Biggest Crossgrade Test Against All Other Grading Companies (Look Here Before You Cross Grade) 2 2

[Slade M]

Attached you will see pictures of a Cross-grade from BGS, PSA, and other notable grading companies and how they stack up with CGC's standards. I understand there could have been damage brought to the card in the cracking of the cases, but only time can tell if CGC is truly the hardest grading company on the market. I hope more of these tests happen within the community so there is more data to analysis.

Photos Attached:

Contact me if you would like to talk about this more: Gradelevelcollectables@gmail.com

[Yeahiwasder4dat]

I wouldn't attempt that in reverse seeing as those are all older sub numbers starting with 4. Last PSA sub I had come back a few weeks ago were absolutely brutal. I wouldn't cross from CGC to PSA even if it's a 9.5 or 10. They're just arbitrarily handing out grades to keep their pop report under control right now. You could probably send a CGC Perfect 10 in and get back a PSA 8. 

[PokemanDude90]

If I posted my recent results of cracking CGC slabs and sending to a competitor for better grades it would be the Poke-topic of the day in the community and I'd probably get a call from someone at CGC. 

Look... not everything is a CGC 8.5 guys. Let me say that again: NOT EVERYTHING IS A CGC 8.5.

When I can crack multiple CGC 8.5 slabs and literally get 10's at other reputable grading companies (not one of these new amateur-hour startups, I'm talking one of the long-standing pillars in the community) maybe it's time to look into things in the grading room. 

My recent Bulk return had 6 straight holos from 2004 (FRLG - Pokemon) that all got the SAME EXACT SUBGRADES and of course got CGC 8.5, surprise surprise. The odds of that happening organically are basically 0 from a probability standpoint. This is the stuff I'm talking about. 

 

 

[HomeGrownPoke1]

On 12/28/2021 at 4:47 PM, PokemanDude90 said:

If I posted my recent results of cracking CGC slabs and sending to a competitor for better grades it would be the Poke-topic of the day in the community and I'd probably get a call from someone at CGC. 

Look... not everything is a CGC 8.5 guys. Let me say that again: NOT EVERYTHING IS A CGC 8.5.

When I can crack multiple CGC 8.5 slabs and literally get 10's at other reputable grading companies (not one of these new amateur-hour startups, I'm talking one of the long-standing pillars in the community) maybe it's time to look into things in the grading room. 

My recent Bulk return had 6 straight holos from 2004 (FRLG - Pokemon) that all got the SAME EXACT SUBGRADES and of course got CGC 8.5, surprise surprise. The odds of that happening organically are basically 0 from a probability standpoint. This is the stuff I'm talking about. 

 

 

Definitely doesn't seem right at all. Like you said, maybe they need to look into things in that grading room. There is no way 6 straight cards all have the same subgrades. Looks like they copy and pasted everything down the line. I can't wait to get my cards back so I can be done with all this BS.

[Yeahiwasder4dat]

On 12/28/2021 at 5:01 PM, HomeGrownPoke1 said:

Definitely doesn't seem right at all. Like you said, maybe they need to look into things in that grading room. There is no way 6 straight cards all have the same subgrades. Looks like they copy and pasted everything down the line. I can't wait to get my cards back so I can be done with all this BS.

Same, should be any day now. Even if something in this order is mislabeled or f'd up I don't care. Not sending it back 🤣. Not worth the price of my freedom from this company.

I did get a decent batch of 9's one sub, got some 8.5s I think should've been 8's and some 8.5's I think should've been 9's. It's never going to be perfect. Does seem a little suspect getting that many cards with exact subs in a row though. Curious to see how these team rocket cards grade if ever shipped though.

 

[zorloth]

On 12/28/2021 at 4:47 PM, PokemanDude90 said:

If I posted my recent results of cracking CGC slabs and sending to a competitor for better grades it would be the Poke-topic of the day in the community and I'd probably get a call from someone at CGC. 

Look... not everything is a CGC 8.5 guys. Let me say that again: NOT EVERYTHING IS A CGC 8.5.

When I can crack multiple CGC 8.5 slabs and literally get 10's at other reputable grading companies (not one of these new amateur-hour startups, I'm talking one of the long-standing pillars in the community) maybe it's time to look into things in the grading room. 

My recent Bulk return had 6 straight holos from 2004 (FRLG - Pokemon) that all got the SAME EXACT SUBGRADES and of course got CGC 8.5, surprise surprise. The odds of that happening organically are basically 0 from a probability standpoint. This is the stuff I'm talking about. 

 

 

I've had pretty much the exact same experience. But in my case, everything gets 8.5s (or 9s) regardless of condition. For example: 

The top two cards I literally pulled from packs this year. The Mudkip has very bad centering, but the cards are otherwise obviously mint. The bottom two cards aren't even close to pack fresh -- they're in PSA 8-9 condition but have subtle surface wear that clearly isn't factory damage.

These four cards are objectively not in the same condition. The top two are mint, and the bottom two are what I'd describe as NM. The fact that all four cards got the same grade is utterly bizarre to me. I have tons of other similar examples I could give. My conclusion is that CGC's grading scale is unable to distinguish between mint and NM cards. They are either being too loose with NM cards or too strict with mint cards (or both).

 

CGC 8.5 encompasses the entire PSA 7-10 range. And then CGC 9 encompasses the PSA 9-10 range. And then CGC 9.5s are basically unicorns (for pre-2008 English holos -- of course, modern and/or Japanese cards are a different ball game).

[PokemanDude90]

On 12/28/2021 at 10:31 PM, zorloth said:

I've had pretty much the exact same experience. But in my case, everything gets 8.5s (or 9s) regardless of condition. For example: 

The top two cards I literally pulled from packs this year. The Mudkip has very bad centering, but the cards are otherwise obviously mint. The bottom two cards aren't even close to pack fresh -- they're in PSA 8-9 condition but have subtle surface wear that clearly isn't factory damage.

These four cards are objectively not in the same condition. The top two are mint, and the bottom two are what I'd describe as NM. The fact that all four cards got the same grade is utterly bizarre to me. I have tons of other similar examples I could give. My conclusion is that CGC's grading scale is unable to distinguish between mint and NM cards. They are either being too loose with NM cards or too strict with mint cards (or both).

 

CGC 8.5 encompasses the entire PSA 7-10 range. And then CGC 9 encompasses the PSA 9-10 range. And then CGC 9.5s are basically unicorns (for pre-2008 English holos -- of course, modern and/or Japanese cards are a different ball game).

 

I agree with you that the 8.5 grade compasses a WIDE range of grades when compared to competitors and I'll give my two cents to further back up what you're saying. For me, I find a lot of raw cards and grade them (early EX era, e-readers, etc.) and I know when I've found a gold-mine where someone sleeved their cards right out of the pack (mint) vs the more commonly available NM cards. There's nothing worse than telling myself, "this has a legit shot at a CGC 9.5" as I put the card in the Card Saver to send off, only for it to return a 8.5, and the card with obvious wear gets the same grade. 

What I think this stems from is CGC's grading scale, which does itself absolutely no favors with how 'short' it gets at the top. The scale itself doesn't allow proper differentiation of cards at the top of the grading scale because the top of the grading scale is off limits to 99% of card starting at the 9.5 grade. 

10's are basically impossible on vintage stuff, so 9.5 is your best case scenario. Well, 9.5 turns out to be just as hard if not harder to get than a PSA 10. So effectively, if you're grading a vintage English card you're squeezed into this narrow window of CGC 8.5 to CGC 9.5 (mostly CGC 8.5 and CGC 9) and thus we see the massive range in actual card condition.

 

 

 

 

[Yeahiwasder4dat]

Grades finally posted. Everything I thought might get a 9 was 8.5. check this one though. Have to look it over again in hand, but didn't think anything I sent in was in the 5 range. Worst card I sent in before was a Dark card with a crease and it was a 6. Can't upload front for some reason.

3857638088

Edited January 4, 2022 by Yeahiwasder4dat

[PokemanDude90]

That Sabrina card looks like a 10 to me. We've been conditioned to hope for 9's haven't we. 

Typically, a 5 or 6 on an otherwise great looking card is due to a significant dent, usually a binder dent from a 3-ring binders.

If the card does NOT have a dent, you might want to send it back to CGC for review/regrade because mistakes can happen. 

 

 

[Yeahiwasder4dat]

On 1/5/2022 at 2:08 PM, PokemanDude90 said:

That Sabrina card looks like a 10 to me. We've been conditioned to hope for 9's haven't we. 

Typically, a 5 or 6 on an otherwise great looking card is due to a significant dent, usually a binder dent from a 3-ring binders.

If the card does NOT have a dent, you might want to send it back to CGC for review/regrade because mistakes can happen. 

 

 

It's been so long since I sent them in I can't remember which card had what. Like I said, lowest I've gotten on surface was a 5 and it was creased 🤔 the +1 bump to and overall 6 was everything else was at least 1 higher. Even if this one had a binder crease not sure how it would total out to a 5 when everything else is that clean.

[zorloth]

On 12/31/2021 at 4:47 PM, PokemanDude90 said:

 

I agree with you that the 8.5 grade compasses a WIDE range of grades when compared to competitors and I'll give my two cents to further back up what you're saying. For me, I find a lot of raw cards and grade them (early EX era, e-readers, etc.) and I know when I've found a gold-mine where someone sleeved their cards right out of the pack (mint) vs the more commonly available NM cards. There's nothing worse than telling myself, "this has a legit shot at a CGC 9.5" as I put the card in the Card Saver to send off, only for it to return a 8.5, and the card with obvious wear gets the same grade. 

What I think this stems from is CGC's grading scale, which does itself absolutely no favors with how 'short' it gets at the top. The scale itself doesn't allow proper differentiation of cards at the top of the grading scale because the top of the grading scale is off limits to 99% of card starting at the 9.5 grade. 

10's are basically impossible on vintage stuff, so 9.5 is your best case scenario. Well, 9.5 turns out to be just as hard if not harder to get than a PSA 10. So effectively, if you're grading a vintage English card you're squeezed into this narrow window of CGC 8.5 to CGC 9.5 (mostly CGC 8.5 and CGC 9) and thus we see the massive range in actual card condition.

 

 

 

 

You put it perfectly. CGC's grading scale is incapable of distinguishing between mint cards and NM cards. I learned my lesson with this after I submitted cards to them that I literally opened from packs the same day. Out of the 7 cards in that submission, 6 of them got 9s:

And one lone 9.5:

 

These aren't cards from Neo Genesis or Jungle -- these are cards from sets with extremely high print quality. I'm fairly confident that all of these except the Manectric would be likely to cross to PSA 10. I obviously wasn't expecting CGC 10s, but I was hoping that at least 4 of the 7 would get CGC 9.5. But nope, only a single one did.

This wouldn't be at all an issue if CGC was universally harsh. But the issue is that they're NOT. When I submit NM (PSA 8 quality) cards I purchase off eBay, TCGPlayer, or Troll & Toad, many of them ALSO get 9s . CGC has proved incapable of distinguishing between mint and NM cards. As you stated, the grade range is squished, in effect. When I buy a CGC 8.5 or CGC 9, I have no clue whether to expect a PSA 8-quality card or a PSA 9 or 10-quality card. CGC is a great place to grade NM cards, but I will never send them my pack fresh cards ever again lol. That said, I will continue to buy the s**t out of CGC 9.5 vintage English holos when they pop up for reasonable prices.

Edited January 11, 2022 by zorloth

[HomeGrownPoke1]

I will never understand why people think "pack fresh" cards should be automatically 10s....

[zorloth]

On 1/11/2022 at 5:19 PM, HomeGrownPoke1 said:

I will never understand why people think "pack fresh" cards should be automatically 10s....

That's not the issue. The issue is that CGC is grading both pack fresh cards and regular NM cards as 9s. If they were grading NM cards as 8s and pack fresh cards as 9s, then there would be zero issue at all. The problem isn't that CGC is too harsh, it's that cards of vastly different quality are getting the same grades.

[MikkelLJ]

Thanks for the effort with the cross grades!

Pack fresh in English have always been a bit of a toss-up regarding condition but I do feel the NM/MINT sentiment.

My biggest frustration comes from the near 400 new back Japanese cards that I've graded through BULK: Vast majority 8.5/9 and few 9.5. Not a single 10. Completely baffled to be honest. Meanwhile I've gotten a few 10s on a STANDARD submission with new back Japanese - which honestly were worse off. 

The inconsistencies are of course also seen with every other grading company but the fact that 10 is a barred off territory makes the eventual disappointment a bit tougher. 

On another note, how amazing is it that the 1 millionth card graded gets a 10 :D? That's hilarious.

[PeterPark]

On 1/5/2022 at 2:08 PM, PokemanDude90 said:

That Sabrina card looks like a 10 to me. We've been conditioned to hope for 9's haven't we. 

Typically, a 5 or 6 on an otherwise great looking card is due to a significant dent, usually a binder dent from a 3-ring binders.

If the card does NOT have a dent, you might want to send it back to CGC for review/regrade because mistakes can happen. 

 

 

Is that was is hoped for? I got back my first ever submission of cards to CGC and got mostly 9's. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed. They are pretty immaculate and mostly well-centered.

[Hal Haralampiev]

my $0.02 of experience with cross grading can be summarized as "nothing unexpected"

• the two EvS cards got same 9 mark as the original grade from two "weird" grading shops

• the PSA8 Leafeon got unlucky in the hands of USPS and the slab developed vertical crack on the back which left slight mark on the card back so going done to CGC 7 is understandable; Skyla going from GMA10 to CGC9.5 is "rounding error" in my book

NOTE: cards were submitted in bulk grading batch (22 for regular + 4 for subgrades) and came back fairly fast -- received at CGC on 3/10 and we have them back on 3/15