• 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.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PunsRTonsOfFun

  1. Not a fan of 9.5 grade and I'm cynical enough to say it exists only for Gem Mint population control. The problem is, the difference between 9.5 and 10 is far too minimal to be anything more objective than a coin flip.
  2. LOL...I trust CSG significantly more than PSA or BGS to identify an altered card. There are THOUSANDS of altered and fake cards in PSA and BGS slabs right now. The very first card PSA ever graded was altered and they didn't catch it.
  3. That already is common knowledge, which is why they're (unfortunately) the most popular grading company. I'm with you when it comes to the many positives CSG brings to the industry, but unfortunately, there's more money than brains in this hobby. It's going to be tough for anyone to dethrone PSA. BGS and SGC have tried for 20 years. I'm not saying PSA deserves that top spot, my opinion is actually to the contrary, but getting them out of that top spot will be difficult unless more collectors wise up.
  4. I'd disagree with this. The new Mint+ (9.5) designation should be reserved for cards with two 9.5 subgrades and two 9 subgrades, cards that just missed Gem Mint. I know you're talking about the Min Gem vs True Gem malarkey, but that was only made possible because of the transparency subgrades provided, a playing field PSA and SGC never participated on. It was a ridiculous nuance then and it is now. It's one of the main reasons I'm glad CSG did away with subgrades.
  5. I'm curious how you know those are new vs reholders?
  6. So they basically aligned their centering grades with PSA and SGC. Considering how strict they were, that was probably a smart decision. CSG is still very difficult on surface and this doesn't change them being the toughest grader in the industry.
  7. Again, either show proof they lowered their grading standards or pipe down. I find it hilarious you don't understand what they actually did here. And sadly, collectors like you who don't really understand grading are the reason they had to do it.
  8. You realize a 9.5 in the old label was Gem Mint just like a 10 in the new label, right? Your cards aren’t getting a bump. The grade (Gem Mint) just now corresponds to a different number on a scale. They could have switched to letters with A being Gem Mint, it doesn't change the condition of the card. The actual number is irrelevant, it's the grade (Gem Mint) that matters. Then again, I suppose if people actually understood this, they wouldn’t have needed to change it. Also, where is your proof they lowered standards and 10s are now easier to get?
  9. Why would you send them 6.5s and 7s? Cards like that might gem at PSA, but they won't at a company that actually has standards. If these had been 8.5s and 9s and you missed by a little, I'd be more understanding. But if you expected 6.5s and 7s to be 9s and 9.5s, you might not be as sharp a collector and grader as you think you are.
  10. If that's the case, it was probably a manufacturing error.
  11. I think this is their intention, however, Glen is right that they didn't change the grading scale definitions to match this. They're reholdering all legacy 9.5s Gems to new Gem 10 labels, but the scale definitions aren't the same. Unless, going forward, the Pristine definition IS the standard for the new CSG 10 Gem. Which, if that is the case, this change was a waste of time because so few cards will receive a 10 that people will stop sending cards to CSG. Collectors don't want a collection of 97% Mint+ cards and 3% Gem Mint.
  12. The other problem with subgrades is this Min Gem vs True Gem malarkey. PSA and SGC were so smart to not provide subgrade transparency and keep things simple. Good riddance...
  13. Correct...I guess you could consider it a benefit for people who ponied up for subgrades.
  14. This would be a Gem 10, not Perfect. Perfect requires all four subgrades being 10s.
  15. This is a great question. If 9.5 Mint+ are green 9s with two 9.5s subgrades and two 9s subgrades, I'd send them in for the reholder boost too.
  16. The changes CSG announced today are great and change the game in the grading industry, but they will become problematic if we get two different answers from two different resources.
  17. Correct...it was sort of dubious differentiation to begin with. The difference between a Pristine and a Gem Mint was one subgrade and a half point.
  18. This is a great idea and would be a nice gesture for early adopters who might feel slighted by this change.
  19. I posted this question in the Ask CSG forum. Waiting for them to review it and post a response here.
  20. Love the new label. Quick question regarding the reholder offer. Will cards previously graded 9.5 Gem Mint cross to Gem Mint 10 if submitted for reholder? Or will only previously Pristine 10s cross to the new Gem Mint 10? I'm hoping Gem Mint is still Gem Mint with this change CSG is just changing the scale to eliminate confusion in the hobby and match the competition.
  21. People have to stop being so short sighted and understand this is a marathon, not a sprint. CSG is just one year in and they already have a pop report, reputation as the toughest grading company, and the best slab (not label) in the industry. That's a pretty great first year and a solid foundation to build upon.
  22. I personally think it's ridiculous that people care so much about the slab label as it's the card that actually matters. PSA labels are boring, Beckett labels are ugly, and SGC labels are bland. However, your point about HGA is an excellent one and shouldn't be overlooked.
  23. Incredible work, CSG! I noticed Gemrate started tracking CSG now and you were second in total cards graded last week (2/28). That's awesome! Keep it up!