• 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.

redfoxdutchman

Member
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by redfoxdutchman

  1. On 6/22/2023 at 11:40 AM, RHuff said:

    Hello,

      I just received back my first ever grading submission of 7 cards.  They all look great except for 1.  It is a standard sized card which was returned in an oversized card carrier and put into a penny sleeve so that it won't move around.  The issue is that the penny sleeve makes the card look warbled.  My question is if this is acceptable practice or should CSG (now CGC) be willing to change to a standard case?  Thank you.

    This happens quite a bit. The standard CSG slab barely fits a perfectly sized 2.5" by 3.5" card. If your card is slightly bigger than 2.5" by 3.5" from a factory cut, there isn't enough room for the card to fit in the standard case. This is why they have to use the plastic sleeve. PSA will do this as well, but less often as their slabs can accommodate slightly larger cards. This is one of the few issues I have with CSG. Changing to CGC won't change this, the slabs are exactly the same. 

  2. On 6/22/2023 at 12:42 PM, RHuff said:

    Question relative to this.  Is a miscut card of a popular player more or less valuable?  I have a similar looking Randy Johnson miscut card.

    Miscut cards are less valuable in the hobby. In the coin world, things like this would hold more value. In card collecting, this is not the case. 

  3. If CSG grades Tall Boys, I hope they don't continue their Beckett model with using larger cases and plastic sleeves around the cards. CSG really needs to not only develop slabs for bigger cards, but they need proper cutouts for them. Another wish list I have is that they have slabs designed for T206, 1933 Goudey, and early Bowman cards. I hate the plastic sleeves holding the cards in the slab. CSG has the best plastic in the hobby and seeing that plastic sleeve really hurts how the card looks inside. 

  4. If you go to Blowoutforums or Net54 forums, they have people that can tell fakes from reals very easily. If you have a blacklight, the real cards will glow, but this is not a 100% test. The Ryan does look weird, but it could have just been stamped poorly. Attached is my Desert Shield card that Blowout members help me with. The name of the thread on Blowout forums is, "Rolling Thread for Fake 1991 Topps Desert Shield Cards." Good luck!

    strawberry.JPG

  5. On 12/13/2022 at 1:06 PM, Michael boettger said:

    Droe,

    Exactly.  Mine was $12 dollars as well.  Are they saying that the $12 is 20 percent off?

    Yes, the normal price is $15. They really should have written the price as $15 $12 on the Services and Fees page to show the discount.

  6. I think the issue is, from my grading experience, that the size of the inserts within the holder is the issue. If the card is even slightly larger then standard 2.5 x 3.5 inches for typical cards, they will have to put them into a crimped plastic sleeve into the larger holder. CSG's slabs have hardly any leeway on cards cut bigger than the typical size. I think this is the issue with the cards not being holdered for older Topps. The will grade them and then not be able to slab them because of the card being ever so slightly bigger than the slab allows. For example the holder will allow cards up to 3.8 inches, but if your card is 3.82 inches it can't be slabbed.

  7. There are 1954 Bowman cards slabbed by CSG. They have holders that can accommodate those cards. They use their standard older Topps sized holder and crimp a plastic sleeve around those in the bigger holder. CSG can't grade cards like 1969 Topps tall boys in basketball, but they have holders for your cards.

    From CSG, "CSG currently grades cards that measure 2-5/8" x 3-3/4" or less." 1954 Bowman football are  2½" by 3¾". They will fit in CSG slabs.

  8. That is personally a card I wouldn't grade. Probably around an 8 to 8.5 max. You can buy really nice CSG 8.5 from eBay for about the same price as grading cost. The only reason for grading that card is if you have some type of emotional attachment to it. For example I graded a 1984 Topps Mattingly that got a CSG 7 because my dad bought that card for me when I was a kid. It means more to me than the PSA 9's that I have for the same card.

  9. On 11/3/2022 at 6:09 PM, micky 8 said:

    agree 100% on mini's, exc.. wish they would have a seperate slab for those cards for sure! Yea they are consistent with their way of grading and stick to their scale, I seen a vintage Bvg to csg crossover and was pretty spot on ha , Glenn 👆 from deviationcards did a lot of interesting vintage crossovers from sgc to csg, psa to csg even csg old to csg new label.  Pretty much on par with what you said .5 to 1 eighther way.. Appreciate your feedback on csg vintage, i wanted to get a serious conversation about csg vintage going  cause its been coming up a lot and dudes like csg for vintage because of the clear slabs 

    People care way too much about grades. I have a PSA 10 1988 Fleer Dennis Rodman that sells for over $2000 because of an opinion. Bought it for $30 and graded it for $10. If I took it out of the case and submitted it to PSA, 80% chance it is a 9 and 20% chance of a 10. The card would probably lose over $2000 because it graded a 9. 

    I have graded 80's vending cards with PSA that were absolutely identical in every way. Put one of the best in separate orders. Some orders I got 8/9's and some orders I got 7/8's, with cards that were identical. I treat grading as +/-1. If I have an 6 from any company, I treat it as a 5 to 7. 

    I am buying raw cards and grading with CSG, then selling or trading my PSA slabs of the same card. For instance I have two PSA 7's 1974 Dave Winfield rookies and I got one graded at CSG that is very similar that got a CSG 7.5. Keeping the CSG and getting rid of the two PSA slabs. I have been doing this for the past 6 months.

  10. On 11/2/2022 at 8:42 PM, Glen Campbell said:

    Mostly just on vintage.  I watch videos of guys saying “this should have got x grade” or “PSA would never have graded this high”…makes me laugh every time I hear it.

    I think a large percentage of the hobby talks on all grading companies other than PSA to protect their investments as opposed to actually speaking with facts.

    New collectors getting into grading will have to change the narrative.  Those heavily invested in PSA will defend them to their graves regardless of how lenient or inconsistent they are.

    Each grading company does things differently. PSA cares more about centering and corners. CSG cares more about the surface of the card. That is why you will see PSA cards that have a crappy surface grade much higher than CSG. You will also see CSG cards with a dinged corner grade much lower at PSA. PSA rewards off-centered cards for being in great shape, CSG rewards centering and registration over everything else being perfect. I much prefer the way CSG grades. Just a personal opinion.

    I had another order pop and the cards with a nice surface graded well and they killed me on 5 cards that PSA would have graded 1+ higher in a grade because of a slight surface issue.  

  11. CSG, in my experience, does grade vintage a little lenient. I have graded with CSG/PSA/SGC and they can sometimes be 0.5 to 1 grade above SGC/PSA. CSG tends to let a dinged corner grade higher than the other companies. However, they are just as hard on surface than PSA/SGC. 

    I still use CSG for vintage, because of the price and quality of the holder. Well, I stopped using them for non-standard sized vintage, because I prefer the slabs designed for those cards. The crimped plastic sleeves are a deal breaker for me. I really wish CSG would have slabs that are designed for T206, 1933 Goudey, and early Bowman cards. 

    Now for some actual evidence that they grade more on the lenient side. The evidence is Andy Broome himself. Andy was in charge of BVG at Beckett, and they grade vintage (pre-1980's) differently than modern cards. They even tell you they do! That is how Andy graded for a long time. He then came to CSG and lead the vintage grading here. He trained everyone and defined the standards. It is absolutely not a stretch that CSG vintage grading is treated differently than cards after 1980. This does fit with my experience with grading at PSA/SGC. I am not talking a huge difference, but I have received 7's on cards that would normally be a 6 to 6.5 at PSA/SGC. However, PSA will grade the same card a 5 to a 7 with their inconsistent grading. 

    The one thing about CSG and SGC that I love, is at least they are consistent about how they grade. I stopped using PSA because of insane turnaround times, horrible customer service, and inconsistent grading. I will also use CSG over SGC for standard sized cards. It is half the price, and the slab is twice as nice. 

    Edit: I will go one further here. BVG vintage is 1980 and older and BGS grades cards 1981 and newer. That is exactly how these forums are set up. Most other places will say pre-1980's and will include 1980 as not vintage. 

  12. If you need a card to gem mint to be profitable, then you really shouldn't submit it IMO. I have sent many amazing 1980's card to CSG and I have yet to receive any CSG 10's, but tons of CSG 9.5's. CSG Gem Rate for the 80's is about 2%. I am sorry, but if you don't have a mint to gem mint HOF rookie from the 1980's, the card is not worth much. You can try to play the PSA 10 game, but you will end up losing in the end unless you send in one card, and it gets a PSA 10. Gem Mint cards don't mean pack fresh and handles with gloves. They need to have near perfect surface, registration, corners, edges, printing, gloss, centering, cut to the right size, etc... The fact is the quality control and printing were absolutely horrible in the junk wax era. Well, it still is today. ;)

  13. Quality control for the junk wax era was horrible. Error cards like this are not worth anything. If they were, people could take off the holograms on other cards and put multiple on another card. This is not a 1/1 and saying that drives me crazy! I can only think of a few cards that were errors and are worth money. Some examples are Mark Whiten 1991 Topps over white border, 1990 Topps Frank Thomas No Name, 1989 Fleer Bill Ripken F Face, and 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson Marlboro variations to name a few.  

  14. It is worth significant money only in a PSA 10 because of the registry, not because of the mass produced cards. PSA is POP controlling as well, so good luck getting a PSA 10 even if the card is Gem Mint. CSG/SGC Gem Mints of the same card that is sold for $100 in a PSA 10, will sell for $30 in a SGC/CSG 10 slab. Playing the PSA 10 game with junk wax is a very dangerous way to try to make money these days. If you get a PSA 10, you can make money. However if you get a PSA 9, you lost money. CSG is even worse trying to grade these cards. I sent in absolutely perfect 80's and 90's cards and I got back close to 20 CSG 9.5's and not one CSG 10. The cards I sent were much more valuable than the typical junk wax, so it increased the cards value. However, a bunch of 1991 Studio Griffey's in a CSG 9.5 would lose you money with the grading prices.

  15. I am sorry, but I will be brutally honest. You got your hands on overproduced garbage and none of the cards should be graded. Even if you used PSA to grade those cards at the $18 special they had, and they got all PSA 10's, you would break even. Pack or box fresh doesn't mean Gem Mint by the way. I would be surprised if 10% of those cards got a Gem Mint grade at any of the grading companies. Well maybe 30% if you sent to GMA.

    Limited means absolutely nothing in the junk wax era. There was a baseball set called 1994 Leaf Limited. There were hard to find inserts in that set of Gold All-stars. The extremely hard to find Gold cards were numbered to 10,000 each. Those cards, which were tough pulls, sell for a few dollars. Even the Ken Griffey Jr can be had for less than $20. 

    If you grade these cards you will lose money and that is not a maybe. You will lose money. 

  16. Same thing happened to me. Well I think it did. I can see all the images for the cards that were in plastic sleeves, but the majority of my bulk submission does not have images yet and it was shipped last week. So I assume those cards were slabbed differently and hopefully they didn't forget to image them.

    Some cards I knew they weren't going to be without the sleeve. T206, 1941 Play Ball, and 1950's Bowman I knew were going to be in plastic sleeves and crimped. However, many additional cards like the OP were imaged and I was disappointed to see them in plastic sleeves. I had a 1974 Winfield, 1979 Ozzie Smith, 1981 Topps Baines, 1972 Topps Oscar and Wilt, 1968 Bob Griese, and 1974 Harold Carmichael all put into plastic sleeves when I had cards from the same years that I assume weren't. I won't know until the update the images or I get my submission in hand. Anyone else have delays in cards being shipped and not having images available?

  17. From someone who has graded a lot of cards from PSA/SGC in the past and the new label CSG, I can tell you my experience. I never graded with the older CSG green labels, but from what I have seen, they are extremely tough for GEM MINT grades. Probably the toughest ever in grading for the old green slabs. 

    From my last bulk order, I pre graded as I would for PSA. I was spot on for 95% of the grades, which is typically exactly how I am with PSA/SGC. The only difference that may make CSG a "tougher" grader is the same reason why SGC is "tougher." Right now if you dive into data, you will see the Gem Mint rates of SGC are lower than CSG across the board. What makes CSG a "tougher" grade then PSA is that PSA doesn't have a PSA 9.5 and they have lower centering standards. There are many PSA 10's that would grade a CSG/SGC 9.5 off of centering alone. 

    What really annoys me is the price difference of a PSA 10 and SGC/CSG 10. SGC/CSG 10's should be worth more than PSA 10's, because they are more strict with centering and other characteristics. I think over time people will realize this and CSG/SGC will narrow the gap in prices. I am extremely satisfied with my first bulk CSG order and some of the grades were below what I expected and some above. However, they were consistent and fair. That is all you can ask for from a grading company.

  18. You can't compare POP reports from PSA and CSG from cards from the 70's and 80's. A lot of those cards you gave as evidence of CSG being a tougher grader have been in PSA slabs for over 10 years. As time goes on, there are less high grade cards that are raw. A lot of the best cards have been graded already and also cards that are 30 year olds will have more opportunities to be damaged. You also need to consider a PSA 9 from 10 years ago is not the same way they grade today. That is why PSA new lighthouse slabs go for more money for the same grade. They grade tougher right now.

    If you want to do this comparison, you need to compare cards from 2020 on. You also need to be careful about looking at POP reports. CSG changed their grading scale, eased up on surface grading according to Andy Broome on YouTube interviews, and changed their centering standards. 

  19. 1 minute ago, RKgant said:

    The question is "is the turnaround time for you what was posted when you sent in your sub, or is your personal turnaround time what is currently posted?" If that makes sense...

    The turnaround time is supposed to be when it is delivered at the facility, not checked in. "Previously, there was some confusion about when turnaround times started. Turnaround times now start from the day your package is delivered to our facility, NOT when your submission is entered into our system." So if your bulk package was received on April 5th at 60 business days you should have your order shipped back on June 29th.