This was brought to my attention (in this thread) back in September. As I stated then, FRLG is notorious for being the easiest to grade of the 16 EX sets. In fact, it may well have the best print quality of any WotC or EX set (bar Skyridge, maybe). As such, this doesn’t even remotely surprise me. Granted, I should’ve noted that exception in my original post.
Actually, Hidden Legends has the highest average % for Gem EX’s, and Delta Species has the highest rate for Gem holos. I’ve compiled rank data for every ex-series holo and Ultra Rare, and would be more than happy to share it if need be. FRLG is close, yes, but my main point throughout all of this is that you don’t *know* these things for a fact. You originally stated “If you think you have a CGC 10-Quality WotC/EX Holo, you’re wrong,” and quickly backpedaled as each post went on. My original point still stands; without a CGC Pop Report nobody can possibly talk in absolutes like you did, and I knew it would just be a matter of time until one popped up from the woodworks.
FRLG is still easier than HL to grade. FRLG has a lower percentage of 10s only because it has multiple chase exs (namely Charizard) that have tons of lower graded copies.
And it should’ve been clear that I wasn’t literally saying CGC 10 exs were impossible. I was saying that it’s practically impossible (in response to someone implying that many of their PSA 10s would cross to CGC 10s). That’s why I said “simply put” – I didn’t think I’d have to clarify that I wasn’t saying it was literally impossible. I was using ‘impossible’ to describe something so difficult that, for practical purposes, is not possible.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not always right. I concede points all the time. However, in this instance, I am right. FRLG is easier than HL to grade (for the reason I described in the post I just made). Or you can just accept Tapp’s specious reasoning and mock me instead of actually contributing to the conversation.
I’m not even taking lower grades into account; only PSA 9:PSA 10 ratio, so you can again stop trying to backpedal. In either scenario you are *still* wrong, but I don’t have the time or patience to try to explain mathematics on a collecting forum. Statistics do not care about your opinions or mine.
95% Avg. EXHL 10 to 9 Ratio
is greater than
74% Avg. EXFRLG 10 to 9 Ratio
Mm okay. I see CGC 10s on eBay every once in a while, but they’re definitely rare. Not sure if the sparsity is due to lack of people using CGC, or if they’re more strict than BGS
One extremely obvious factor that you’re missing (among others): 3 of the 9 HL exs are shattered ice exs (which are extremely easy 10s), whereas only 3 out of the 12 FRLG exs are. That doesn’t make HL easier to grade – that just means that a higher proportion of exs in HL are shattered ice exs (aka easy 10s). If you want to make a useful comparison, exclude those. Otherwise all you’ve done is conclude that HL has a higher proportion of shattered ice exs (which is, of course, true).
I think you meant 3 of 9* first off.
I can tell you’re not fully getting your head around this whole math thing but I’ll try to break this down as best I can.
You are STILL wrong, but I’ll continue to play your game.
Hidden Legends WITH the cracked ice EX’s (as presented before:) 96.4% Avg. PSA 10 to 9 ratio
Hidden Legends WITHOUT the cracked ice EX’s: 82.6% Avg. PSA 10 to 9 ratio
FireRed LeafGreen WITH cracked ice Secret Rares: 86.9% Avg. PSA 10 to 9 ratio
FireRed LeafGreen WITHOUT cracked ice Secret Rares: 74.9% Avg. PSA 10 to 9 ratio
Alas, you’re still wrong. I don’t know how many circles you want to keep running around in, but I’m sure you have yet another parameter you want to throw down to try and get the outcome you desire. Sadly, the numbers will continue doing their thing and will disregard feelings and/or opinions. I am now signing off because this is absolutely exhausting.
I’ve been trying to engage calmly and in good faith, and your previous posts made it seem that you were, too – but now you’re just being rude. Math doesn’t lie, but statistics often don’t take all of the relevant variables into account. This is exactly the issue with your analysis. If you decide you’d like to discuss this civilly, I’d be more than willing to.
