I think it’s pretty safe to assume they didn’t suddenly start grading 8x as many cards, but it’s worth asking if the rates changed just as drastically as the raw numbers.
1 Like
April 6th is not the relevant date, it only is the date at which we started getting information about the numbers. Pre-april 6th is everything graded before it averaged. It could have changed in Januari for all we know and the numbers would still make sense, because it wouldn’t be visible in the average.
@filthynwah I already gave a pretty detailed breakdown of percentages earlier in the thread, so relative to the amount of cards graded.
4 Likes
I don’t know if CGC change their standard because there wasn’t pop report before April, but we can see some data.
Today 23/06/2022 data
Brilliant Star - Set released 25 february 2022
Charizard Vstar 174/172 (that one rainbow)
PSA : Total pop : 1966 GEM MINT : 1423 (72.38%)
CGC: Total pop : 939 At least GEM MINT : 423 (45%) At least CGC 10: 70 (7.45%) Perfect 10: 2 (0,21%)
BGS Total pop : 182 At least GEM MINT : 148 (81,3%) At least BGS 10: 27 (14,8%) Black Label 10: 2 (0,10%)
Charizard V Alt Art 154/172
PSA : Total pop : 1496 GEM MINT : 1039 (69.45%)
CGC: Total pop : 734 At least GEM MINT : 298 (40,6%) At least CGC 10: 39 (5,31%) Perfect 10: 1 (0,136%)
BGS Total pop : 101 At least GEM MINT : 77 (76,23%) At least BGS 10: 9 (8,9%) Black Label 10: 0 (0)
My thoughts :
If we reset all cards graded to 0 and three companies with the same reputation start together where each of them has the standard of PSA, BGS, CGC each I would choose CGC.
But it’s too late, PSA has already taken root, no matter what happens, nothing will change. If CGC gives less high grades people complain that they are too strict and therefore no one grades with them anymore, if CGC gives higher grades people start saying that it gifts votes and therefore they lose respect for CGC.
It’s buying the card not the grade isn’t it?
Too many irritating people around me act as if PSA10 or whatever the grade is, is proof enough, but can’t even look at the raw cards they are selling properly.
Like I said, if PSA 10 or even PSA 9 has noticeable nicks on it, what even is the point of grading?
But perhaps it comes down to the audience. If they have such low standards (grade not card) then it doesn’t matter, and this false cycle can continue.
Perhaps for new collectors. For existing collectors where 90% of their collection is already PSA it is difficult to change. To change to CGC would be to deny one’s current collection.
Imagine people who have full sets in PSA, in CGC it would be 9.5. Having 10 makes you feel better, proud of yourself, proud to show it to others, all those 10, a simple and clean thing.
Now imagine you have the same collection, some 9, others 9.5, others 10, completely different feeling.
1 Like
What made you trust them so strongly?
I agree that a lot could change over time and none of us have crystal balls, but PSA has so much built up equity at this point. PSA has consistently proven that they provide the best value for your cards and, until that changes, it’s hard to see CGC gaining significant market share imo. I’m not sure fancy marketing and interest from comic collectors is enough to move the needle in any meaningful way.
You say this, yet you accept CGC’s assertions at face value. Something doesn’t add up here.
Note that their original statement only pertains to their grading scale, i.e. the numbers and grade names assigned to cards. They say nothing about whether they have changed how they evaluate the condition of certain cards and where a given condition maps to a certain grade. You can’t chock up a 8.5x increase in Perfect 10s and a 5.75x increase in Pristine 10s to people suddenly submitting more mint cards. I also don’t understand why you and others are resistant to acknowledge the clear change which can be seen in the numbers. One of the main complaints about CGC grading was that they were too harsh especially on things like modern Japanese and pack-fresh English, leading to lots of 8.5s and 9s on cards that would be graded higher at other companies. This negatively impacted resale value and collection cohesiveness, so it’s good to see CGC changing in response to what was clearly a bad decision on the original condition evaluation scale.
11 Likes
No one will surpass PSA ever at this point barring some incredibly massive scandal. However, CGC does already have large market share.
PSA 4.1M Pokemon cards in 23 years
CGC 1.55M Pokemon cards in 19 months
BGS, SGC and other companies <250k combined in 20 years
In response to the topic at hand, it’s very clear that CGC has gotten more reasonable on grading vintage. I personally believe their grading is still very strong and was unreasonable before. On the other end, many big sports dealers I speak with all agree that PSA has gotten more stringent. Of course, all anecdotal.
2 Likes
We will see if they can maintain the marketshare that they have obtained once PSA lowers their value pricing to sub $20 and beyond.
1 Like
What are BGS doing with all that money, hire more graders! XD
1 Like
This is a bit of a misleading statistic since the vast majority of all Pokemon cards ever submitted to any company happened in the last 19 months. Not to mention that for much of that time PSA was effectively closed.
Not to say that 1.5 mil isn’t impressive, it’s just that this is not a good faith comparison.
9 Likes
Based on a recent submission and some snooping, it seems that the serial number is generated when it’s entered into the system and before grading.
I’m not sure if this is a bug or intentional, but if you click on a submission in the Submission Tracking section of CGC and then click “Download Submission Detail” you are able to see the certificates of your cards way before it even enters grading.
Here’s my most recent “Download Submission Detail” submission, and my card has not been graded yet, but you can see the cert number:
Submission #,Status,Received Date,Shipped Date,Line Item,Cert Number,Grade,Card Name,Game,Language,Set Name,Rarity Name,Card Number,Variants,Sub Grade Centering,Sub Grade Corners,Sub Grade Edges,Sub Grade Surface,Card Error
4130257,Grading/Quality Control,09/21/2022,,001,4130257001,,Charizard ☆ δ,Pokémon,English,EX Dragon Frontiers,,100/101,Holo,,,,,
If you try to use this cert in the cert lookup you’ll see the message
This item cannot be found. Please check that the CGC certification number was entered correctly.
Hopefully this gives people a better idea of how they end up with older labels on newer certs.
1 Like
I am curious as to your own circumstances.
I can understand why you would meet with the company prior to submitting a 25,000 card order.
What I don’t understand is why you would want the order to be subject to a much harsher scale than a by all accounts more lenient one.
Surely, if you think you are going to get a much better rate of ‘top scores’ you will make more money in return.
You made reference to a discussion you’d had with buyers on Ebay and I can quite understand how you may have had a discussion where a potential buyer challenged the validity of a premium being attributed to a CGC 10 and you wished to defend the validity of such a premium. That makes perfect sense, but your meeting with CGC just doesn’t make sense logically.
Forgive me, I don’t mean to sound accusatory, I just don’t understand the logic of what you are saying.
1 Like
Maybe I’m not hip with the lingo, but what does this mean?
1 Like
“Long” usually means holding a position/investment long-term or an extended period of time.
2 Likes
It’s okay, I didn’t know the lingo either 
1 Like
So I own 26 Character Secret Rares in CGC 9.5.
Traditionally, a CGC 9.5 is basically a perfect card.
I bought these with the intention of crossing them to a 10 in an alternative grading system.
For me, buying a CGC 9.5 was a good way of pre-grading, especially when buying online can be difficult as photos rarely show a perfect coverage of the card.
Whilst, some of these 26 are indeed gem mint, there are many which are clearly not. Very obvious print line across one, and noticable edge damage.
I have crossed 20+ CGC 9.5’s before and all got 10’s. Though I am concerned that not all will and I may have to resell.
I find myself in a curious position. As someone who genuinely likes CGC, it’s nice that a CGC 10 collection is now a viable choice. As someone who has bought lots of their product as I trusted the strictness of their grading, this change will potentially be costly, as I won’t be able to cross all of them with the same reliability that I could before.
As ever, buy the card not the grade - but previously it was a good way of appraising cards that you are buying online which I fear is not available anymore.
I just wish that CGC had actually communicated this change, rather than pretend it’s not the case.
4 Likes
How does 2021-2022 graded era cards compare to others and how do they crossover to current grading?
2021-22 is a big range for CGC since their grading standards were in flux at that point. Generally, though, CGC has gotten more lenient since then–especially compared to 2020-21. There’s not going to be a consistent formula, though. Like, prior to a certain point (39x in terms of labels, approximately), it was almost impossible to get gem mint on pre-2007 holos. Since they changed their grading standards, the pops on those have quite literally gone up by a factor of 5 to 20 (not an exaggeration).
8 Likes