• 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.

IrishPrince

Member
  • Posts

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IrishPrince

  1. Thank you @dena and @CGC Lyndsey for your help in correcting this!! Yep, it's now part of my Registry set for Classic Collection (the image of the card is of the old / incorrect photo, but that's OK I'm not worried about that). Thanks again.
  2. I tried again this morning... no good. Registry still won't accept the card as Celebrations - Classic Collection. It's been three months since I purchased this card. Had to send it back to CGC twice to correct a "Mechanical Error (ME)". How many more months do we think it will take to resolve this?
  3. Thank you @CGC Lyndsey. Like I've been saying for awhile now, the problem is with the back end database -- meaning my card is associated with the wrong set. It's not a 2015 XY Roaring Skies card, it's a 2021 Celebrations Classic Collection card.
  4. Here are the screenshots. Database thinks it's a Roaring Skies card. CGC can't figure out that the Pikachu 25th logo means that it's part of the Celebrations Classic Collection.
  5. Hi, Been trying to get this card corrected since July. @CGC Mike has the whole management "team" on this but it's still not working. I've added over 240 cards to my registry sets, so I do know what I'm doing regarding that. (See: thread here for nightmare support: This card: cert: 4028352043 is part of the 25th Anniversary Celebrations Classic Collection. However, the CGC database has it part of Roaring Skies, and won't let me add it to my Classic Collection registry. https://www.cgccards.com/certlookup/4028352043/ Is there anyone that works for CGC able to fix this card so that I can add it to my collection?
  6. I'll try again to add to registry. Maybe it's hurricane related? Just to let you know, I've added 243 cards to the registry so far... this is the only card that won't seem to work. But I'll try again and post in the Registry forum if I still need help.
  7. The McDonald's 2021 25th Anniversary celebrations set has almost 18,000 cards graded by CGC! How about adding that to the registry? The number of cards graded surely would justify it, no?
  8. Mike, it still doesn't work. And to make matters worse, when I click on the link for my cert, it says the card doesn't exist. Why is this card so much trouble? I originally posted on July 7 and it's now Sept. 29 and I still can't add this card to my Classic Collections registry. Can I get the name/ phone number of the CGC President? Maybe he can help?
  9. That's not what I'm asking... nor is it the problem. This card has been a nightmare for me. :-( Here's the problem: CGC has cert number 4028352043 associated with Roaring Skies. This card is not part of Roaring Skies -- it's part of the 25th anniversary classic collection!!! This entire thread has been about you guys fixing this card. Who do I have to talk to for you guys to fix this freaking card?!!!!
  10. Hi Mike, well we are almost there. I received the card back from CGC today with the corrected label -- thank you. However, I can't add it to my Celebrations Classic Collections registry set as the cert is still tied to the wrong set (Roaring Skies). Can you please have someone fix this so that I can add it to the correct registry? Cert: 4028352043.
  11. I second this. Lets' call the set the "Pokédex" and include the original, vintage 151 Pokémon.
  12. Should be the same email address. Thanks for your help, Mike.
  13. I was the OP... User error on my part... I did not realize that when you add a second version of the same card, it adds the second cards value and removes the value of the first card. So... no error on CGC's part -- user error on my part. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
  14. Any idea when someone would be contacting me on this issue?
  15. Agree about the Japanese sets. For me, the Southern Islands promo set from 1999 is very collectible. Really want to see that set in the Registry!
  16. Come on Mike, this is getting ridiculous. I've waited over a month and this is what I received from CGC today. I did state clearly that "it was not an Inadvertent Early Release." Really pissed right now at you guys.
  17. Ok, sending it back... Can I assume that this card won't be downgraded from the current 9.5 Gem Mint?
  18. Hi Mike. Still not in the POP report. Can you check this card for me? Thanks!
  19. Pokemon - Celebrations - Classic Collection Pokemon - Celebrations - McDonalds Collection Pokemon - Southern Islands - Japanese (1999)
  20. You might also want to try Meguiar's PlastX to remove minor scuffs and scratches on the plastic case. I've used it and it works reasonably well.
  21. Thanks for your perspective and experience @CamelJR Do you think this selective behavior is also occuring with the two 2021 sets that I mention above? (McDonalds 25th Anniversary and Classic Collection)?
  22. I own a card that is missing from the POP Report for the 25th Anniversary Classic Collection: M Rayquaza EX, Inadvertent Early Release. Will it be added soon?
  23. Yes, it would be nice to see requested sets and/or what are the next sets they are working on adding to the registry.
  24. Here's a quick analysis of the 2021 Pokemon Celebrations Classic Collection. I don't think there is a defensible case whereby we can claim that PSA submitters spend more time reviewing/cleaning cards compared to CGC submitters. I'd like to hear opinions to the contrary, but I can't see how that actually works in practice or why that would occur to account for the large differences in cards graded Gem Mint or better. Total Cards Graded: CGC: 16,602; PSA: 12,332 Percent of Cards Graded Gem Mint or Better: CGC 45.7%, PSA 72.9% The only rational conclusion that I can draw from this is that the standards for grading cards are different, and PSA has "lower" standards as to what qualifies as a Gem Mint card compared to CGC. So... objectively you are more likely to have a "better quality card" in a random CGC 9.5 case compared to a random PSA 10 case. I just don't know how you can argue otherwise.