As soon as you realize conditions beyond “mint” are way more about vanity and ego than anything actually to do with actual condition, everything from black labels to why the price bump in cgc 9.5s starts to makes sense
14 Likes
This is probably the most true statement here
1 Like
The fact that the grade name and number are the same font size as the rest of the label is probably the dumbest thing they have done with their slabs. I hate everything about it.
If I can’t just quick glance and tell what the grade is then it’s bad.
As a counterpoint, I’ve definitely been satisfied with the condition of a higher proportion of my “gem mint” graded cards vs my “mint” graded cards. I find that I’m often disappointed with 9s, whereas I’m relatively rarely disappointed with 9.5s (although it does happen). So I think there is an actual condition difference on average – albeit one that probably wouldn’t bother the vast majority of people. There’s, of course, also substantial quality overlap.
I think the actual best value is finding and collecting strong 9s. Because there are a lot of 9s out there that are borderline gem mint and in better condition than many/most PSA 10s.
2 Likes
My point is not that there is no difference in condition, it’s that the difference is far less consequential than an uninitiated person thinks. Especially when compared to other variables
We are talking about cards that doubled in value by a cosmetic change in the label. 9.5s didn’t get harder to acquire. The condition never changed. The card is not being reassessed. The only difference is the card says 10 where it used to say 9.5 and that doubled the price.
12 Likes
Let’s be honest though, that makes more sense than a lot of what we see for Pokemon.
Lillie topping Blastoise 1st Ed? Try to explain that one logically 
Oh yeah, I’m in agreement there. I think it’s utterly irrational what people are now paying for CGC 9.5s (aka new 10s). It confirms that my switch from PSA 10 to CGC 9.5 in the first place was the right decision. The psychology behind the 10 is humungous.
3 Likes
It reminds me of the first 1 minute of this video George Carlin - 10 Commandments - YouTube
2 Likes
That’s crazy to me. But that’s just the way it is. IMO blastoise from base set is more iconic than a modern card but not everyone feels that way so idk
I wouldn’t call it just a cosmetic change since they are reworking their grading scale to remove the subjectivity of saying gem mint. Psa uses gem mint to express a condition that is “as the manufacturer intended” aka in peak condition fresh from pack undamaged, with no acceptance of a higher possible condition “because we lack the capacity or autism to see/care about anything beyond 92% accuracy without far more expensive equipment/effort” via compression of the grading resolution, where as cgc/bgs used that same condition as a “not extraordinary enough for 10 because we’re noticing a few microns of damage and a single pixel was misplaced by a plank length” type resolutions that prevent practically any card from being accepted.
This is a classic jock vs nerd battle.
On one side you have the chad “bro if its over 90% its a ten haha” psa for dudes who aren’t sober or bored enough to actually see 50/50 centering on their mancave mantle next to a signed Brett Farve poster, the first dollar they made, and a photo of them sunburned on a boat with a grouper.
On the other side you have the virgin “umm ackshually han shot first” nit picky nerds that ironically grade comic books and magic cards to place on a dnd table in a basement next to their bladerunner poster and wifu/dragon statues. Ofc a perfect 10 bgs will be worth more to a 40 year old tech mogul who just sold his company, thus paying 5-10x psa 10 (dunk on the jocks!) but otherwise they are losing the value war.
Of course psa would be priced higher even if they are inferior graders, but they are popular.
Unlike mtg, more than a few thousand ppl care about pokemon cards and using “nerd mtg” grading standards doesn’t sit well with normies that don’t completely equate their lives with a set of cards.
Cgc is doing the equivalent of “cute nerdy girl takes off glasses and puts on makeup finally in senior year” movie trope and just hooked up with a jock csg on her way to become prom queen.
Ya’ll gotta follow archetypes! Every-time I see a nerd complain I buy another 9.5 at 4x 2 month ago pricing btw. After all, a 10’s a 10 bro.
2 Likes
Reading this was a journey.
I’m not sure you’ve really convinced me that it’s not a cosmetic change though. Gem Mint used to be 9.5 and now it’s 10. The card is unchanged and the condition required to get the 9.5-now-10 remains unchanged. It’s a completely arbitrary change other than the fact that 10 is a very psychologically powerful number and therefore more appealing.
10 Likes
Did you come straight from Reddit?
3 Likes
They introduced a new 9.5 that cannot become 10s starting july. They removed a .1% resolution grade (perfect 10) and added a 5% resolution (new 9.5) to correctly place the original 9.5s into their fair place (10).
1 Like
I haven’t participated in reddit since like 2012 lol
Based on the q&a video they published, old 9.5 is equivalent to new 10. They mentioned the new 9.5 is equivalent to a strong 9.
There you go, so it’s a new grade system, not just “relabeling the same grade arbitrarily).
Maybe you misunderstand. I’m sourcing this right from the information CGC put out themselves. The grading is being done the same way it always was, they are just assigning a different number as the final grade.
A “gem mint” card according to whatever standard they were grading at used to say 9.5 and now it say 10. It’s purely cosmetic. If there was more than a cosmetic change, the cards should be regraded but they are not getting regraded, just relabelled.
5 Likes
I think you misunderstand. They are the taking old 9.5s they graded too hard on despite being ordinarily a 10 at other graders (aka psa) and placing them as rightful 10s, future 9.5s will be 9.5 as they are being graded to a new proper metric now that makes them > 9 < 10 and future 10s will be graded similarly to past 9.5s that are now 10s (aka tougher than future 9.5s).
It’s confusing so I get the issue.
Let me try to clear this up: If you crack your 9.5 and submit it in july, it will now likely grade as a 10 as opposed to the new 9.5. A 9.5 in the future will have to be graded slightly worse than that 9.5 you have today in order to get that grade. They are not taking current 9.5 standards, keeping them the same, and creating a new arbitrary 10 standard and throwing old 9.5s in as a “thank you” or something.
So to summarize: they are adding a new level between current 9 and current 9.5 and accurately swapping the old 9.5 with a 10 to reflect this completely new/revamped grading system.
bro what
10 Likes
Don’t get caught up on the size of each box just focus on how it maps from old to new. The blue cards are being changed.
For the 9s, there is a functional change applicable. You could take a 9 and make it better than all other 9s by having it regrade to 9.5. There was an implication that could happen for 9s with sufficient subgrades. The Perfect grade is also a functional change because the card is now being classified in the same category as other cards it used to “beat”.
The 9.5 change is cosmetic. An old 9.5 does not become better or worse than any other card based on the change. The number is bigger, but it’s an arbitrary change. It would be the same if PSA switched to a A-J scale instead of 1-10. Or if CGC started calling their pristines CGC 
8 Likes