“The buyback action is just a form of damage control - whether he has done no wrong or not, this would be a safe option to provide given that his reputation has been questioned and the cards that he has sold hold questionable value now.“
Offering to do something and actually doing it is two completely different things. This last 20+ years have produced some beautifully manufactured sets but achieving a 9.5 was still a major achievement, not to mention a pristine. The current influx of 10s, especially with the majority coming from the same dude is, well…unbelievable.
I read for waaay too long into that thread. Aside from the question of “black label eyes” (which always makes me think of the “look with your special eyes!” contact commercial), someone (seemingly familiar name in this area of collecting) brought up an experience from 10 years ago of being guaranteed certain grades with consistent bulk submissions, which seems incredible to me. Eventually someone with a similar background replied stating those statements were false and their experience was contrary. This point was overshadowed by the larger conversation and corresponding evidence, but the claim if true, even in the past, throws even more doubt on BGS grading, even (or especially) for old certs.
If this is true it doesn’t surprise me, although nobody submitting that many cards and getting such ‘perks’ would ever admit to it or want attention brought to it, so no surprise it was lost in the comments of that thread.
I know of a situation where BGS damaged a particularly expensive card, then in the submitters next sub they got a black label on a high value card which pushed it into the six figure range … make of that what you will Coincidence or compensation?
There are several telling clues that point in the direction of half lies and complete deceit in this fellows “example”.
Conclusion? He’s being dishonest:(
Absolutely. To me, the evidence points more in the direction that he is doing something fishy rather than not. And even if he were to go through with his word, it doesn’t change the underlying problem of the questionable BGS 10s.
I’m curious of the long term effects of this. It seems fishy to me for sure and while we don’t have any cold hard proof the guy is definitely being deceitful as stated before. In 10 years from now will this story be relevant? Will the cards from his submissions be isolated and black listed? Will BGS rectify the issue if indisputable proof surfaces? Will they purchase the cards from the owners and pay full price to destroy them?
Or… will this just get swept under the rug over time?
No company will lift a finger unless necessary. So far most of this is conjecture.
Either way this is the inherent reality in purchasing a marketed concept. Grading is subjective, Black Label is literally paying for a 0.125 differential in grading. It is the nature of the beast.
The super fun part about that is a black label (4x10) can theoretically be a worse card than a “basic” pristine.
We all know no card is perfect. We all know that BGS gives subgrades in half point increments. A 10 is not solely give to cards achieving a 10.000 subgrade, but likely to anything closer to 10 than 9.5, theoretically anything 9.75 or higher.
So you could have a BGS 10 black label card that is 9.75, 9.75, 9.75, 9.75, a true average of 9.75 leading to 4x10, a clean 10.
Meanwhile you could have an arguably superior card that is only BGS 10 pristine that was 9.99, 9.99, 9.99, 9.74, and average of 9.9275 leading to 3x10, 1x9.5.
So some measurable amount of times people are paying a sometimes massive premium for a BGS black label when it may be arguably a worse card overall than a basic pristine. This all again reiterates why I buy nice looking cards, not just nice looking labels.
Are we really surprised though? There will always be those personalities (as it’s only human nature) that will want the best of the best and are fine with BGS’ word because it’s an established, “reputable,” third-party authenticator. It’s also why PSA 10s command so much more over PSA 9s and why a non-PSA 10 encapsulated in a PSA 10 case can still command PSA 10 prices (look @ the PSA 10 Gold Star Rayquaza that recently sold for 7k, for example - it had massive silvering on the edge) - we pay money to have our cards graded because there is a power that PSA/BGS holds in giving our cards a number, otherwise we’d save that cumbersome step of submitting and just sell mint cards if people were just going by the condition.
From my experience with BGS grading, some graders there just dont give 10’s, I had cards from the same set and stock quality, getting several 10’s from one submission, while in the other submission no card got a single 10 subgrade. In that submission all my card from said set got a Quad 9.5.
In the end this is only a .5 difference but there are clearly graders working there with bad faith.
@dok, Thanks for sharing that video! Looking forward to him opening the card.
@reinasierpe, The most recent example is the charizard reshiram black label. The front centering is not a perfect 10, but the card still received the “perfect” black label. Its already decently high because of the black label.
I’m assuming people are having issues with the top/bottom of that card @smpratte? I honestly don’t see anything crazy off about it but admittedly I have a hard time even seeing where it should be. The top definitely seems thinner but part of that is exacerbated by the illusion that the upward thinning bottom border gives IMO.
Grade subjectivity is the elephant in the room as far as shortcomings in the collectibles marketplace today.
I always laugh when I hear people say, “buy the card, not the grade” because they’re completely missing the irony in what they’re saying. The only reason card grading was invented in the first place was to create a marketplace where people didn’t have to buy subjectively evaluated cards, they could just buy the objective grade. If we’re still “buying the card and not the grade”, then something is clearly wrong with how grading is being done.
A thoroughly calibrated and tested digital grading system would eliminate most of these problems. Value wouldn’t be manufactured out of thin air, it would be far more accurate and precise and prices would be based on objective reasoning from a digital readout and not “because someone being paid $12 at PSA said so”.
Digital grading would also eliminate most corruption because companies would basically be relegated to offering some minor human input and encapsulation services. The main decision in sending your card to a grading company would be to decide which slab you like better, not who’s going to actually grade your card more accurately/honestly.
@gottaketchumall, If you look at the bottom right corner you can see the extra/extended yellow bit of the card. Also if you look at the bottom left you can see how the inner border is not aligned with the corner. Its subtle but definitely outside of the majestic “10” parameters.
Exactly. This is why trust/accountability/objectivity is such an issue with grading companies. Their entire business model is based upon being an objective, unbiased service. When things like this come up, it’s a massive issue because it damages that credibility
Another reason to buy the card, not the label. While this is all conjecture and nothing has really been proven, I’m staying far away from any BGS graded cards for this reason.
@jj1 , there’s definitely opportunity to provide quantitative and objective measures to guide card grading. It’s possible to create an algorithm that precisely measures centering. Then the grading company could define centering parameters for each grade and eliminate any subjectivity. You’d never hear complaints about centering incorrectly affecting the grade. OC collectors would be happy as well since they’d have clearly defined rules for what constitutes OC.
My biggest issue is that it would be a major shift in the grading process. You’d have a point in time where all cards before were graded by humans and all cards after were graded (or at least assisted) by machines. How would you compare cards from two different eras?
In regards to your first point: you can easily do the same with silvering/edgewear, and cornerwear. Against a black background it’s easy to distinguish where edgewear is. You would then need to determine the extent of the wear and grade accordingly. Surface would be more difficult due to the different types of flaws that exist but it would be possible to create an apparatus with multiple cameras and angles that could easily grade a surface with high accuracy for scratches and damage.
And yes, the current system where the ‘PSA Fairy’ randomly blesses your card with the OC grade would be done away with. You’d be able to tell what grade your card would get before submitting. This would also save graders a ton of headache and would do away with cracking and resubmitting: what would be the point of resubmitting a card when there’s an actual 99.99999% chance that it’ll pull the exact same grade?
As to your second point: It’ll be like any technological advance. At first there’d be no difference but gradually it would become the normal, accepted way to grade cards and regular grading would become antiquated. Eventually, cards before the digital era would hold high value but would need to be reevaluated in order to get top dollar. A ‘digital 10’ would be very different from a ‘regular 10’: kind of like a BGS 9.5 vs PSA 10. Naturally this will make many people unhappy which is why there’s always a debate when this topic comes up.
Regardless of what anybody thinks one thing is clear: to one extent or another, digital grading is the future and it’s not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’ it will become a reality.
Coincidence or compensation?
