That’s awesome. My first card comes back either tomorrow or Saturday depending on FedEx. My submission page still doesn’t show me any data so I’m in the dark at what grade I got lol growing pains
2 Likes
I like the way the slabs look. I always thought Beckett looks really bad with no label and the beckett symbol. Plus all the beckett labels just don’t look good imo. I hate the sub 9s and even the Silver Gold and Black labels. Just ugly labels. These labels are nice and I love the color blue. Plus their Holo symbol thing is really neat. I rather have the clean label across the top of the card like these or PSA then beckett. Maybe I am just a hater. idk.
3 Likes
I wonder what it takes to get a CGC 1
2 Likes
Jesus it’s so reminiscent of Beckett haha…
I’m not a fan of these pictures that cut off the edges of the card in favor of the watermark/editing process. Kind of defeats the point…
Geeezzz. That 9 centering has a TON of weight in the grade! 
Oh dear the Collectorzard rears its head again.
Listed on psa?
Does it though? All the other grades average out to a 3.5 which is what the card got. So it stands to reason that even if the centering was a 3.5 it would still be a 3.5
3 Likes
This is correct. You essentially just take the two worst grades, the rest of the grades don’t influence the overall grade
It shall live on!! Always.
1 Like
Sheeesh. How did that Zard get a 3.5. Hmmmmmm
2 Likes
It actual had no bearing on the final grade
1 Like
So it seems like without tears and discoloration it is tough to get a 1, obviously different from PSA where one large crease is an automatic 1, even if the rest of the card looks like a 10. Very interesting to say the least. What do we all think? According to their stated grading scale this Zard definitely should be a 3 or 3.5, it all comes down to how we as collectors accept this different scale
5 Likes
Honestly i think it’s better this way, there’s so many cards that would auto get a 1 at PSA but not even be that bad, I remember Gary posting this and thought it was pretty silly of a grade.
However maybe they should reword there grades… Like that Charizard is a 3.5 okay that’s fine but then its called VeryGood+ ? I don’t think that card is in ‘very good’ condition does anyone else?
7 Likes
Who cares when you’re talking about a grade this low though? Honestly. If anything the “low-ball” grade of 1 sometimes fetches a premium over a 2 or 3 to those collectors who specifically target these extremely low grades. Or a collector that needs a 1 to complete a fully graded 1 through 10 set with PSA.
I think what matters most is the consistency of the grades, regardless of the grading company, and not necessarily if “a CGC 3.5 is equal to a PSA 1 or 2.”
I think I speak for everyone when I say I’ve seen a very wide spread on what PSA will call a grade 1. PSA would call this card a 1 without hesitation, in my opinion, but I could be wrong.
When I first saw the card I immediately thought it should be a 1 or a 2. But after reading the grading scale @pokecollectoramy, it makes sense. I just can’t imagine how atrocious a CGC 1 would appear LOL.
You have to ask yourself… Are you really paying that much more for a PSA 2 than a PSA 3 or 4? At that point its just semantics. Consistency and good turn times is all I really care about.
1 Like
@pikachutcg, @pokecollectoramy, I agree 100%… Calling a 3 “very good” doesn’t make sense. I think this comes down to their sister companies which all follow similar suite. Comics, Coins, and Paper Money (which I’ve submitted to a lot in my lifetime) all use “very good” for low grades which is strange:
www.cgccomics.com/grading/grading-scale/
www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/
www.pmgnotes.com/paper-money-grading/grading-scale/
I imagine this might be coming from their comic book grading where creases and tears are probably a lot more common.
While creases having a great impact on the grade makes sense for trading cards I personally think that psa 6 and lower is really inconsistent in terms of eye appeal. For example a small crease on the back knocks a card immediately down to a 6 while its eye appeal especially on the front might be closer to a 9. And I’d prefer such a card over a heavily scratched holo.
4 Likes
@slippingjimmy is probably correct. When grading comic books, creases and tears aren’t as bad to look at as with a trading card. I think it’s good they stay consistent across all the things they grade, otherwise they’ll just confuse themselves tbh. So although it’s strange something mentioned as ‘Very Good’ looks like that, I can still understand it.
Btw, does CGC use the same method to determine the final grade based on the four subgrades as BGS? I know BGS uses a rather onorthodox method (which I described here in a codegolf challenge I posted), where Corners is punished hardest, Centering next, Surface/Edges the least. And how much the overall grade is better than the worst subgrade depends on which subgrade is the worst, and also depends on the difference of the worst and next to worst subgrades. (The second best subgrade when sorting them from highest to lowest is completely ignored in determining the final grade.)
Greetz,
Quuador
According to the one managing their ig ‘if the lowest has an equal, then that is the final grade’. Additionally it seems like the final grade can’t be higher than 0.5 above the lowest subgrade. Nothing indicates them weighing subgrades different so far.
1 Like