PokemanDude90

On 8/27/2021 at 10:39 PM, bsoken said:

Just got a 54 bulk card sub back the other day in this same packaging and about 15 have some kind of obvious scuffing. Attempting to wipe at the scuff mark with a micro fiber cloth has resulted in the debris leaving micro scratches in the surface around the scuffed area.

Contacted customer service by phone and they advised me to email photos of the issues

The other thing is there is SO MUCH CARDBOARD DUST. Every single card is completely coated in tiny bits of cardboard, and the surface of the slab is so soft that its easy to leave hairline scratches just by wiping it off, so I ended up using an air duster to blow it away first.

@PaulS. Any update on this ongoing problem? If someone at CGC locked you guys into a long-term deal on these cardboard slits that can't be removed from the shipping process, then just charge us to individually sleeve our slabs like your competitors do.

To reiterate, the cardboard slits are damaging bare slabs. And the poster here highlighting the DUST and the micro scratching is 100% right, not to mention the dings. 

My $150 credit wasn't applied, just emailed Customer Service to get it applied, just FYI. 

I have 700 submissions sitting in “Grading/Encapsulation/Imaging” AMA.

My only gripe lately is Accounting taking payment on anything you call and ask about, but what they don't tell you is them taking payment has NOTHING to do with actually moving your cards along in the process! 

Very sneaky and sly bunch they got on the Accounting side lol. 

On 8/18/2021 at 6:23 PM, robertlele said:

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/3880311007/

Here's the card that got a 6.5. I would think it would be something obvious to the eye that made it get that grade but I can't seem to find anything so could anyone chip in if you spot anything 

 

I submitted one earlier that got an 8.5 so you can use it as reference although the lighting is different here.

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/3796087006/

 

Should have paid for subgrades.

On 8/16/2021 at 6:02 AM, PaulS. said:

The cards will receive the same overall grade regardless. The grade on a card is determined by either the lowest or two lowest subgrades. For example, let's say you have a Base Set Charizard. It's a very nice card, except for whatever reason it has a large dent in the middle of the card.

With sub grades, the grader would have to determine each of the four sub grades and the final grade and record them, Let's say that the sub grades are 9.5, 5, 8, and 9. Overall, that would be a 6 because of the low surface grade. Without sub grades, they will just note that clearly the surface grade is going to be the lowest by a large margin. So they simply look at that, determine that sub grade would have been a 5, and then the overall grade is a 6. Much, much quicker, but same result. 

 

Paul

That makes sense, appreciate the insight Paul. 

On the topic of subgrades vs overall grade, can you confirm what some of us have theorized which is: starting at an overall grade of CGC 8.5 (and higher), the lowest sub-grade can be .5 lower than the overall grade? Meaning, a CGC 8.5 cannot have a 7.5 subgrade, it at worst can have one 8 subgrade, but an overall CGC 8 can have a 7 subgrade? So basically the allowable lowest subgrade difference goes from a full 1 point (which you demonstrated in your example) to only a .5 difference starting at that 8.5 grade.   

On 8/12/2021 at 5:55 AM, PaulS. said:

This would need to be submitted for regrade with sub grades in the holder. The grade would not be lower than a 10.

 

Paul

Paul why is this the policy when you guys have stated subgraded slabs are scrutinized for 3 to 4 times longer than nonsubgraded slabs? How is this policy not an exploitable loophole if people can get easier grades initially by grading with no subs and then resubmitting to add subs later (while guaranteeing the same overall grade)? 

On 8/11/2021 at 1:22 AM, Rufuss C. Kingston said:

A card with scores of 1, 8,9,9 does not get a 6.75, it gets a 2....  1 point above the lowest grade IF the next grade is a point higher AND the other two are at least 1.5 higher.  Once you have a lowest score of an 8, then most it can go is .5 higher (except in rare situations where the 8 is centering, you could get a 9).  2 identical low grades make the card overall that grade.

Bingo. I have a detailed explanation of this somewhere on this forum, you can check my comment history to try and find it but like Kingston says, once you get to an overall grade of 8.5 your lowest possible sub grade can be .5 below that, meaning all subgrades need to be 8 or higher. 
 

but there are plenty of CGC 8’s with a 7 subgrade which is 1 full point below the overall grade.

8.5’s are underrated because of that .5 allowance, in my opinion. 

On 8/4/2021 at 11:36 AM, Murrayj16 said:

Simply giving 10s to the top 10% of cards means you don't know the actual condition of the cards. you just know its in the top 10%. 

this is the FASTEST way to sink a grading company.

the reason psa has become more strict because they do not want to be known as the easy company.

So you're saying it's okay for PSA to become more strict so that they aren't an 'easy company' but CGC shouldn't give out more 10's so that they aren't too strict of a company.

Giving a Pristine 10 to the top (x)% of 9.5's is much better than giving out 9's and 8's on gem mint cards as a PR stunt to revert your image as an 'easy company'. And don't get me started on the population report gatekeeping of 10's. 

And we're talking about the top 10% of an already elite class of cards that would be 10's in any other grading company. 

On 8/4/2021 at 11:59 AM, IrishPrince said:

I have no issue with their current grading standards as long as they are consistent across the board. What I would have preferred CGC to do is to add the MINT+ as a 9.5; in that way they could have called GEM MINT at 10. Meaning:

10  Gem Mint
9.5 Mint+
9   Mint

That is what the CGC scale should look like.

This is something I've talked about ad nauseum since CGC started grading TCGs! But I think CGC are too far into the grading game (already consensus #2 in Pokemon community) to alter their grading scale to something like what you said, so my solution basically works within the confines of their scale and still achieves a similar result (getting more 10's on the market to compete with PSA while not oversaturating the market with easy 10's -- which I think is achievable and needs to happen). 

But in a perfect world, I agree with your scale 100%. The difference in card quality between a CGC 9 and CGC 9.5 is tough to conceptualize due to it only being a .5 bump in grade. ARGH it drives me insane just thinking about it. 

• CGC 9 Mint = PSA 9 Mint (perfect match, awesome)
• CGC 9.5 Gem Mint = PSA 10 Gem Mint <---- so a full 1 point swing at PSA is only a .5 swing at CGC for the upper echelon of graded cards. And the ironic thing is many CGC 9.5's are higher quality cards than PSA 10's especially old cert 10's!  

From what I have seen, CGC Pristine 10 Vintage English holos do not exist. 

A CGC 9.5 is seemingly the best you can hope for on an English vintage holo, which is 2 overall grades below the best possible CGC grade of Perfect 10. Why set the grading standard so high that the best of the best vintage English holos have no chance at a Pristine 10, much less a Perfect 10?

Why mirror BGS' grading scale if you're only going to be exponentially harder on higher-end cards? Who does this benefit? 

Many argue PSA's grading has become more and more strict over time, although they never have come out and said "hey we're more strict on 10's now" (as far as I know).

CGC should do the same thing, but going the opposite direction, and internally decide to take the top 10-20% of Vintage English 9.5's and bump those up to Pristine 10 status going forward. 

This is how CGC wins the grading game. It's right there for the taking guys, but PEOPLE WANT 10's. Collectors want a chase, and being capped at a 9.5 for a majority of the English chase cards in the hobby is the exact opposite of a chase. Toss a few Skyridge 10's, or Neo Discovery 10's into the market and watch what that does for CGC's brand and market presence. 

People like me will buy PSA 10's with the hopes of crossing to CGC Pristine 10's! 

Everyone wins in this scenario.  

Let me know your guys' thoughts. 

On 7/27/2021 at 7:12 AM, LuckyMouse said:

I've read complaints on grade centering going back to last year, so am doubting that CGC cares at all. Every card graded by them is a testament to the standards of quality to which this company holds, and one would think they should care whether some of their labels look like doo-doo or not.

This Farfetch'd card slab, a recent return, was marked on with a red marker by someone at CGC before it was returned to me. Thanks so much to whoever took the time to make sure I noticed the awesome centering, which is encroaching the grade box border. A good portion of my returned bulk submission has similar centering as well. I was so looking forward to having a completely graded 1st Ed Base set, and the first thing mentioned by anyone looking at my cards so far has been in regard to the poor grade centering. Yay.

I also question if these off center grade labels might affect the value of the slabs in any way. I know I'd much prefer centered grades in my personal collection.

From a OCD/nitpick standpoint, the gap below the 8.5 coupled with the massive blank space where the subgrades should be gives CGC slabs an incomplete/prototype/MVP look. 

I will never buy a slab without subgrades because of how aesthetically unpleasing that white space is.

On 7/24/2021 at 2:27 PM, LuckyMouse said:

"Important note: Domestic UPS and FedEx shipments are only insured up to $100 per box." 

Well, lets hope your package arrives safely.

Looks like the ol' "we're going to send your cards back via an inferior delivery method that you did not choose" is back on the menu! 

My last two submissions are being currently being returned via UPS Ground even though I paid a premium for USPS Registered and Insured. 

Will I be reimbursed for the cost difference? No

But will I get a legitimate explanation as to why this happened? No

Will I complain and keep sending cards to CGC? Yeah

I bought a SGC 10 early EX era ex and I'm not joking it would be lucky to get a CGC 9.

Lesson learned lol.

On 7/17/2021 at 12:24 PM, mattisgoku said:

My buddy who just got a bulk submission back of 126 cards didn't get a single 10...I'm hoping I have better luck with my bulk submission when that one gets all said and done.

I have graded over 600 cards and have never received a 10, and I am not expecting one either! (I grade mostly vintage) 

9.5’s for English vintage (WOTC + Early EX era) are literally almost impossible to get. I’m treating mine like Black Labels lol.

What is the latest received date for completed Bulk right now? I have Bulk received 02/04 that is still scheduled for grading and just wanted to see how close I was getting. 

UV protecting plastic/film is expensive, so a luxury service offering such as card grading shouldn't even explore the option to offer it, and instead people can just use Saran Wrap or I can steal the blackout curtains from my son's room to provide protection. Thanks Comic guys for always driving the conversation productively here in the Trading Card section of this forum! 

Video showing how damaging UV light is, and he experiments on both raw/graded cards. 

Seems like the next logical step in the evolution of card grading. It's wild that no grading company has been able to put something like this to market. If it's a cost thing, just pass it on to the Customer as a premium service marketed towards the upper-echelon of the TCG world. 

Idk about everyone else but I want to safely display my slabs on my walls/desk/etc. without worrying about light ruining them over time. 

If CGC can figure this out they'll win the Slab War. Defense wins championships! 

On 6/16/2021 at 4:48 PM, Bloodvayne said:

How is this not a 9.5 if you look at the golisapod its a 9.5 has 8.5 for centering surface is 9 and 9.5 for the other 2 sub grades. Clearly the espeon has better subgrades then the golisapod  CGC just told me that the card grade can only be 1 point above the lowest grade which one point away would be 9.5 

Your golisapod was graded wrong, it should be an overall 9. Once your overall card grade is 8.5 or higher, your lowest possible subgrade can be .5 lower than your overall grade. So that 8.5 centering on your Espeon caps the overall grade at a 9 (.5 higher than the 8.5). 
 

I have a comment explaining this more in detail check my page for it.

6 hours ago, BeebMoosh said:

Just got some slabs back and same thing happened to me. Did you reach out to customer service? If so, what was their response?

I emailed them but nothing back from customer service yet.

If enough of us sound the alarms hopefully they stop using this packaging.

Just received a new Express Return, and all 13 slabs have the same scratches/marks/scuffs in the middle-center on the front of the slab case, just above the actual card. 

Switching to this cheap and unprotective packaging was an egregious oversight. This is completely unacceptable for an almost $900 service. 

STOP USING THIS PACKAGING IMMEDIATELY. 

1 hour ago, Eric Sorensen said:

Interesting... Would you say nonsubgrade slabs were put through a more lenient grading process? I'm genuinely curious to learn more about the difference - I literally thought it was just the price difference, since they don't make a big deal about it in their add-on's section.

Here ya go.......

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/480470-can-you-get-a-perfect-10-on-a-card-with-no-subgrades-or-only-pristine/