https://www.instagram.com/reel/CjTCqHJu-y4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Super clean copy of the card. Interesting to see the owner is Blake Martinez (former NY Giant)
14 Likes
Aw man, he played for the Packers too. Now I need to decide if I like Pokemon or hate the Packers more…
Very cool though, thanks for posting.
3 Likes
4 Likes
Is this CGC’s second Illustrator? Curious whether these copies were previously graded through PSA or if they were raw this whole time.
Here was their first Illustrator:
Also side note, imagine getting the meme-worthy CGC 8.5 on an Illustrator. RIP. 
5 Likes
Hey now, thats an old cert 8.5.
Have some respect
16 Likes
Asking this genuinely - what is the incentive for someone to grade a card like that with CGC over PSA? Because I assume there has to be one
5 Likes
Cheaper grading, subs, it looks good in blue?
1 Like
Probably to get a higher number on the label. Especially for this grade range, since there isn’t a 9.5 grade with psa, so it most likely would be a psa 9. A recent trophy example, a 2001 tropical wind was psa 8 and is now cgc 9.
11 Likes
A psa 8 turned into a cgc 9 eh… that is kinda hilarious given the fact that many people seemed to be drawn to cgc over the whole “they grade harder than psa/ 8.5 is pretty much a 9” meme
2 Likes
Also for this tier of cards, the fee PSA charges to grade vs CGC when grade doesn’t matter as much owning a copy could swing people to use the latter.
8 Likes
I really do think that the main motive would be to grade a higher grade, as the alternative route to bgs would also avoid any upcharges and imo more prestigous, but that card would most likely not net a 9.5 as bgs is strict and anything lower than a 9.5 u are better off to psa (psa 9 for better resale value) or cgc (where it got the 9.5).
1 Like
The simple answer is that CGC is harsher than PSA in some respects, but that people have vastly overregularized the whole “CGC grades harder” heuristic. Which is to say that the people claiming that “CGC 8.5s are pretty much PSA 9s” were (and still are) full of shit. CGC is very strict in the 9.5-10 grade range – but this was mistranslated at some point as “CGC is stricter than PSA across the whole grading scale” – which is a wildly inaccurate claim.
So what Scott is saying only conflicts with the false narrative that some have pushed about CGC. A PSA 8 going to a CGC 9 is completely and utterly unsurprising to anyone familiar with CGC’s grading scale. Which isn’t to say that all PSA 8s are CGC 9s – it’s just that PSA is much harsher on certain flaws than CGC (and vice versa).
6 Likes
Almost as if they are completely different companies with different grading scales which do not directly or easily map onto one another! We might have to do some critical thinking here boys!
6 Likes
I’ve crossed a PSA 5 into a CGC 8.5 and a completely different CGC 8.5 into PSA 10. Ergo, PSA 5 = PSA 10.
17 Likes
They graded another CGC 8 as well:
In fact, that CGC 8 was Blake’s first Illustrator, he has now graded 2
2 Likes
I prefer all my cards to be in CGC slabs, regardless of value. I think having subgrades on such an iconic piece is pretty wicked too
3 Likes
From a resale perspective, I think @greenshoots’s question is a good one. On the secondary market, a PSA graded Illustrator will achieve a higher price.
The thing that some people miss is that not all graded card collectors are concerned with maximizing resale value. I collect both PSA and CGC slabs because I find both to be reasonably accurate graders that produce slabs that generally protect cards adequately. The fact that CGC-graded cards in equivalent condition sell for less is a non-factor for cards that I have no plan to resell. This could easily be the case for Blake, too.
4 Likes
Yep, the most important part is that not everyone slabs for resale value. I’m an example of that 
5 Likes
Yeaaa i was just messing around, havin a laugh at the ol’ meme
Maybe the owner prefers CGC slabs. The blue does look good on the illustrator.
1 Like