’m referring to would be for game related sets like Topps Match Attax or the Japanese Sega game WCCF.

It’s working fine for me…

How would that remotely make sense? The card would still be a 9.5 under the blue label grading standards.

So, in an effort to enforce the nonsensical 14-day policy, CCG would prefer to have cards mislabeled in the marketplace?

Thanks for clarifying. So, they will wipe off the dust, at least?

I doubt it. After all, they can currently charge $12 and have the same outcome. It just seemed equitable in my head.

I’m fairly certain that bulk pricing applies exclusively to raw cards.

I still say that CSG should consider the following: Any black 10 or green 9.5+ should be eligible for a one-time $5 reconsideration fee. If the card would upgrade to a Pristine 3.0, then the submitter would be charged an additional $5 (or $7) to have the card placed in a Pristine 3.0 holder. If the card fails to upgrade, the submitter could still opt to pay the reholder fee. This seems an equitable solution, as some 10s clearly aren’t pristine.