You were keeping them in business tbh
4 Likes
Lol
I was responsible for the entire population of bgs early ex holos for a few of them at one point (not too long ago). It was just that literally nobody used them I couldn’t believe I was seeing empty pops in 2022-2023
1 Like
If someone says “that subgrade is an 8.5 how can the card be a 9??” you should save your time and not respond lol its pointless.
1 Like
Pretty much.
Sadly some people giving above opinions have no actual experience crossing cards regularly between the two companies.
1 Like
Shocking to think there are other types of cards than pokemon…
Most people in Pokemon collect PSA as it was the first mover in the TCG.
People like labels to be consistent.
PSA has a higher pokemon market cap, essentially.
Imo this is the only benefit to choose PSA besides the grading database.
And yes, I also collect 9s.
Many of my BGS 9s are cleaner than PSA 9s (I have a good eye).
And PSA frequently mis(under) grades cards.
This is a huge issue that no one talks about.
I’ve cracked many PSA 8s that have gone to BGS 9++
Ive also cracked several psa 6 that have gone to BGS 9++
Even a couple PSA 8s that have gone to 9.5 (shadowless)
And the cards were practically flawless.
I grade sometimes with psa but I hate the lack of consistency.
That’s my experience, take it as you may.
1 Like
I don’t want to be caught up in this conversation too much because I don’t really have any strong opinions but I think the point @tidaldreams was making was that BGS grading system (and CGC in the past) will tend towards the average of the subgrades (I understand it’s slightly more complicated than that) whereas PSA in theory will set the grade to be based on the worst defect.
In other words, a BGS card with an 8.5 subgrade can be brought up to a 9 based on the other subgrades. Whereas a PSA card with a defect that would be considered 8.5 should drop the card down to PSA 8.5 which more often than not actually means PSA 8.
Of course this is stripped of all the nuance (ie. is what BGS considers 8.5 the same as what PSA considers 8.5?). But interesting to think about how the averaging impacts the grade. It was the reason why people liked to submit dented cards to CGC. Not saying one way is better than the other, just drawing the contrast.
10 Likes
People dont want strict and honest grading, they just want a 10, even if its clearly flawed. People dont mind that psa is obsolete when it comes to the actual condition of the card, as long as the market is liquid and the money is there. PSA centering standards and overall standards on their gem mint 10s are laughable compared to bgs. PSA is very inconsistent with their gem mints, every single one I look at a has some sort of dink or whitening its actually crazy. Id say 90% - 95% of psa 10s have noticeable flaws. With that being said, I feel in the non gem mint department there should be no subgrades for bgs. Being transparent doesnt help them when it comes to bgs 9s mint and below. psa hands out 10s like hotcakes and their 9s are more desirable partly because they choose to hide the subgrades and its more appealing not seeing an 8.5. on there. BGS should take notes when it comes to not providing subgrades for cards that are mint and under. And change their cases.
He wasnt making that point at all and if he was he would have wrote it like that. Clearly he genuinely didnt know that every grading companys grading criteria is based on a median of different points to come to the overall final grade. When someone says “it has an 8.5 in the subs then how is it a 9” is telling us they have no clue that psa also grades like this but the difference is they simply choose not to provide subgrades. If he did mean what you wrote, which he didnt, he sure did explain it in a weird hating way with emotes. Hes simply hating a grading company for doing the exact same thing psa does and every other grading company does. I agree with what you wrote, just calling out that the other kid was clearly clowning and downgrading bgs grading all while not knowing some very simple stuff here. I thought that was extremely obvious.
1 Like
Its one thing to say psa 9s sell for more than bgs 9s (thats a fact) but to sit here and say psa 9s and 10s are cleaner than bgs 9s and 10s is lying to ourselves. Like I said people dont care about the actual condition of the card as long as it sells, it sells. If were talking facts, bgs grades way cleaner cards than psa but that doesnt really matter.
I saw an announcement they have a black Friday sale for returning customers only. Struck me as odd to go out of your way to avoid new customers? Also 25% off bgs is like 2x the cost of other companies
But they’re still accepting subs
4 Likes
For example, this is a 9xxx cert PSA 9.
I am actively treating 9+ certs like 5xx or below as their grading is so loose.
Nice front I guess
These corners are cooked. This would get an 8.5 corner at BGS, for sure - and this isn’t an anomaly.
PSA are so inconsistent and change their scale all the time, they just don’t tell you.
But as discussed in this thread, people don’t care - they buy the label and not the card.
Goes mainstream now
Also I’m in a Rattle video, high mom.
2 Likes
Stubbornly the only company to maintain a 9.5 Gem Mint grade
People were waiting for their 25% off black Friday sale at the end of November.
Not abnormal. The month prior they did 50k.
It’s low, and i know it makes you weirdly happy, but it’s not an abnormal drop for them.
Their December figures will be much higher.
While there are valid examples of PSA’s grading standards suffering from broader inconsistencies lately, this isn’t a good example of that. That Alakazam is a PSA 9 all day long.
Your example highlights the neuroses being suffered among the grading services consumers. The fundamental reality of grading, regardless of the validity of criticism, remains the same: you’re paying for authentication, encapsulation, and another person’s opinion on condition which might be different to yours. It’s an inherently imperfect process.
6 Likes
What are we basing this on? Last year BGS had significantly higher volume in November and then collapsed in December. The trend is really bad. It’s not bgs hating, just data.
It’s time to stop including Beckett in the “big 3” category with being in the basement and a 43% decline year over year. Ain’t no black Friday specials gonna make up for those yearly declines
6 Likes
You’re asking for it now
12 Likes
Black friday sale on company stock
4 Likes