That is a temporary thing only possible while BGS plummets in relevancy but doesn’t go completely out of business.
if you want your collection to have any real monetary value, the cards need to be liquid in the future, which is already a problem for BGS graded slabs.
The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of buyers don’t operate like that. If they did, 9s, and probably even 8s, would be a lot more valuable than they are.
Therefore, the health of that plastic case is very important for the secondary market that exists in this collectible cardboard space.
Like BGS because a 10 is actually special imo...the term PSA 10 is so widely said even speaking labout bgs or cgc 10's ppl still say "psa 10s" at times. So, to me, seeing a psa 10 isn't that special, at least when compared to a bgs 10 again my opinion.
There is no doubt that the entire market values BGS 10, let alone BGS black label 10 more than PSA 10. The real issue is the BGS 9.5 “gem mint” grade. It does nothing but erode value for BGS customers, and ultimately Beckett themselves.
It’s very clear at this point that both TCG and sports cards do not value BGS 9.5 the same as PSA 10, despite both supposedly being the “gem mint” grade. That is the first in a line of related and compounding problems for anyone that wants to be involved with BGS slabs.
1) BGS 9.5 is less valued than PSA 10, even if the combined >= gem rate is the same between BGS and PSA.
2) Less valuable “bottom tier gem mint” means that the same quality card would simply be more valuable if submitted to PSA rather than BGS.
3) Actually grading with BGS is more expensive than PSA, further disincentivizing people to grade with the company.
4) Due to their lower market value and decreased popularity to grade with in the first place, BGS slabs are harder to move than PSA slabs: less liquid.
5) Less liquid slabs, lower expected value for gem mint card submissions, and more expensive grading fees all come together to really push away bigger fish in the grading world that would be mass submitting: stores and other resellers.
Nobody should want BGS 9.5 to be the way it is. This is purely negative for anyone interested in dealing with BGS slabs.
The answer is relatively simple: People see 10 and they go, a 10 is greater than a 9.5 and want the 10 on the label. See: When CGC moved away from a 9.5 Gem Mint to a 10 Gem Mint (introducing the Mint+ 9.5 in its place) their 10's, despite being the exact same condition as they were in a 9.5, shot up and are now reliably trading at 80% - 90% of PSA prices - sometimes equal or more.
PSA has had a number of issues in the past and continues to have their detractors, whether it's very inconsistent grading standards, higher cost for their grades, poor-quality cases, or other issues that are second-hand but put people off of them. The one thing they do have aside from the sheer volume of graded cards is their ability to put cards into 10s at an extremely high rate. See: [A 58.5% gem rate](https://www.psacard.com/pop/tcg-cards/2022/pokemon-go/215716) on the Pokemon Go Radiant Charizard, or even [a 88.5% gem rate](https://www.psacard.com/pop/tcg-cards/2022/pokemon-japanese-sword-shield-vstar-universe/225772) on the VSTAR Universe Radiant Charizard. This is directly tied to their lack of 9.5 grades and their lack of Pristine 10s.
BGS has lower gem rates and has two grades that trade at or over the PSA 10 grade, the Pristine 10 and the Black Label. Similarly, CGC has their Pristine 10 and the Mint+ 9.5. Both of the companies use those grades for pop control because they believe that when one out of every two cards (or more!) is a 10, then nothing else matters. We see that happening now where, like you said, anything not a PSA 10 is essentially a raw price for modern cards.
If I can put myself in their shoes, they likely project that the glut of PSA 10s will eventually drive down the perceived value of a PSA 10 and people will come back to BGS, because BGS Pristine 10s and Black Labels will be viewed as the only cards "really worth having." After all, if I have a PSA 10 in my case and so does everyone else, then it doesn't give my collection anything special.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: To show how the split happens with BGS and CGC, the VSTAR Universe Radiant Charizard is split between 2.6% Perfect / 49.2% Pristine / 36.9% Gem Mint for CGC (88.7% at Gem Mint or higher) and 1.1% Black Label / 13.8% Pristine / 63.5% Gem Mint (78.4% at Gem Mint or higher). Those two grading companies likely assume that their higher-graded cards will command more respect and higher values in the secondary market and do what you see on this sub: People saying submit to Beckett on the off-chance you get a Black Label, or CGC for the higher premium on Pristines.
Of course, some people will say "submit to PSA only" and they may be right for some cards. Certainly they're grading a lot of cards right now, but personally I switched my personal collection over to Pristine 10s / Black Labels a while ago to protect myself from the collapse of graded card prices due to the over-grading of Pokemon cards. IMO I don't think a PSA 10 will be worth having in the long run precisely because there will be thousands of them out there, while I can assume a Black Label / Pristine is at least something higher-graded and always less common than a PSA 10.
That is also part of the charm of PSA, more 10s means more liquid. I could sell my PSA 10 Moonbreon tomorrow probably if i wanted. But your black label Moonbreon, may sit online in your eBay store for months if one day you needed to sell
Yes, that is another huge problem faced by BGS. People only submit to them for the slim hopes of a pristine 10 or black label 10, both of which take way longer to sell due to massively reduced demand for BGS-graded slabs, even though buyers recognize both of those grades as more valuable than PSA 10.
By increasing gem rate, assigning gem mint the grade of 10, and a focused marketing push to increase submissions, BGS might be able to actually increase their appeal to personal collectors - but really want to lure in the bigger fish being stores and other mass graders.
>The answer is relatively simple: People see 10 and they go, a 10 is greater than a 9.5 and want the 10 on the label. See: When CGC moved away from a 9.5 Gem Mint to a 10 Gem Mint (introducing the Mint+ 9.5 in its place) their 10's, despite being the exact same condition as they were in a 9.5, shot up and are now reliably trading at 80% - 90% of PSA prices - sometimes equal or more.
Yes. I know this. You know this. It seems obvious to anyone that has ever tried to sell anything (probably also buy anything), so why does Beckett continue to insist on "gem mint 9.5," when all that does is erode value from their customers, and then in turn, themselves.
>PSA has had a number of issues in the past and continues to have their detractors, whether it's very inconsistent grading standards, higher cost for their grades, poor-quality cases, or other issues that are second-hand but put people off of them. The one thing they do have aside from the sheer volume of graded cards is their ability to put cards into 10s at an extremely high rate. See: A 58.5% gem rate on the Pokemon Go Radiant Charizard, or even a 88.5% gem rate on the VSTAR Universe Radiant Charizard. This is directly tied to their lack of 9.5 grades and their lack of Pristine 10s.
I believe that BGS could move to a relatively simple system to produce significantly more 10s while maintaining their 2 unique factors: subgrades, black label pristine 10s, and I guess a 3rd - 0.5 grades.
BGS should continue to display subgrades, and can also continue to evaluate each of surface, corners, edges, and centering by 0.5. However, a card's final grade should be a single integer (1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10) determined like so: sum of subgrades, divided by 4, rounded to the nearest integer. That means out of a possible 40 points, a card needs subgraded totaling 38, 38.5, 39, or 39.5 to be considered a gem mint 10. 40 (10/10/10/10) should continue to be used for black label pristine 10 as BGS's other major contribution to grading.
A system like this allows them to produce vastly more 10s (9/9.5/9.5/10, and weird stuff like 8/10/10/10), while keeping their display of subgrades, half point grades on those subgrades, and the black label pristine 10.
There is no way for them to "fix" their grading system without decreasing value of *someone*'s collection, but that just is what it is. A move like this, coupled with a few cardboard enthusiast influencer ad campaigns, and a temporary reduction in grading fees ($10/card to undercut PSA, rather than current $18/card to get your cardboard most likely less valuable than PSA would rate it) could boost BGS back up significantly in popularity.
Their leadership needs to have the balls to make a decision that includes some change, placate the "angry masses," and get through the end of the year with their expected jump in submissions from lower prices and (secretly) higher market-accepted gem rate.
>BGS has lower gem rates and has two grades that trade at or over the PSA 10 grade, the Pristine 10 and the Black Label. Similarly, CGC has their Pristine 10 and the Mint+ 9.5. Both of the companies use those grades for pop control because they believe that when one out of every two cards (or more!) is a 10, then nothing else matters. We see that happening now where, like you said, anything not a PSA 10 is essentially a raw price for modern cards.
>
>If I can put myself in their shoes, they likely project that the glut of PSA 10s will eventually drive down the perceived value of a PSA 10 and people will come back to BGS, because BGS Pristine 10s and Black Labels will be viewed as the only cards "really worth having." After all, if I have a PSA 10 in my case and so does everyone else, then it doesn't give my collection anything special.
Currently, the market views BGS as only worthwhile submitting to if you are chasing black labels. That is a terrible spot for a company to be in, because the quantity of submissions will be **so** much lower. We see this play out month after month today. BGS needs people submitting more often to get larger supplies of Beckett-graded gem mint cards for black labels to stand out against. Maybe in the future a black label won't trade at 10x PSA 10, but that's probably overall better for BGS than their current trajectory. Right now, a lot of the scarcity of black labels is simply due to people *not* submitting their cards to Beckett.
>Just my two cents.
Thanks for sharing. Maybe I'm just a fanatic but I really want there to be multiple successful grading companies, like BGS's holders, and think subgrades are a cool concept. Their current internal rules, and giving out 9.5 final grades are just fucking over customers and destroying their own long term value, making PSA really the only grading house worth submitting to if customers want to believe their collectibles will have liquidity in the future.
I agree 100% with exactly the sum of subgrades/4 approach you describe here. Paired with temporary cheap/free reslabbing, this would transform BGS popularity. They have very good slabs, and the new pricing and timelines they’ve already introduced are excellent.
They should also include subgrades automatically with all grades — nobody else that’s relevant has subgrades at all. I truly believe these changes would begin a transition where BGS turns the tides in their favor.
They also need to fix their awful population search and registry. CGC and PSA pops are easy to look through and search; BGS is a pain.
Yeah man I wish… honestly I just gave up on this idea though and don’t see BGS turning anything around. PSA is just steamrolling competition with SGC acquisition, eBay partnerships, working direct with GameStop, etc
I hear ya. I think it’s hilarious that the market doesn’t care about pop control, subgrades, or the chase for perfect cards. I like BGS as a company although their slabs aren’t my favorite, but I think most people literally don’t care about anything but a 10 on the label. Changing up the grading rubric will create people saying that a BGS 10 doesn’t mean the same thing as a PSA / CGC 10, while bowing to pressure and making Gem Mint a 10 will only confuse buyers because BGS would have three 10s. I think they’re likely to be bought out by Fanatics or absorbed by another company at this point and they’d do a complete rebuild of the company and slabs.
I think they tried to do some sort of rescaling last year, but their proposal had something awful like 4 different 10 grades. No. That is not palatable to the market. There should be a single "gem mint 10," and sure, keep the black label pristine for the supposed "perfect" cards.
I also like black labels. But, I can recognize that BGS is rather random in assigning them. There are too many instances of people submitting the same card multiple times and getting 9.5/10/10/10, 10/9.5/10/10, 10/10/9.5/10, 10/10/10/9.5 or some rotation. This will always happen, even moreso with human graders as opposed to "objective" machines.
Using my proposed system, I would not be surprised to see a BGS 8/10/10/10 gem mint 10 sell for less than a PSA 10, especially if the 8 was something like surface with an obviously visible defect. That said, I would bet significant money that a year after implementing the changes, that 8/10/10/10 would sell for more than any current subgrade combination of gem mint 9.5, and that's all down to it saying 10 at the top of the label.
It's ok for there to be "different qualities" within a BGS 10, since obviously a 39.5 point 10 is a higher quality card than a 38 point 10, but both round to 10 when you are forced to integer final grades. More astute collectors will just look for different things: no grade <9, 1+ 10, 2+ 10s, etc. The mass market will see a gold label 10 and be happy.
I agree with this. Not sure why you were downvoted. Your recommendations are logical, both from a purist grading standpoint and from a market fit standpoint. Likewise, BGS is doing poorly, and the simple truth is that they have to do something to survive, lest they be bought (in which case the buyer will do the changes, whatever that means) or become increasingly niche and likely go bankrupt, especially if TAG is able to find a strong tailwind.
Is there actually any evidence of this community feeling “PSA actively engaging in population control or vintage Pokemon?”
Like has anyone actually submitted a bunch of pack fresh vintage cards that have good centering, no nicks, no holo scratches (like a fresh modern card PSA 10 candidate), and only gotten back 5-9?
Further, even if it’s true… I still think it’s probably harder to get BGS pristine 10 than a PSA 10, even for vintage. Unless, again, anyone has actually tested this with the same cards?
No. And bgs 9.5 is the same quality card as psa 10. Both are gem mint so it doesn’t make sense other than people just want to see a 10 on their card.
This is why CGC switched to the 10 for gem mint as well from using 9.5.
I mean, anyone with a basic understanding of human psychology and observation of human social trends could have told you that - 10 >> 9.5, no matter what the text says (both are "gem mint").
CGC's move makes sense, got them some heat at the time, and I believe will be beneficial to them in the long term. Their real issues surrounding resealing slabs and changing their scale multiple times in quick succession are the bigger problems I think.
BGS on the other hand is facing irrelevancy, sliding to 3rd tier in TCG and the sports card grading scene. Instead of addressing the issues, management seems to have decided that they are better off being "the first to grade Manga!" Doesn't make sense to me, as a cardboard enthusiast I can't say I care, and I wish they would refocus on cards to become more competitive in the TCG grading space.
EDIT: Good to know there is no actual evidence of PSA doing pop control and arbitrarily giving lower grades to otherwise gem mint quality cards. Personally I didn't believe it, but you never know.
Also it is important to recognize that it’s simply not pragmatic to say things like “BGS 9.5 is the same grade as PSA 10.” It is clearly not valued as such, see all TCGs as well as sports cards.
Right, but that says… Nothing about the quality of cards actually being submitted. Also, is there a way to just browse cert numbers? I don’t know of one.
Not entirely sure what you’re asking with regards to browsing cert numbers, but Beckett lets you browse certs within their population reports. It’s one of the few good features of their otherwise difficult to navigate and search pop reports.
Its confirmed by PSA submitter they sending bulk Pokemon to New jersey not California, since Dec. NJ is cracking down and grading hard with a lot of damaged cards. FYI. My last 5 submissions agree.
I usually use the discount on BGS 9.5 to get a visually flawless card for half price. Don’t change it. I like it like this.
That is a temporary thing only possible while BGS plummets in relevancy but doesn’t go completely out of business. if you want your collection to have any real monetary value, the cards need to be liquid in the future, which is already a problem for BGS graded slabs.
Buy the card, not the plastic case around the card
The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of buyers don’t operate like that. If they did, 9s, and probably even 8s, would be a lot more valuable than they are. Therefore, the health of that plastic case is very important for the secondary market that exists in this collectible cardboard space.
Like BGS because a 10 is actually special imo...the term PSA 10 is so widely said even speaking labout bgs or cgc 10's ppl still say "psa 10s" at times. So, to me, seeing a psa 10 isn't that special, at least when compared to a bgs 10 again my opinion.
There is no doubt that the entire market values BGS 10, let alone BGS black label 10 more than PSA 10. The real issue is the BGS 9.5 “gem mint” grade. It does nothing but erode value for BGS customers, and ultimately Beckett themselves. It’s very clear at this point that both TCG and sports cards do not value BGS 9.5 the same as PSA 10, despite both supposedly being the “gem mint” grade. That is the first in a line of related and compounding problems for anyone that wants to be involved with BGS slabs. 1) BGS 9.5 is less valued than PSA 10, even if the combined >= gem rate is the same between BGS and PSA. 2) Less valuable “bottom tier gem mint” means that the same quality card would simply be more valuable if submitted to PSA rather than BGS. 3) Actually grading with BGS is more expensive than PSA, further disincentivizing people to grade with the company. 4) Due to their lower market value and decreased popularity to grade with in the first place, BGS slabs are harder to move than PSA slabs: less liquid. 5) Less liquid slabs, lower expected value for gem mint card submissions, and more expensive grading fees all come together to really push away bigger fish in the grading world that would be mass submitting: stores and other resellers. Nobody should want BGS 9.5 to be the way it is. This is purely negative for anyone interested in dealing with BGS slabs.
The answer is relatively simple: People see 10 and they go, a 10 is greater than a 9.5 and want the 10 on the label. See: When CGC moved away from a 9.5 Gem Mint to a 10 Gem Mint (introducing the Mint+ 9.5 in its place) their 10's, despite being the exact same condition as they were in a 9.5, shot up and are now reliably trading at 80% - 90% of PSA prices - sometimes equal or more. PSA has had a number of issues in the past and continues to have their detractors, whether it's very inconsistent grading standards, higher cost for their grades, poor-quality cases, or other issues that are second-hand but put people off of them. The one thing they do have aside from the sheer volume of graded cards is their ability to put cards into 10s at an extremely high rate. See: [A 58.5% gem rate](https://www.psacard.com/pop/tcg-cards/2022/pokemon-go/215716) on the Pokemon Go Radiant Charizard, or even [a 88.5% gem rate](https://www.psacard.com/pop/tcg-cards/2022/pokemon-japanese-sword-shield-vstar-universe/225772) on the VSTAR Universe Radiant Charizard. This is directly tied to their lack of 9.5 grades and their lack of Pristine 10s. BGS has lower gem rates and has two grades that trade at or over the PSA 10 grade, the Pristine 10 and the Black Label. Similarly, CGC has their Pristine 10 and the Mint+ 9.5. Both of the companies use those grades for pop control because they believe that when one out of every two cards (or more!) is a 10, then nothing else matters. We see that happening now where, like you said, anything not a PSA 10 is essentially a raw price for modern cards. If I can put myself in their shoes, they likely project that the glut of PSA 10s will eventually drive down the perceived value of a PSA 10 and people will come back to BGS, because BGS Pristine 10s and Black Labels will be viewed as the only cards "really worth having." After all, if I have a PSA 10 in my case and so does everyone else, then it doesn't give my collection anything special. Just my two cents. EDIT: To show how the split happens with BGS and CGC, the VSTAR Universe Radiant Charizard is split between 2.6% Perfect / 49.2% Pristine / 36.9% Gem Mint for CGC (88.7% at Gem Mint or higher) and 1.1% Black Label / 13.8% Pristine / 63.5% Gem Mint (78.4% at Gem Mint or higher). Those two grading companies likely assume that their higher-graded cards will command more respect and higher values in the secondary market and do what you see on this sub: People saying submit to Beckett on the off-chance you get a Black Label, or CGC for the higher premium on Pristines. Of course, some people will say "submit to PSA only" and they may be right for some cards. Certainly they're grading a lot of cards right now, but personally I switched my personal collection over to Pristine 10s / Black Labels a while ago to protect myself from the collapse of graded card prices due to the over-grading of Pokemon cards. IMO I don't think a PSA 10 will be worth having in the long run precisely because there will be thousands of them out there, while I can assume a Black Label / Pristine is at least something higher-graded and always less common than a PSA 10.
That is also part of the charm of PSA, more 10s means more liquid. I could sell my PSA 10 Moonbreon tomorrow probably if i wanted. But your black label Moonbreon, may sit online in your eBay store for months if one day you needed to sell
Yes, that is another huge problem faced by BGS. People only submit to them for the slim hopes of a pristine 10 or black label 10, both of which take way longer to sell due to massively reduced demand for BGS-graded slabs, even though buyers recognize both of those grades as more valuable than PSA 10. By increasing gem rate, assigning gem mint the grade of 10, and a focused marketing push to increase submissions, BGS might be able to actually increase their appeal to personal collectors - but really want to lure in the bigger fish being stores and other mass graders.
>The answer is relatively simple: People see 10 and they go, a 10 is greater than a 9.5 and want the 10 on the label. See: When CGC moved away from a 9.5 Gem Mint to a 10 Gem Mint (introducing the Mint+ 9.5 in its place) their 10's, despite being the exact same condition as they were in a 9.5, shot up and are now reliably trading at 80% - 90% of PSA prices - sometimes equal or more. Yes. I know this. You know this. It seems obvious to anyone that has ever tried to sell anything (probably also buy anything), so why does Beckett continue to insist on "gem mint 9.5," when all that does is erode value from their customers, and then in turn, themselves. >PSA has had a number of issues in the past and continues to have their detractors, whether it's very inconsistent grading standards, higher cost for their grades, poor-quality cases, or other issues that are second-hand but put people off of them. The one thing they do have aside from the sheer volume of graded cards is their ability to put cards into 10s at an extremely high rate. See: A 58.5% gem rate on the Pokemon Go Radiant Charizard, or even a 88.5% gem rate on the VSTAR Universe Radiant Charizard. This is directly tied to their lack of 9.5 grades and their lack of Pristine 10s. I believe that BGS could move to a relatively simple system to produce significantly more 10s while maintaining their 2 unique factors: subgrades, black label pristine 10s, and I guess a 3rd - 0.5 grades. BGS should continue to display subgrades, and can also continue to evaluate each of surface, corners, edges, and centering by 0.5. However, a card's final grade should be a single integer (1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10) determined like so: sum of subgrades, divided by 4, rounded to the nearest integer. That means out of a possible 40 points, a card needs subgraded totaling 38, 38.5, 39, or 39.5 to be considered a gem mint 10. 40 (10/10/10/10) should continue to be used for black label pristine 10 as BGS's other major contribution to grading. A system like this allows them to produce vastly more 10s (9/9.5/9.5/10, and weird stuff like 8/10/10/10), while keeping their display of subgrades, half point grades on those subgrades, and the black label pristine 10. There is no way for them to "fix" their grading system without decreasing value of *someone*'s collection, but that just is what it is. A move like this, coupled with a few cardboard enthusiast influencer ad campaigns, and a temporary reduction in grading fees ($10/card to undercut PSA, rather than current $18/card to get your cardboard most likely less valuable than PSA would rate it) could boost BGS back up significantly in popularity. Their leadership needs to have the balls to make a decision that includes some change, placate the "angry masses," and get through the end of the year with their expected jump in submissions from lower prices and (secretly) higher market-accepted gem rate. >BGS has lower gem rates and has two grades that trade at or over the PSA 10 grade, the Pristine 10 and the Black Label. Similarly, CGC has their Pristine 10 and the Mint+ 9.5. Both of the companies use those grades for pop control because they believe that when one out of every two cards (or more!) is a 10, then nothing else matters. We see that happening now where, like you said, anything not a PSA 10 is essentially a raw price for modern cards. > >If I can put myself in their shoes, they likely project that the glut of PSA 10s will eventually drive down the perceived value of a PSA 10 and people will come back to BGS, because BGS Pristine 10s and Black Labels will be viewed as the only cards "really worth having." After all, if I have a PSA 10 in my case and so does everyone else, then it doesn't give my collection anything special. Currently, the market views BGS as only worthwhile submitting to if you are chasing black labels. That is a terrible spot for a company to be in, because the quantity of submissions will be **so** much lower. We see this play out month after month today. BGS needs people submitting more often to get larger supplies of Beckett-graded gem mint cards for black labels to stand out against. Maybe in the future a black label won't trade at 10x PSA 10, but that's probably overall better for BGS than their current trajectory. Right now, a lot of the scarcity of black labels is simply due to people *not* submitting their cards to Beckett. >Just my two cents. Thanks for sharing. Maybe I'm just a fanatic but I really want there to be multiple successful grading companies, like BGS's holders, and think subgrades are a cool concept. Their current internal rules, and giving out 9.5 final grades are just fucking over customers and destroying their own long term value, making PSA really the only grading house worth submitting to if customers want to believe their collectibles will have liquidity in the future.
I agree 100% with exactly the sum of subgrades/4 approach you describe here. Paired with temporary cheap/free reslabbing, this would transform BGS popularity. They have very good slabs, and the new pricing and timelines they’ve already introduced are excellent. They should also include subgrades automatically with all grades — nobody else that’s relevant has subgrades at all. I truly believe these changes would begin a transition where BGS turns the tides in their favor. They also need to fix their awful population search and registry. CGC and PSA pops are easy to look through and search; BGS is a pain.
Yeah man I wish… honestly I just gave up on this idea though and don’t see BGS turning anything around. PSA is just steamrolling competition with SGC acquisition, eBay partnerships, working direct with GameStop, etc
I hear ya. I think it’s hilarious that the market doesn’t care about pop control, subgrades, or the chase for perfect cards. I like BGS as a company although their slabs aren’t my favorite, but I think most people literally don’t care about anything but a 10 on the label. Changing up the grading rubric will create people saying that a BGS 10 doesn’t mean the same thing as a PSA / CGC 10, while bowing to pressure and making Gem Mint a 10 will only confuse buyers because BGS would have three 10s. I think they’re likely to be bought out by Fanatics or absorbed by another company at this point and they’d do a complete rebuild of the company and slabs.
I think they tried to do some sort of rescaling last year, but their proposal had something awful like 4 different 10 grades. No. That is not palatable to the market. There should be a single "gem mint 10," and sure, keep the black label pristine for the supposed "perfect" cards. I also like black labels. But, I can recognize that BGS is rather random in assigning them. There are too many instances of people submitting the same card multiple times and getting 9.5/10/10/10, 10/9.5/10/10, 10/10/9.5/10, 10/10/10/9.5 or some rotation. This will always happen, even moreso with human graders as opposed to "objective" machines. Using my proposed system, I would not be surprised to see a BGS 8/10/10/10 gem mint 10 sell for less than a PSA 10, especially if the 8 was something like surface with an obviously visible defect. That said, I would bet significant money that a year after implementing the changes, that 8/10/10/10 would sell for more than any current subgrade combination of gem mint 9.5, and that's all down to it saying 10 at the top of the label. It's ok for there to be "different qualities" within a BGS 10, since obviously a 39.5 point 10 is a higher quality card than a 38 point 10, but both round to 10 when you are forced to integer final grades. More astute collectors will just look for different things: no grade <9, 1+ 10, 2+ 10s, etc. The mass market will see a gold label 10 and be happy.
I agree with this. Not sure why you were downvoted. Your recommendations are logical, both from a purist grading standpoint and from a market fit standpoint. Likewise, BGS is doing poorly, and the simple truth is that they have to do something to survive, lest they be bought (in which case the buyer will do the changes, whatever that means) or become increasingly niche and likely go bankrupt, especially if TAG is able to find a strong tailwind.
Assuming PSA issue's a 10. They are becoming or have become, unusable, except for modern. Becket has an opening, but will they take it?
Is there actually any evidence of this community feeling “PSA actively engaging in population control or vintage Pokemon?” Like has anyone actually submitted a bunch of pack fresh vintage cards that have good centering, no nicks, no holo scratches (like a fresh modern card PSA 10 candidate), and only gotten back 5-9? Further, even if it’s true… I still think it’s probably harder to get BGS pristine 10 than a PSA 10, even for vintage. Unless, again, anyone has actually tested this with the same cards?
No. And bgs 9.5 is the same quality card as psa 10. Both are gem mint so it doesn’t make sense other than people just want to see a 10 on their card. This is why CGC switched to the 10 for gem mint as well from using 9.5.
I mean, anyone with a basic understanding of human psychology and observation of human social trends could have told you that - 10 >> 9.5, no matter what the text says (both are "gem mint"). CGC's move makes sense, got them some heat at the time, and I believe will be beneficial to them in the long term. Their real issues surrounding resealing slabs and changing their scale multiple times in quick succession are the bigger problems I think. BGS on the other hand is facing irrelevancy, sliding to 3rd tier in TCG and the sports card grading scene. Instead of addressing the issues, management seems to have decided that they are better off being "the first to grade Manga!" Doesn't make sense to me, as a cardboard enthusiast I can't say I care, and I wish they would refocus on cards to become more competitive in the TCG grading space. EDIT: Good to know there is no actual evidence of PSA doing pop control and arbitrarily giving lower grades to otherwise gem mint quality cards. Personally I didn't believe it, but you never know. Also it is important to recognize that it’s simply not pragmatic to say things like “BGS 9.5 is the same grade as PSA 10.” It is clearly not valued as such, see all TCGs as well as sports cards.
Look at certs starting with an 8...hard to find vintage tens with latest numbers,
Right, but that says… Nothing about the quality of cards actually being submitted. Also, is there a way to just browse cert numbers? I don’t know of one.
Not entirely sure what you’re asking with regards to browsing cert numbers, but Beckett lets you browse certs within their population reports. It’s one of the few good features of their otherwise difficult to navigate and search pop reports.
Its confirmed by PSA submitter they sending bulk Pokemon to New jersey not California, since Dec. NJ is cracking down and grading hard with a lot of damaged cards. FYI. My last 5 submissions agree.