I work in analytics and I must say this is a really good analysis. I would point out one flaw (maybe more of a caveat) in the pop report analysis. PSA does get far more submissions in general, which means loads more junk submissions as well. So the percentage of PSA 10s would be smaller (since it is a proportion of overall graded cards). One way to normalise the data is to use PSA/CGC 7 and above as the base number instead of the entire graded population. Grade 7 is a bit arbitrary but the idea is to only look at the grading performance of cards that are of decent quality.
That is a point that I considered; however, my counterpoint would be that most of the Gem Mint condition cards of value have long since been graded, well before CGC started grading cards. In the years that CGC have amassed this many Gem Mint cards, the population reports for PSA 10 for these cards have only increased by 0 to 5 copies. I think you’re right though about removing the outliers (cards below NM) to better assess Gem Rates.
I disagree with copping out by citing the unprovable claim that all gem mint cards had already been graded. The Pokémon boom brought a lot of cards out of the wood work. Sadly by this time PSA decided to control populations on their vintage Pokémon sets so many took their best cards to CGC to try and get a valid grade.
Most is not all. Not even by a longshot. Most could be 51%. All is 100%. So I'm with Classics on this one. The vast majority of high quality vintage cards have made their way to PSA, either before CGC was a thing, or in light of the fact that you can't sell a CGC 10 for squat compared to a PSA. So, aside from the collector standpoint of preferring the CGC slab/service, PSA is the choice for value alone.
@@Lmatdhr I didn't say they were "all gem mints had already been graded." How about this: in the 3 years that CGC has been grading cards, they have graded 20-50 Gem Mint copies of several of these cards (average of 14 copies) while PSA has added 0-4 new 10's to these population reports over the same 3 year span. Don't you think with PSA grading 10 times as many cards and a higher premium on PSA 10 grades, that PSA would have graded more Gem Mints during this span than CGC?
On January 14, 2021 PSA pop report on Meganium 1st Neo Genesis was 17 of 465. Today it is 20 of 1173. So in almost 1000 days (992 to be exact) 3 of 708 cards have gotten a 10. Granted, CGC has been around a bit longer, but not much, and in their 1200ish days they have 20 of 244 Gem Mint cards. It would be interesting to see how many crosses there were, but it is patently clear, CGC 10's have become relatively easy and the market is representing that. (I have a ton of actual data, I just randomly took Meganium because he is pretty cool)
Literally have cracked open cgc 9s and 9.5s and sent to psa and gotten 10s. I wouldn’t say it harder to get a psa 10. Tbh getting a pristine 10 cgc his harder than psa 10s.
I agree with everything here, but would follow up with a question: were any of those cards that you crossed-over vintage holos from this list? How about other vintage holos that are traditionally notorious for print-lines? That seems to be the sticking point here.
Very valuable to know the different scales each company have. Then throw the monkey wrench in of inconsistency and you've got yourself just enough to think about to drive a person crazy.
Very funny to call this a comparison or market analysis of CGC and PSA. This is a breakdown of every single way CGC cards have issues, with 0 effort or attention paid to the exact same flaws in PSA. You can call it the rarity of a PSA 10, but the reality is PSA has an awful rep of 0 effort being put in for grading. Look at any video of a PSA return and how frequently 50 cards will get the same grade in a submission to PSA. Sometimes you get 50 8's. Sometimes you get 50 9's. Its very funny to hear anyone say PSA grades harsher than CGC.
As far as I am aware - from grading at CGC and PSA, over 500 cards each - CGC has guidelines set as to what is a 10 or a 9 or any grade. It breaks down into 4 subcategories and it's more clear as to why cards get 10s. Grading at PSA is more like there are very much more vague guidelines as to what is a in what grade, and the criteria of what is graded is never known. Per PSA themselves, "a PSA gem mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card.... (the card) must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for slight printing imperfection". By PSA's own definition certain print line or errors are fine, at their discretion of what is okay and what isn't. It's so inconsistent that if you really want to do a market analysis, please be impartial
This video was specifically about the sudden and extreme drop in value of CGC 10’s for vintage holographic cards, which makes perfect sense given the reasons I outlined in the video. It’s true that PSA is inconsistent (like any grading company) and a much easier grade for ultra-modern, Japanese, and non-holo cards, but those aren’t the cards experiencing significant drops and therefore aren’t the focus of this video. Vintage holographic cards, particularly those most susceptible to print lines are objectively and demonstrably more difficult to grade with PSA, due to how each company applies its Gem Mint criteria. I welcome data to the contrary, if you think my analysis for this specific subset of cards is inaccurate.
@@pokemon_classics this video is titled as a market analysis for PSA VS CGC. You trash CGC and point out the flaws in their grading, then do not do the same for PSA. If this is truly an unbiased market analysis, I would expect some analysis on PSA. Literally spend the entire video "CGC grades like this, CGC does this" but are completely ignoring the borderline false scarcity of 10s that PS creates. As for vintage cards - CGC's grading standards for vintage cards was changed not during this last change (black label change) it was changed approximately a year ago, well prior to this black label. Again, if you want to do an unbiased comparison please both sides fairly including the flaws in the PSA system. I do not like the CGC change and I'm not surprised the market went down on these cards. The real reason the market is going down for CGC is because they threw their formula to the window, stopped caring about subgrades (which is how they grade anyway) and now if you wanted to understand why a card didn't grade well, you have no clue - Just like PSA. Your going from a known model with clear information going to the users about flaws, to the literal same blind trust scale PSA uses. Companies like Beckett (still do) and CGC Used to be the place to go for cards that you knew were pristine and wanted to grade and know exactly what's wrong (corners, centering, edges or surface). Beckett still does but CGC has literally become PSA but worse prices because there is no trust in CGC anyone.
@@coolykid123789 What you're asking for really isn't feasible in a single video: to compare every grading metric within every subset of cards (there's too many factors to isolate). It's the same reason I had to narrow the focus specifically to just Gem Mint grades and not looking at CGC 10 Pristines, which are almost universally better condition and greater scarcity than their PSA 10 counterparts. I generally structure my videos around a singular topic of conversation and dive into the specific reasons or factors at work. In this case, I think my introduction clearly defined the problem (CGC 10 volatility for vintage holos) and looking at probable reasons explaining this trend. This video was never intended or presented as a comprehensive analysis of each company's grading scale, practices, policies, and flaws . . . again, that is too broad of a topic to cover in any meaningful way. I do see your point though, that the title of this video is pretty broad, implying a more comprehensive comparison of grading standards than the video delivers. I also agree with your point about CGC diverging from their model and their support of subgrades negatively affecting their branding and their niche within the market. However, I still feel VERY strongly that it's more attributable to the reasons I outlined in the video: a sudden saturation of 10's upgraded from 9.5's, hitting the market primarily at once. This seems self-evident and the drastic uptick in populations and subsequent sales make it almost irrefutable. I'm not trashing CGC, though I am critical of the decision to change the grading scale when market memory had already been established (that's tough on everyone). Also, CGC allowing holos with print lines to still potentially earn 10's isn't trashing them, it's just the objective reality of how their grading scale is designed to function . . . that doesn't make it inherently bad, just different. I think CGC has the most attractive cases on the market; I really like their new labels; I appreciate that they offer faster and more affordable grading options; and I fully acknowledge that they grade more harshly on many (most perhaps) other subsets of cards. Again, that wasn't relevant to this topic though. I can't make the video you want me to make without some significant generalizations, but I was planning on making some follow-up videos looking at other subsets of Pokemon, comparing population data, and speculating on the sales trends. Those will likely showcase both companies in a different light.
@@pokemon_classics if you spend 75% of the video comparing CGC cards DIRECTLY to PSA cards, you should probably take the time to explain both scales and not just the one that you want to. PSA 10's are just taken as your golden standard with no explanation of what it actually takes to get a 10. They literally have their grading scale listed on the website (not that they follow it) but you chose not to invest any energy into explaining that side.
I just saw a PSA 10 gengar web sell for 1.3k on PWCC that looked like it fell off of a motorcycle. The vast majority of poketubers own and deal in PSA exclusively. This guy is one of those people. He isn't talking about the cards that PSA grades more leniently than CGC because then the market wouldn't make any sense, and he wants to tell you that the reason a pop 7000 offcenter modern PSA 10 with two spots of edgewear is triple the price of a perfectly centered CGC 10 with nothing visibly wrong with it is because PSA grades harder. But he can't tell you that because its objectively false when you look at gem rates overall, so he has to make a video about the specific kind of card that PSA grades harder than CGC, pretend that he has proven that they are harder graders overall, and title the video as such and write his conclusion as such. And then in the comments when people point this out, he simply just has to remind the viewer that the video was just about vintage holos silly! EZ. The sad thing is that videos like this have way more to do with CGC price decline than grading standards: PSA owners and sellers getting as many people as they can to not like CGC.
PSA 100% grades modern and Japanese cards easier (which is a hefty majority of cards they receive/grade)! The population reports fully support that. However, PSA grades vintage cards with print-lines more harshly than CGC, at least that's what the data suggests (significantly so) and what this video was about right from the beginning. I don't know what else to tell you . . . I've fully disclosed my preference for PSA and acknowledged the specific sub-set of cards under analysis. I've also stated numerous times here, and in numerous videos that CGC slabs look the best, are generally a great value for buyers, and have a faster and more affordable service. I'm not anti-CGC, but the CGC slabs that have seen the most substantial price drops are the ones that have disproportionately high CGC 10 populations compared to PSA, which makes sense. This video was made in direct response to a larger discussion about several of those cards in GCG dropping so significantly in price, which I showed/explained at the beginning of the video.
@@pokemon_classics classics, the worst psa 10 l've EVER seen was an English Vintage card, worst 10 in ANY slab I've ever seen for the record, I can even show you.
Just curious why you didn't use Pristine 10 for CGC if you're looking at both the highest level equivalents. Wouldn't that have given you a better metric to compare with?
This video wasn't about comparing the highest grade equivalents, but rather made specifically in response to discussions about CGC 10 price volatility on vintage and many people asking/speculating about why those prices are falling and/or not reaching PSA 10 prices . . . this video hopefully explains some of the reasons why the market views them differently (despite a similar number and name). I think most (including myself) would agree that the CGC Pristine 10 is generally a tougher grade and higher quality. However, those are pretty scarce and would be more comparable to BGS 10's in terms of examining price action and sales history.
I've seen psa cards with 3 dings on the surface right next to another. I'm like how can you miss that and gem it. First off psa don't hit print lines. Or maybe there just hitting you with a full point for a card that has the upmost imperfections but a print line. I understand dings and scratches and everything else. But psa has never hit me for a print line. Not once!
yeah maybe its not the best way to compare just the gem mint 10 slabs because PSA gets much more junk too and because they have been in the game longer. People that got to the hype couple years ago sent all their old cards to PSA just to get even the lower grades and because they were the biggest company by far back then. But yeah some of those cards shows that CGC dont care print lines that much and its easier to get Gem mint with older cards. The change of the CGC grades was the big thing. The market got so many new gem mint cards at once that it needed to react.
That’s fair but a counterpoint: in the three years that CGC has been grading cards they’ve graded this many Gem Mint cards despite having about 1/10 of the volume. Meanwhile, most of the population reports on these cards have only gone up by 0-4 PSA 10’s in that same 3 years. The amount of junk sent to PSA may impact the Gem Rate, but we would also expect the PSA 10 population report to increase more than CGC due to the massive volume, but it hasn’t . . . in fact, it’s significantly less.
You definitely earned my sub from this video!!! I just so happened to be searching for this exact information. Earlier in the day I had taken a good little assortment of cards that I have slapped to a card shop local here, just for shits and giggles, and to see if they had more packs LOL………The guy essentially laughed at me because I handed him CGC slabbed cards. And I was really wondering because I’d just opened a ton of of base set and fossil packs, I did make my own PSA packs, but I was just wondering like what was the deal with CGC and why I’d have a person react the way they did. You certainly cleared it up for me. I understand now, but it was still kind of ridiculous the way this individual did, especially when I hand you a literal whole handful of prestine base set holos. I just didn’t understand the hate, and I really all your video and the knowledge you’ve shared, thank you very much!
Aren't all slabs crashing though? The entire market is. Maybe you said this in this video and I missed it but wouldn't the same decline be happening even in PSA slabs?
Basically the grading standards of PSA for vintage (And Vintage Only) is incredibly harsh in recent days. Do take note however that many vintage cards in old PSA slabs were much more lenient in grading. But yes, the premium on Gem Mint PSA vintage cards is well-earned. However even if you aren’t getting the same premium for PSA, sending Vintage cards to CGC is still a good idea, unless you are really truly sure your cards are perfect (What are the chance though. Not even a pack fresh vintage cards had much chance of getting 10s). You’d rather getting the “easy” cgc 10s instead of psa 8-9 due to their unnecessarily harsh grading. And keep in mind those are only about vintages. When it comes to Modern, PSA is giving out 10s for everything and everyone.
so PSA handed out easy 10s to vintage in the past, and now dont grade vintage fairly and its impossible to get a vintage 10. that doesn't mean the vintage PSA 10 is well earned. It means the vintage psa 10 is probably scuffed and likely offcenter, and also that PSA isn't a fair grader. what am I missing here? has the whole world gone crazy?
@@hulkingmass Not easy, but they were much more lenient back in the days when cards isnt 10 grands in a psa 10… Nowadays when the value of the vintage cards in 10 is so much higher, they are no longer willing to give them out just as easily to keep the market from flooding. You could occasionally find vintage cards in old slabs that have visible imperfections that makes the grade questionable. That’s why people differentiate between the old certs and new certs.
This is actually misleading because psa old cert 10s were more similar to cgc 10s of today The 2xxxx and 4xxxxx vintage psa cards, most of these if cracked open and submitted in 2024 would receive a 9 at best. I always get a premium for my new cert cards Case in point. I was watching a video 2 and a half years ago about gem rate charizard cards. He noted charizard LC reverse at the time didnt make the list Since then, in over 1300 submissions there have been 6 psa 10s The pop report went from 78 to 84 Thats 0.04% If we are talking modern certs what your saying is actually way way WAY worse
Good analysis, HOWEVER its pretty well known that PSA grades much harder on vintage, and CGC grades much harder on modern. To complete the analysis, it would only be fair to do a follow up video on modern cards as well. FYI im a collector of both types of slabs, and I feel like most of you guys doing these analysis on RU-vid are extremely biased towards PSA. I mean, you entire collection is PSA, Ive watched you for years. Please do a follow up!
Agreed, PSA seems to be much easier on modern and vintage non-holos. Treatment of print lines seems to be the delineating factor. And don’t get me started on the inconsistency of PSA when it comes to pack grading! I am more than willing to admit my bias for PSA, but I’m also willing to acknowledge strengths and weaknesses of any company. This video was specifically in response to people panicking about CGC 10 prices falling so rapidly since the new scale was implemented. I was trying to show the reasons why the price volatility makes sense. I don’t collect modern or track it much, but I’ll see if I can put together a follow-up, because I know your right about it.
@@pokemon_classics Thanks! Maybe just try the Vmax alt arts from the sword and shield era. I did not personally do any research, but Id love to see the breakdown of PSA 10's vs CGC 10's. My personal experience is that CGC ALWAYS kills me on grading modern. Im probably only going to submit modern to PSA from here on out. Thanks again!
@@pokemon_classics No offense, but this is an absurd thing to find in the comments of a video you made called "CGC vs PSA Grading 2023: Watch Before Buying! (Market Analysis)"
Interesting analysis though I feel CGC is far more consistent than PSA especially when you look at the condition of some of the old cert PSA 10s which would be lucky to receive an 8 if regraded.
It depends on the card, but for most I would say a CGC 10 is more difficult than a PSA 9 and should warrant a premium over the PSA 9. However, there are other variables to consider too.
Does this factor in the fact that many people in the last few years are opening packs and submitting a lot more pack fresh cards than previously years. Could be that people have been submitting more of these new cards to CGC.
dude your videos are the best. Very researched, informative and interesting. seriously you are my favorite youtuber for pokemon info and trends, i very much appreciate your point of view on the market and taste in cards. well done.
What are your thoughts about japanese vintage unlimited cards that had shorter production period and lower population, are sometimes more affordable than 1st edition english counterparts?
This is all well and good. People get too caught up on the smallest things with these grades. At the end of the day, you have the artwork and the card. The difference between a CGC 10 and PSA 10 is so small, to be so nitpicky is funny to me. Take a step back and think hard about what the hobby is really all about. Getting so caught up on CGC vs PSA vs BGS is ridiculous.
this guys has thousands in PSA slabs he is trying to sell. they all do. why do you think poketubers go out of their way to make videos like this? because they are literally in the PSA business. their dwindling margin depends on the PSA premium continuing to exist. they need you to believe the card inside is better.
I've been bidding on cgc vintage slabs in the blue cases lately and I'm going to crack them and send to PSA to see if I can increase their market value. Should be an interesting experiment
Good luck on the cross-over lottery, I’ve seen some people be successful with old CGC grades, when they were very, very strict. Wishing you solid grades!
CGC Pristine doesn’t factor in at all? Super confused, or did you combine CGCs higher level with gem mint? Mistakes were made regardless , good luck 🍀 Xoxo
I’m not sure what to think about CGC Pristine yet (limited sample size). They seem to be better condition and tougher to achieve than PSA 10 so far . . . more comparable to a BGS 10.
Yes it’s possible. I’ve seen Psa slabs with print lines also but usually cgc will allow a print line. Psa seems to be lenient on a few edge wear etc where cgc would be more strict on these. Grading companies grade cards differently
That is a great question. Personally, I would say no, with one important caveat. It makes more sense to allow a production line (which really isn’t damage) to be Gem Mint when a higher grade also exists like CGC Pristine 10. Again, just my opinion, but I think Mint condition would be more appropriate for print lines, after all that’s what “Mint” implies, fresh from production, but not perfect. Having two tiers of 10’s, a 9.5, and a mint 9 seems terribly redundant to me, especially without sub-grades.
There's several factors besides just this data. And I don't think it's a bad thing that CGC has become more lenient. A few months ago you could argue that PSA was more lenient and had a much higher pop 10 report. In order to not completely rip off early CGC adopters they needed to bumb up CGC 9.5s up to a new 10. They also released a pop report showing that CGC rarely gave out prestine or perfect 10s. To ofset it, they needed to ease up on their grading scale. Yes something they should've done from the start as they were Too strict. Many folks were cracking their CGC blue label 9.5s to crossover grade to PSA because PSA was known for giving out 10s even if BGS and CGC would give them a 9.5. Many collectors prefer to see a 10 over 9.5 and PSA in the earlier days wanted to please their customers, therefore giving them 10s in hopes of getting their returning business. All grading companies do seem to gatekeep and be stricter on vintage pokemon cards. I'm not a PSA or CGC "purest" but collect both slabs, and grade with both depending on the card and not to mention price. CGC is currently $5 cheaper per card which is significant. I've graded over 2000 cards with PSA and 4000 cards with CGC. Neither is perfect as they are both flawed. However, I do like CGC's new prestine 10 label look and cost right now. PSA is fine, but since their management change, they have been nickle and diming with upcharges.
Great information but I don’t think we will ever really know the true real numbers and when I say true I means cards that were sent in to actually try to get a 10. As we all know when the whole virus thing happened. Lots of people went to collecting and submitting cards like crazy (as I one of them lol) I sent in trash cards cards knowing good and well they would maybe get a 5 in psa. Went with them because I heard back then that cgc was harder to get better grades so I only sent in cards to them that I “knew” were in mint condition and had a high chance of getting 9.5-10. I would sell those trash psa to get more MP or LP cards to send to psa and better cards I sent to cgc. Not saying everyone thinks the same but from the people I speak to. Quick flips they go with psa so could that be the reason why they have less 10s cause people sent in so many “well loved cards” to them? Lol before I get hate I love both slabs just picky on which company I send which cards to. As like everyone else I want to see 10s on my shelf. We need someone to work for both companies for a few months then come out and tell us which grades harder.
One more thing. You have a point. I get it well. But to be honest ...new collectors are messing the market up. Say pauls dad died, ok his dad was a collector and had alot of slabs. There are times to sell a card and times not to. So he gets dads collection not knowing nothing and just gets on ebay like people tell them to and mess comps up. Or just people crazy or rich enough to hold back and take what they can get when the time is right. I will tell you timing is bad when the market is not so good put your holy grails up. Dont be like Paul and let these rich people hold out. If you dont get what you want now. Your kids will. And if you dont have kids you might need a companion. Im talking to everyone. Dont be mad bc people are holding. Lets play some Chess
I think you have to take into account differing markets here. PSA grades vintage much more strictly than CGC does. If you look at modern, CGC grades it more strictly. I think the gem rate would also be more valuable as a percentage of 9s and 10s. So for example, maybe a 1% gem rate becomes a 5% gem rate when only considering cards that are 9s and above. Tin foil hat theory, maybe PSA has a vested interest in keeping the gem rate low for certain cards. Maybe their standards are a little unrealistic.
Hi. What do you think about this: I buy a 9,5 BGS gold star Mew with (9.5 corners 9,5 edges 9,5 surface 9 centering) and I send it to regrade in either CGC or PSA in a hunt for CGC pristine or PSA10. The card is in so good condition that I can't find any flaws in it. Which one should I pick CGC or PSA? Or is this whole plan doomed to fail in your opinion? Thanks for your time.
Just keep in mind that both CGC and PSA have a Centering leniency of 60:40 in the front. BGS is 50:50 in the front. If the centering is a 9.5 in BGS it will most likely score a 10 in CGC and PSA.
Was it taken into account that breaking the slabs of PSA 9 is very common in order to potentially get a 10 on a regrade, as PSA consistency is not that good? It massively bloated their PSA 9 pop and total cards graded. I don't think that people were regrading their CGC 9.5 with CGC in the hope of a pristine very often. Might start happening more now with the changes.
To a degree, however, that number can't really be quantified . . . and even if it were, each resubmission that received a 9 (or lower) would still reflect an additional card going through the grading process and still not receiving a PSA 10. It still supports the difficulty of grading vintage holos susceptible to print lines.
Exact same cards being regraded multiple times is falsifying the data for sure. I personnally hate the fact that there is such a jump between 9 and 10 with PSA. The lack of 9.5 grade or subgrade makes it so that some cards that are in way better condition than the PSA 9 baseline will still be graded PSA 9 due to a very small print line, while PSA 9 still allows for quite a lot of those print lines on the holo or centering/corners/borders issues. For such cards, I'd rather get a BGS 9 with subs or BGS 9.5 or even a CGC 10. For example, and my pop extraction is from last year so it's a bit dated, but : First Edition Alakazam 29.16% of submissions were graded PSA 9, that's massive. There is no way that each of them were roughly equivalent to each other. Either the spread of "conditions" is way too much with PSA 9, or the same cards were graded again and again messing with the datas (or both).
Major topic I haven't seen mentioned here. CGC graders have been desensitized to very harsh grading due to shooting for those Perfect 10s. Better work being done at home prior to sending the card off I think with the CGC end users. The difference in the end users is a huge variable. There are videos all over the place of CGC to PSA slabovers. This video was clearly made without making any consideration of those videos providing direct empirical comparison to the standards of the companies in question. The thought that that wasn't considered smells rancid of bias. The number of CGC 8 - 9.5 we see coming back as PSA 10 is insane. Those 8 - 9.5 CGC slabs were from when Pristine 10 and Perfect 10 still existed together. A whole 2 grade levels, at minimum, higher than a large number of the slabovers original grades.
This video is trash. He is a simpleton with 100 junk PSA slabs for sale. He is ignoring my breakdown of the video, seems to respond to everyone but me. The poketuber world is a joke with all of this phony objectivity about an issue they have a vested interest in.
You’re the real GOAT. You just present the data as it is, you don’t tell people who they should grade with or take sides. I use cgc and I prefer cgc over ver psa personally but the truth is what it is. Cgc should have never made this move imho. The only thing I like is the new pristine 10 gold labels. They should never have gotten rid of subgrades or the perfect 10 grade. I realize my gem mint 10s cannot sell as well as Psa 10s because of the stigma surrounding them. Sure in time this may change but for now it is what it is. Also the new pristine 10s are doing great. I’m selling at the same price as Psa 10s or even a bit more. I still think cgc is the overall better grading company but when it comes to vintage yeah Psa and Beckett are better.
I like PSA better, but I am biased by collecting PSA long before CGC entered the market. However, I do think CGC has the most attractive slab out of any I’ve seen, and I think their new label looks great! In my opinion it’s better for the consumer to have competition in the market and there is no reason why collectors can’t like different things.
@@pokemon_classics yeah that's one reason why I love cgc, their slabs look great, I really wish psa would update their slab design as I have a few and the quality leaves a lot to be desired. I buy the card and not the slab but still...
@@pokemon_classics the 10 rate is so low it just makes me wonder that is it just that a single digit number of these cards somehow didn’t have the flaw that literally every other copy always has due to how they were printed or did PSA just miss the flaw in a tiny number of them resulting in a 10?
@@Lmatdhr Most of these cards are missing from my personal collection due to their insanely low pops, but the few I do have are free of print lines. However, some of the cards on this list I've owned or handled 50+ mint copies of over the years and never found one without a print line. It's brutal!
I was curious so looked up a few sold 10s of some of those cards mentioned on eBay and saw white dots and surface imperfections on the PSA 10s I saw. I’m sure some are flawless but some def aren’t. I def understand tho why they’re so sought after…exclusivity plus ubiquity of the brand translates to high prices.
Didn't you say PSA "withholds" cards with small imperfections?@@pokemon_classics edit: also I would really appreciate it if you could respond to the essay I just left in the main thread of this video. Thanks for your time.
I think it's important to note that not all 9.5s became 10s for CGC. This misconception is probably what has hit CGC's value this year the most. People are suddenly thinking that every CGC 10 is only as good as a 9.5, but the reality is that they just toned down to be closer to PSA and BSG because people were becoming hesitant to submit to CGC without trying to pre-grade their cards. I almost switched to PSA myself, but I liked how hard the 10 was to get originally. Gem Mint 9.5 turned into CGC Gem Mint 10, but there are still Mint+ 9.5s. Another important note is that CGC has two levels for 10. 9.5s I also think CGC's reputation as being strict for grading has lead to them only getting submissions that people are confident about. I understand the idea of using total and 10s to determine how strict they are, but I think the reality is that they're getting less cards sent to them that won't get 10s. People don't want to gamble on CGC when it's been said for years that PSA is easier. Don't forget that people like to buy up 9s and 9.5s from CGC and BGS and resubmit them to PSA to flip them into a 10. I looked a few cards up using ebay and CGC's database. I found "2016 Pokemon Lugia Japanese Awakening Psychic King 058/078 1st Edition CGC 9.5" under the old grading label with 4 subgrades. It received a 9.5 with the subgrades as follows: Centering 9.5, Surface 9.5, Corners 9.5 Edges 9. The grade under the new label is Gem Mint 10. I'm not a fan of this one getting a Gem Mint 10. The subgrades average to 9.3, and I don't like the idea of anything with a 9 subgrade being turned into a 10. The old system made it clear that you would never go a full number higher than lowest grade. Most likely, the change will help them get more submissions, because people want to get 10s back rather than 9.5s, but I do think it has casted new doubt on "CGC 10" even though CGC Pristine 10 still exists as a separate higher grade.
In my opinion, that's the problem with humans grading cards. I prefer the CGC slabs now however compared to PSA or the old CGC style. However once AI Grading becomes more widespread companies like AGS (AI Grading) will gain traction if PSA/CGC/BGS doesn't keep up. No matter what humans aren't perfect and we vary every second, minute and hour of the day, a computer does not. Which means if some guy didn't get any from his wife the night before he might grade potential 10's but because he's having a bad day he might grade them at a 8-9.
you people are hilariously petty. sure they are big guy. if you buy a PSA 10 from me, don't worry I won't let you know that I crossed it from a CGC 9.5 to make money off of suckers like you
Just shows not to grade with CGC. Just burning your own money in doing so. Anyone defending print lines or surface scratches still getting 10's is just ridiculous.
Don’t be like that, no grading company is perfect, Psa makes 10 times the mistake as cgc does and also they are bad at grading modern. Each grading company grades cards differently, each has their pros and cons. Try grading modern with cgc and you will see how difficult it is to get a 10 as compared to Psa
@PokeRetroFan 1st off false on psa making 10 times the mistakes. Was hard isn't now and they overlook print lines and let some surface scratches go. That is complete garbage and should not be defended by anyone grading cards.
@Lmatdhr it's absolutely not as I make lots of comments that have nothing to do with grading. This video was specifically on psa verse cgc so I commented as such. Also, I think psa makes plenty of mistakes but the market trusts and values them much higher than cgc. Sorry to let the facts hurt you.
PSA is my preference, but I do think CGC slabs look better. Ultimately, I don’t care how people prefer to collect . . . even those that hoard sealed modern product are ok in my book. 😉
@@pokemon_classics But why would you make a video on it, to put PSA in a brighter light, you dont care what people prefer right, so why care to make a video about it 💩
@@tsgthesleepinggiant It's an interesting topic in the market right now with some high value CGC 10's finding their value; it's also part of a larger conversation that's been going on, which makes sense to me. I'd also push back a little on it making PSA look better . . . it depends on perspective. PSA grades vintage holos more harshly and has lower Gem Rates (due to print lines), but that's not inherently bad. Maybe you're a set completionist or deciding how to optimize your raw cards for grading. Maybe you're looking for value and can get a much better price on something that's only flaw is a print line. Maybe your looking for peak scarcity and CGC Pristine 10 is more challenging goal. People should collect what they like, but understanding data and the market dynamics is essential to maximize value. Personally, I think CGC's slabs are the most visually attractive and I love their new label, but I do find their grading scale too inconsistent and redundant.
