I certainly understand that everyone has their own personal preferences when it comes to slabbing. As others mentioned, resale value may not matter much, if at all.
Personally, I have a hard time thinking that way even for the cards that are most sentimental to me. Even the cards I currently cannot imagine ever selling I still would want slabbed by the company that will provide the highest resale value.
I guess these two things come to mind:
Even if one has no intentions of selling today, that decision could change in 5, 10, or 20 years. So why not just go with the grading company that provides the most value today, in preparation for the unknown future?
Even if one never sells, wouldnāt they want their next of kin to get the most value from selling the card?
Iām amazed that this thread has become solely about the choice of PSA vs CGC. Itās kinda nuts to me how much everyone is focused on having every piece of their collection optimized to sell at the drop of a hat, and being a CGC 9.5 is probably as āoptimizedā as the card can get anyways.
I guess Iām in the minority, but I absolutely donāt care about the label when buying a card this rare. Whether itās mint raw, PSA 8, CGC 9.5, EMA SHEEEEEESH, whatever, itās still the same card and the price Iām willing to pay doesnāt really change much for a case.
I was genuinely curious what the thought process might be on grading a card this expensive given Iāll never have to make a decision like that. I enjoyed reading the responses but apologies for derailing the thread
Yeah, the harsh grade meme got pushed a lot in 2021 all over YouTube and other sites from what I was seeing, and I think many got caught up in it thinking they could turn CGC 8s into PSA 10s and stuff, lol. Not saying CGC doesnāt grade harsh when you get into the upper tier grades, but there is definitely a change in standard as you move into lower tiers on average from what Iāve seen compared to PSA standards. Not saying itās impossible to find a PSA 8 equivalent within a CGC 8 or 8.5, but on average they are usually quite a lot different quality card from what Iāve purchased and reviewed myself.
This has been my experience in Pokemon at least, with Magic Iām generally really satisfied with lower grade CGC stuff even compared to BGS or PSA at times. I think they do a fine job with MTG cards and Iāve seen no change in grading quality with old or new label or whenever the standards changed as some have claimed.
Anyway, with a card like this Illustrator I think that ā9.5ā and āGem Mintā looks a lot better than just PSA 9 Mint. I would be very happy to own this card like anyone else. However, my personal preference would be a 9.5 BGS over CGC. I think this card would look so much nicer in a gold label Beckett slab over the blue gradient.
For card this rare, I think it doesnāt really matter whether the grading is done by PSA or CGC. The latter is gaining popularity and acceptance across different TCGs.
I mean, generally a large aspect of grading at all is added monetary value. Its not the only aspect, but youd certainly be in the minority if you dont care about the financial implications of using various companyās services, whose business model is literally based off the monetary value grading adds to a card.
Id venture to guess the majority of people on this forum dont understand the nuances of owning/ grading a card of this rarity/ price/ level, etc. I think its only natural that people would wonder about the process and why one would choose to grade with one company over others.
Arenāt all the PSA fees loosely based on a percentage of the cardās value?
$10k sounds like a ridiculous grading fee, but if itās the same percentage of the cardās value as a $100 fee is to a 100x cheaper card, then it doesnāt actually make any (relative) difference.
To the poster that was surprised by this discussion:
Iāll echo what others said.
This is a card most of us will never own. What would you prefer for us to do, say āCool! Awesome card!ā and then leave the thread?
This is a window into a high end corner of the market that we donāt often get to see. It is a learning experience for the majority of us not operating on that level, to try to understand the thought processes. Some things just scale up directly, but clearly others do not. I find value in these discussions, anyway.
I was with you until the BGS 9.5 over CGC 9.5 lol. With a card like this, being able to view it closely would be very important to me. I find that BGS slabs simply donāt offer as ideal of a viewing experience as CGC (or PSA) slabs do. I only have a handful of BGS slabs, but I just canāt stand not being able to see the card clearly ā and this would be an especially important consideration for a card of this magnitude.
When BGS released concepts for their slab redesigns, my initial thought was ādamn are those ugly, but if it means they fix the haphazard, blurry sleeve they put the card in then Iām fine with itā
You can definitely see the holo/surface better with CGC, so thatās fair. I just feel the Gold label combined with the rest of the card would look really nice as well, since it has the nice yellow/gold holo background.
PSA fees are based on the cardās āvalueā but the plastic encapsulating this card is exactly the same as the plastic they encapsulate Vivid Voltage commons withā¦
