JohnBurke

Yeah I’m with you on that and as I said previously I don’t really understand what’s really going on there.. in terms of the scale change, yeah I get why this would appeal to people that like the visual stimulation of seeing “10”. But with that in mind, their other company CGC is definitely not changing their scale. And you know who else isn’t.. BGS. And a BGS 10 as of now holds more value than a PSA 10 as it should. They could have chosen that path also, would have been my preferred but I still will stick with them either way

How is eliminating sub grades going to speed up turnover times? Come to think of it, how did it ever slow them down? Don’t graders need to take into account all 4 sub grade aspects to arrive at the final grade anyway?

This would make sense.. although I guess if you don’t have sub grades on a current green 9 then there would be no way to tell what it would get. And if they don’t even do sub grades now.. how would they even know? Come to think of it, how is eliminating sub grades going to speed up times, when you have to look at all 4 aspects anyway when grading it to arrive at the final grade? More confusing the more I think about it

So green label 9.5s and green label pristine 10s are being lumped into the same category then? And this data will be combined in the pop report? So that kind of cheapens a black label gem mint 10 compared to a green label pristine 10 right?

Welp, I'm extremely thankful for the existing CSG slabs that I have with sub grades...

Nice! A buddy just submitted 100 vintage cards. Managed to get 2 9.5, both on 1st edition Jungle Scythers. One holo and one not. The holo has to be low pop on that with the amount of edge silvering in that set. Was surprised! Rest 9s / 8.5s as expected

Just here to chime in saying that my bulk of 52 (all modern) cards is complete. I harshly pre-selected them and the results were actually better than I expected for most, and only worse than expected for a few. : - 6 10s - 25 9.5s -17 9s - 4 8.5s Nearly 60% gem mint or better, my best yet between CSG and CGC. I had in mind that "perfect" cards in my mind were actually going to be 9.5s at best, so I'm pumped that 6 exceeded that expectation. Of course there are a few 9s and 8.5s that I thought would be higher Also, one of the 9.5s was a LeBron draft pick card from 2003-4 sent 2, the other got a 9

I honestly love the current labels. Green = sports. And they are super clean

I like it personally

Cgc 9.5 = gem mint = psa 10 like you said not necessarily a bad thing especially if the above fact is kept in mind. For many that’s why they choose cgc over psa. If value is what you’re worried about, many foresee the tides turning in the future.

So back when TATs were out of control people complained. Now they’ve answered the cries and added more square footage, more employees, and finally cut down times to more reasonable. And now the same complainers from before are saying “there aren’t enough cards to grade” and it’s due to lower demand of CGC grading 😆😆😆 can’t make this stuff up

Update! Received my 8 cards back that I sent in for this mechanical error. I commend CGC for taking back errors and correcting them with no questions asked, not many companies would do that. Results- All 8 have been reslabbed, and 6 out of the 8 have been corrected. The 6 have no more visible spots. Overall happy. I’m not mad about the other 2 since they were lower value cards. But I can take away some alarming/baffling things from those: - the 2 cards in question are 9.5s. I stated in the notes for each one that the backs don’t match the backs of the image scans on the cert. There are added spots. The ME dept literally reslabbed these, after cleaning them slightly (you can tell the difference in the one I’m posting here, with the pic of it in my previous comment showing it before I sent back for ME) when they are clearly no longer a 9.5 and still don’t match the image scans. Yet they were put back into the wild when they clearly do not match the grade they have. I would have happily just taken the small insured value if you couldn’t fix them fully. So @CGC Mike this proves the damage actually is to the cards themselves in these cases. Some fixable and some not (even though the “not” should not have been reslabbed and returned) Due to the fact of the remaining spots on those 2.. my guess as to the root cause was condensation that somehow got in the slabs (my climate was extra cold when they were originally shipped) Cert page photos of this 1 example of the 2: https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/3884223028/

There is most definitely a large formula to the grading calculations that they don’t want 100% public for understandable reasons. But I’m willing to bet that a part of it is a separate stimulation something like “card cannot have overall value of x.x without certain subgrade x being at least x.x”. Just an educated guess after looking at the trading card section of grading > grading scales

Ah thanks!!

Same. It appears to me also that it’s not possible anymore. Have to send those ones in separately in econ tier or do all of the bulk with subs

I just submitted a group of 8 back as mechanical error that had this happen as well. Upon inspection they look like they’re on the card itself? maybe I’m wrong though, I hope! We will see

Positive experience here. I knew they would have upmost stringency and consistency having used CGC for Pokémon before. I sent in mostly modern sports cards to csg and got exactly what I expected. Good amount of 9s and surprised by the amount of 9.5s actually too. One of my cards was only one subgrade away from a 10. of course a few were surprise 8.5s but that’s expected. I was real hard on pre selecting what to send in though. For example I had 3 Tiger Woods “rookie” cards from 2000. Being stored in a rough binder for 20 years I only selected one out of the three which I deemed to maybe be a 9 contender. It ended up getting the 9. Quality of slabs themselves- top notch. Crystal clear, like the labels. They even put a couple cards in sleeves inside the slabs (a die cut prizm and also a card which had some bend to it) which I’m sure is to prevent damage in the slab due to their odd shape / nature Also the population report that just came out is superb. Can click the link in the cert page of the card and takes you right to it in the database

@PaulS. So do you include people who used plast-x and didn’t report it, in that data? Just wondering because my bulk shipment of 50 last month had the new white inserts. And yet 18 of them have scuffs, some very heavy. For the record I love cgc and your sister companies. But I’m just posting this as I believe it should be publicly known. And the OP had same issue with multiple slabs so, yes it may very well be more widespread than you think still

@PaulS. What do you think of this? You posted in this topic long ago to buy plast-x ourselves and rub out the slab scuffs. Well, we are still getting scuffs after all this time. This is a widespread issue and I can’t be sending dozens back per order as mechanical errors

If it is indeed an outside scuff, that happens often in bulk orders especially I've seen. I don't think it would qualify as mechanical error, as they can be rubbed out by using Plast-X. There are videos online of people cleaning scuffs / scratches from slabs that way

Lightning fast. And love the fact that it shows the info on the card's certification page, easily clickable and takes you right to that spot in the database. Bravo

Thanks for the input, yeah I was thinking the same but the fact that it’s on only the back of a slightly thicker card, has me wondering if it may not be as bad. Will def follow up after the sub !

The good news is it seems like it’s fixable with one change, the certs and images aren’t lost. Try the contact us ticket entry portion of the website. I at least got a response there but cgc Mike ended up having to send another request through.

They do give English cards perfect 10s. Just looking at ebay isn’t giving you a great example because many people don’t sell them. Hell I just saw an example of one the other day, here you go https://www.instagram.com/p/CZCzEqElzEa/?utm_medium=copy_link And thus, yes people do care about the minute differences because the differences are really actually there. That’s why cgc 10s sell for more than psa 10s, because they are literally better condition. And why cgc 9.5 = psa 10 in terms of quality

Left side- No other surface flaws Thanks