CollectorBB

Has there been any thought about larger cases to grade Rolling Stone magazines? A larger slab also would open up for a lot of other mags with premium sizes and commonly used sizes in the UK. There are a lot of magazines out there that have collectors ... and probably some oversized comics out there, too.

I know magazine slabbing is a fraction of the overall CGC volume, but has any consideration ever been made for an alternative-size slab? First obvious thing that comes to mind is the tabloid-size Rolling Stone magazines of the past that were very visual and collectible long before people were thinking about mags that way ... but there are also a lot of UK and European magazines that are just slightly wider and larger than the basic magazine case. (I had one a mere 1/8 inch too tall recently that I would have slabbed in a heartbeat while many others from the past are wider.) Plus throw in the old U.S. stuff like LIFE and Saturday Evening Post. 

Seems like a scenario where a slightly larger slab could open up a lot more possibilities ... there might be some oddball comics/comics mags out there with this issue, too. 

Any news on this one? With the announcement of 600,000+ graded seems like there should be plenty. 

They didn't grade one of mine sent last year. Bummed me out. 

On 7/27/2021 at 2:18 PM, LAgambit said:

The top part is what I filled in the form - "Image Variation" second attribute = "refractor" 

Yall dropped the Image Variation from the label for some reason. Please stop doing this... 

They are dropping parallel attributes a lot. I had about five where it happened and wasn't caught ... and I think one somehow actually affected the grade as the card difference may have been seen as a defect. 

Yep. Happened on mine recently ... shipped today. 👍 All info in order ... all images, too. 

Yep. Happened on mine recently ... shipped today. 👍

Yep. Happened recently ... shipped today. 👍

On 4/7/2021 at 1:38 PM, Greg Christiansen said:

Yeah...it's not the condition im too worried about. It's identifying the keepers from the trash...as far as hockey goes. I got them in a lot of about 300,000 cards been on the back burner for the last 2 years.

Use comc.com to see cards and be able to search/filter once you find a set. Once you know what cards are most valuable then you might ponder grading on some of those if clean. 

On 7/15/2021 at 5:51 PM, Dinohin22 said:

Yes, I was shocked with my submission. Nothing higher than a 9. My brother who works in the hobby for 20 years was shocked at the low grades. I definitely should have had a couple 9.5s at least. I'm assuming if you use bulk you won't get 10s or they will be very rare. 

I had two 10s out of 50 cards in a bulk. About half of order was 9.5s and rest was 9 with only a handful of 8.5 or lower. I use a loupe and pre-inspect pretty hard. 

And all that, atop a membership cost, is why I'm grading here and not there. 

3 hours ago, Stormysweather said:

 

• • I too get frustrated with the grading of the low-end cards, but I can't take fault with the folks putting the large bulk orders.   They will raise the bulk prices as that is lost revenue with the current system so I think some of that will be snuffed out sooner than later.

Well, ultimately, you get a choice in what you can grade and so does anybody else. If they send in 100 1989 Donruss cards -- or even 100 new Ja Morants -- and lose their butts with mediocre grades because they submit anything they probably won't do it again.

I grade oddball and weird stuff that I like -- and many might scoff at -- but I paid my $X to do so just like the guy sending in 50 Luis Robert cards. CSG is offering the service -- and they're being a lot more democratic (like ground balls in Bull Durham) without prices that are three-figures to get a card graded. Without that, a lot more people won't be grading and/or buying graded cards right now. 

On 7/14/2021 at 7:51 PM, Tedsaid said:

I've used CGC grading for comics for years, but I'm new to CSG grading.  I have ~5 boxes of Donruss baseball cards, all from 1988.  So, as an experiment, I sent in a bulk order of 51 for grading. 

I just got the grades back, and they were surprising.  These are all new cards, stored for 30 years and forgotten.  I picked 100 or so of the most valuable ones (with plenty of multiples), then set aside the ones with obvious flaws. 

Well, I guess "obvious flaws" is different for me than someone more experienced.  And some things are very different between comics and cards.  For example, printing flaws on comic books don't detract from the grade, unless it is very noticeable.  But they count here.  Same with off-center printing.  I was only looking at corners and edges, and other human-caused defects.

Anyway, I guess I did alright?  Not sure.  What do you guys think?  My grades were:

2 at 6.5

2 at 7.0

4 at 7.5

10 at 8.0

17 at 8.5

16 at 9.0

I was really surprised there weren't any 9.5 or 10.  I guess those are as rare as the 9.9 and 10.0 in comics. 

Getting 9.5s is not easy ... getting 10s is even harder. On oldschool stuff like 1988 Donruss even moreso unless you are inspecting stuff with a loupe. The stock is notoriously skinny, the packaging didn't protect a thing (especially corners) and then there's the typical print spots and centering to worry about. The key Rated Rookies from the past could sell very well in 9.5s and 10s ... because it's hard to get them. CSG 9s might sell for better than you might think. 

It'd be different if some of the older stuff was high-grade ... 

Yep, de-linked. I'm thinking it's actually going to update as ready to go soon, though. 

They didn't show on mine until my partial order was finished. All linked and showed after last five cards were sent. They'll show. 

Just in case some of you missed this part.

"Over the past several weeks, submitters may have also noticed slightly thicker holders being used for certain vintage and odd-sized cards that require a custom inner sleeve to be held securely in place. This holder does not qualify as a CSG Thick Holder as it is only slightly thicker than our standard holder. CSG uses it at its sole discretion for no additional fee." 

They have announced them ... 

My first bulk was back in 80 working days. My first faster service card also beat posted time. 

FYI: It's also delays for dimensions ... my arrive-later cards were actually undersized and mini cards (like 2012 Topps Mini) and then a 1989 Bowman card. The 1989 Bowman cards have rail at a higher spot, while it looks like undersized either have closer rails or are thicker slab to use an inner sleeve. It looks like in the case of 1989 Bowman they just ran out of them and need more and are waiting. 

On 6/14/2021 at 10:35 PM, Steven Dunhill said:

That isn’t the status so no you can’t do that. 

Check the tracking number on your invoice PDF. It works with FedEx. Mine shows changes to it being in transit but no grades in my order yet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Yes, early does seem to be the trend vs number of days posted. I have a bulk that's being worked and should be back this week that is far faster than current posted time (though not when I sent). A single-card order sent with a different batch was back in my hands much faster than it should have been. 

12 minutes ago, jsrva said:

Well now I am really curious as I received a shipment summary email from CSG just now for 46 cards. The original order was for 57 cards though. So apparently 11 of my cards were secretly thick?!

Yep. Some seemingly normal cards were too thick. I have five being held and all I sent was some embossed or what I thought was normal stuff. 

Just now, Steven Dunhill said:

Same here. It says mine shipped today but I haven’t had a fedex email yet. And no grades being shown

I bet system data updates are probably done at end of the day/overnight. 

I've moved to "In Process/Partial Ship" status on my bulk order ... no grade updates yet though. (Also not sure where that new stage falls into steps.)