TAG Grading Submission Reveal : I Re-submitted the Shohei : Different Results? Or did TAG catch it? 

Hi @benediktherweg8648, please see our comment above for some clarification. The card submitted had a new significant scratch the second time which brought from a 10 into a 9. This is evidenced on the new DIG report and was not present in the last-- (you can look at the previous video for evidence of this). The card was flagged as a resubmission and assigned a new cert due to the additional damage. Cards that are resubmitted with the same score receive the same score and cert number. If a card is resubmitted and gets a higher score the second time, this is flagged for Alteration and may be sent back raw.

@taggrading you must really feel hurt by an honest and genuine RU-vidr who’s simply sharing his experience with your grading service. Just take it on the chin and improve. But posting a gazillion comments here is pathetic and creates even more publicity around your odd grading practices. I for once will surely never consider submitting anything to you. Frosty for the win!

I think it depends. The problem is subjectively deciding which flaws are punitive and which aren't. Especially when the punitive flaws are removed and then suddenly the non punitive flaws became punitive. It should be all or nothing in my opinion. I appreciate the view and I apologize as I wasn't trying to divert any customers away from TAG. I feel like they are on the right track but need to consider more variables before making bold statements that can be disproved. The shohei at 982 in my opinion would be a 9 anywhere. I had a Ichiro 951 that is at PSA that I feel will be an 8 and a Kenneth Walker Gold Select Prizm that was a 970 at PSA as well that lands as a tweener and could go either way at a 9/10. When they come back I'll share in another crossover video.

Yup. I understand your point on punitive flaws and agree. You haven't steered me away, you've only provided more information to be considered. I've collected my own findings as well. The thought of TAG overgrading is not ideal. If they are to be successful in the secondary market they need to define the new standard or at least be on par with current ones. Finding like this video (and mine) force one to consider that more work must be done. I look forward to seeing your next crossover videos. @@frostyfeetcards

Hi @jpbrabant7022 , please see our comment above for some clarification. The card submitted had a new significant scratch the second time which brought from a 10 into a 9. This is evidenced on the DIG report. The card was flagged as a resubmission and assigned a new cert due to the additional damage. Cards that are resubmitted with the same score receive the same score and cert number. If a card is resubmitted and gets a higher score the second time, this is flagged for Alteration and may be sent back raw.

@@taggrading That same scratch is in the cert that you guys deleted that had the scan from your site. I left it to show you it's the same card.

@@taggrading Thx for the additional info. That new scratch is relevant and honestly it creates a new question. Where/when did it happen? Another question that lingers is the addition of new surface defects e.g. print lines identified that weren't in the first analysis.

Hey thank you. I still think that they are a great company. I'm just hoping they take more time to consider the variables that could occur instead of sweeping these potential issues under the rug.

Hi keepingitreel, while we greatly appreciate Frostyfeets video, there were some key points that were omitted (we assume not intentionally by @frostyfeetcards). Please see our comment above for further clarification. The card submitted had a new significant scratch the second time which brought from a 10 into a 9. This is evidenced on the new DIG report and was not present in the last-- (you can look at Frosty's previous video for evidence of this). The card was flagged as a resubmission and assigned a new cert due to the additional damage. Cards that are resubmitted with the same score receive the same score and cert number. If a card is resubmitted and gets a higher score the second time, this is flagged for Alteration and may be sent back raw. This is to keep the submission process fair for everyone, as someone could potentially submit a raw card that they were not aware had been previously submitted by someone else.

Couldn't have said it any better. If Grading for people haven't become just purely business, none of this would matter. Choose the company you like for whatever reason and stop making it dick measuring contest and we'd all be fine lol. Thank you for your input and thank you for watching.

Hi Corey, Please see our comment below for further clarification regarding some key points that were omitted from Frosty's video (we assume unintentionally): Hi Frosty, first of all, thank you for the video-- videos like this help us become a better company. In terms of addressing your concerns, please see the following: Though your card was flagged as a resubmission, there was significant new damage detected on the card-- a significant scratch from the bottom of Otani's stomach to the bottom of his thigh. This scratch is apparent on the new DIG report-- it was the new defect that brought the card out of the 10 into a 9. Cards that have new defects and are determined by the system to warrant a lower grade are assigned new Cert numbers. Your previous video and detailed analysis of the surface also showcases that this scratch was not present on the first submission. We have again analyzed both images and confirmed this scratch was not present on the first submission. The previous cert number has been removed from the Pop report. A card which is re-submitted with no further damage, receives the same certification number and card score. There are other video examples of this happening on RU-vid. If a card is resubmitted and scores higher, this is when the card is flagged for possible Alteration and may be returned raw. We also posted photo evidence in the TAG Discord and @'d your username for your reference. Regarding the other scoring, the differing centering scores that you mentioned are well within our reproducibility threshold (987 vs 990, 988 vs 986). The front was different by 3 points on the thousand point scale, and the back was different by 2 points on the thousand point scale. The dimensions of the card were also reproduced within 3 one thousandths of an inch. As we've said previously and as noted on the website, the intention of TAG is to bring reproducibility, accountability, and accuracy to existing industry grading standards. Yes, with Photometric Stereoscopic Imaging and a 1000 point grading scale, we have created a new process by which cards are scored; however, we are not attempting to recreate the accepted industry standard by which cards are graded (1-10).

Lol. Agreed. I've seen the video where the card was re-submitted and was identified. This particular experiment was done to see if it was a possibility when removing i.d. markings which we don't know if I'm even the first one to try but should be prepared for as cleaning is very much part of the hobby now whether it's agreed or disagreed upon. Hopefully this helps them create measures if possible. I do wish them the best.

Thank you always @RobShim

Hi Rob, Please see our comment below for further clarification regarding some key points that were omitted from Frosty's video (we assume unintentionally): "Hi Frosty, first of all, thank you for the video-- videos like this help us become a better company. In terms of addressing your concerns, please see the following: Though your card was flagged as a resubmission, there was significant new damage detected on the card-- a significant scratch from the bottom of Otani's stomach to the bottom of his thigh. This scratch is apparent on the new DIG report-- it was the new defect that brought the card out of the 10 into a 9. Cards that have new defects and are determined by the system to warrant a lower grade are assigned new Cert numbers. Your previous video and detailed analysis of the surface also showcases that this scratch was not present on the first submission. We have again analyzed both images and confirmed this scratch was not present on the first submission. The previous cert number has been removed from the Pop report. A card which is re-submitted with no further damage, receives the same certification number and card score. There are other video examples of this happening on RU-vid. If a card is resubmitted and scores higher, this is when the card is flagged for possible Alteration and may be returned raw. We also posted photo evidence in the TAG Discord and @'d your username for your reference. Regarding the other scoring, the differing centering scores that you mentioned are well within our reproducibility threshold (987 vs 990, 988 vs 986). The front was different by 3 points on the thousand point scale, and the back was different by 2 points on the thousand point scale. The dimensions of the card were also reproduced within 3 one thousandths of an inch. As we've said previously and as noted on the website, the intention of TAG is to bring reproducibility, accountability, and accuracy to existing industry grading standards. Yes, with Photometric Stereoscopic Imaging and a 1000 point grading scale, we have created a new process by which cards are scored; however, we are not attempting to recreate the accepted industry standard by which cards are graded (1-10)."

I'm trying brother. Thank you so much.

Hi MDixon, Please see our comment below for further clarification regarding some key points that were omitted from Frosty's video (we assume unintentionally): "Hi Frosty, first of all, thank you for the video-- videos like this help us become a better company. In terms of addressing your concerns, please see the following: Though your card was flagged as a resubmission, there was significant new damage detected on the card-- a significant scratch from the bottom of Otani's stomach to the bottom of his thigh. This scratch is apparent on the new DIG report-- it was the new defect that brought the card out of the 10 into a 9. Cards that have new defects and are determined by the system to warrant a lower grade are assigned new Cert numbers. Your previous video and detailed analysis of the surface also showcases that this scratch was not present on the first submission. We have again analyzed both images and confirmed this scratch was not present on the first submission. The previous cert number has been removed from the Pop report. A card which is re-submitted with no further damage, receives the same certification number and card score. There are other video examples of this happening on RU-vid. If a card is resubmitted and scores higher, this is when the card is flagged for possible Alteration and may be returned raw. We also posted photo evidence in the TAG Discord and @'d your username for your reference. Regarding the other scoring, the differing centering scores that you mentioned are well within our reproducibility threshold (987 vs 990, 988 vs 986). The front was different by 3 points on the thousand point scale, and the back was different by 2 points on the thousand point scale. The dimensions of the card were also reproduced within 3 one thousandths of an inch. As we've said previously and as noted on the website, the intention of TAG is to bring reproducibility, accountability, and accuracy to existing industry grading standards. Yes, with Photometric Stereoscopic Imaging and a 1000 point grading scale, we have created a new process by which cards are scored; however, we are not attempting to recreate the accepted industry standard by which cards are graded (1-10)."

Agreed! My PC is 99% 1 touch and it's just simple. Gotta do what is best suited for each individual. Well said.

I'm the Jim Halpert of the Hobby lol

@@frostyfeetcards Yes you are lol

If you are Jim, I claim to be Creed. No one out right disagrees or hates Creed, they let him do/say whatever he wants hahaha

Hi @paultroyer, while we greatly appreciate Frostyfeets video, there were some key points that were omitted (we assume not intentionally by @frostyfeetcards). Please see our comment below for further clarification: Hi Frosty, first of all, thank you for the video-- videos like this help us become a better company. In terms of addressing your concerns, please see the following: Though your card was flagged as a resubmission, there was significant new damage detected on the card-- a significant scratch from the bottom of Otani's stomach to the bottom of his thigh. This scratch is apparent on the new DIG report-- it was the new defect that brought the card out of the 10 into a 9. Cards that have new defects and are determined by the system to warrant a lower grade are assigned new Cert numbers. Your previous video and detailed analysis of the surface also showcases that this scratch was not present on the first submission. We have again analyzed both images and confirmed this scratch was not present on the first submission. The previous cert number has been removed from the Pop report. A card which is re-submitted with no further damage, receives the same certification number and card score. There are other video examples of this happening on RU-vid. If a card is resubmitted and scores higher, this is when the card is flagged for possible Alteration and may be returned raw. We also posted photo evidence in the TAG Discord and @'d your username for your reference. Regarding the other scoring, the differing centering scores that you mentioned are well within our reproducibility threshold (987 vs 990, 988 vs 986). The front was different by 3 points on the thousand point scale, and the back was different by 2 points on the thousand point scale. The dimensions of the card were also reproduced within 3 one thousandths of an inch. As we've said previously and as noted on the website, the intention of TAG is to bring reproducibility, accountability, and accuracy to existing industry grading standards. Yes, with Photometric Stereoscopic Imaging and a 1000 point grading scale, we have created a new process by which cards are scored; however, we are not attempting to recreate the accepted industry standard by which cards are graded (1-10).

@@paultroyer7105 Schrute just entered the chat...

Hey there, I just want to clarify that I stated that they overgraded this card. As well as quite a few others including the 970 Kenneth Walker and the 951 Ichiro from a video months back. I will state that it doesn't mean it's across the board as I also feel there are cards they've undergraded in my own studies. I thank you for comment.

Thank you. Unfortunately TAG is doing the whole PR thing now to dismiss my video. It is what it is. I hope at least it was informative.

Hey Patrick, Thanks for watching, I really appreciate it. In my opinion grading cost is also subjective. Like I have to charge for my pre-inspections mainly because of the time and effort I put into each and every single card with pictures of issues, full summaries of why I feel the card will land between which grades based on what the findings are. It also depends on which company the owners of the cards elect to send their cards to. As far as Human vs. Machine. The cost really depends on overhead and margins at the end of the day as they are all for profit companies. They have to factor in wages, material, taxes, legal etc. I think $15 -$20/card is low for the industry if I'm being honest if the quality of the work reflects it for a human grader. You can't possibly get people that care to try to do the best job possible if the wages don't make sense and we can assume that wages aren't going to attract people that really want to be great at this as PSA has a post at $17/hour in Santa Ana which isn't even a livable wage in that market. CGA has a post at $12/hour in KY and I believe I saw a post with SGC at $18.50/hour over in Boca Raton. Machine grading is basically charging to make up for the money already spent on R&D while having additional costs of ramping up and marketing as machine grading is relatively new with not enough time and information in the market to validate accuracy and quality (though also subjective). To pay a company to run a card through a machine or laser for 20 seconds to 1 minute really just sounds to me as an opportunity for increased volume through automation and cost reduction in terms of actual staffing of humans. Whenever the word "tech" is thrown around, unless you're actually in tech, it's incredibly easy to get fascinated with all the capabilities and claims. But if you are a good dev, it's really simple to find bugs and issues. Another thing to use to research the new Machine grading companies is simply going onto LinkedIn and seeing who works there and what their backgrounds are. If not one person there is a dev nor has any industry experience. It raises a flag for me. I also have LinkedIn Premium, which also allows me to see who at which company has made themselves "open for work" indicating to recruiters to contact them for new opportunities. Ex. AGS Automated Grading Systems has 0 employees on LinkedIn but have a site running that does have automated pods via Robograding. The career page also is a non-clickable link. So based on that, I come to my own conclusion. TAG Technical Authentication Grading has 11 employees with profiles and 5 have indicated they are open to new opportunities. Of the other 6 you can simply view educational and work history and come to your own conclusion. Rare Edition Grading is a good product but you're basically shelling the money over there for the most incredible slab on the market in terms of durability. PSA - Has nothing to prove and doesn't really need to at this time as they grade 10x more cards than the entire industry combined. They aren't perfect but their business model won't suffer because as much as most of us hate it, PSA slabs command top dollar which is not even debatable outside of Unicorns like an SGC Gold Label and BGS Black Label. And as a collector it bites as we all know what this hobby is driven by. $ BGS - Killed themselves with the 9.5, then killed themselves with being out of touch with the actual hobby. i.e. they still sell Beckett Price guides even though 99.9% of the hobby population will refer to last sold listings on eBay. Zero innovation but will continue to be a staple in the industry SGC - Honestly I think they've made the most effort out of all the companies to listen to their customers and actually implement mostly positive changes. The only thing your really hear that is negative is "I hate the ugly slab" and "it sells for 60% of PSA" which isn't even in their control. CGC - Has the funding being owned by Blackstone. They started off giving everyone hope that they could compete, then buckled like a cheap tent by wavering from their initial standards. Those are just some examples but at the end of the day, do the due diligence and you should feel that you're getting whatever dollar amount you're paying for with any company out there. I also feel that paying extra for "speed" in return is incredibly unethical across the board. It's like an advertisement for cutting in line. Please note, that these are just my opinions and shouldn't be taken as fact overall. Long story short. You should feel good with whomever you give your money to to provide the service that they advertise. But human grading companies should have a higher fee in comparison to Machine grading in my humble opinion as either option is still subjective. Apologies for the book but you made me think out loud haha.

@@frostyfeetcards Thank you so much. Super insightful and detailed. My experiences have been mixed. i asked not because i think it is too expensive but because i think it could be more. Its really a grading and appraisal in one. It would be nice to have better value for SGC. It seemed like late last year the gap between PSA and SGC was getting smaller, but then it just opened back up. I suppose in the end the better grading gets the more it can create some sense of rarity in the over produced card market ?

@patrickmullen5348 I think the word "better" is stretch. If you take all hindsight and emotion out of it, it just comes down to money. In my opinion, there will be no closing of the GAP between PSA and anyone as they continue to completely dominate the secondary market. Unless a massive exodus happens where people do a combination of slowing down grading with PSA and buying PSA slabs at a market premium. Secondly. Any new company that comes out the market immediately wants them to compete against PSA when even competing against HGA looks bleak. HGA launched at a time where they were able to capture an audience that literally had no other options and retained a fair percentage of those as well. I don’t even think any company grades better than the other when it comes to the key players as they all have different criteria. Rarity is no longer even a thing at least with ultra modern. Grading really should be more expensive across the board as it will help stabilize card grading populations or allow to grow more organically. But I say that as a collector. As a business, I wouldn't change a thing as it's about profit. None of these companies are grading because they actually care about the rarity or value for us.

@@frostyfeetcards more great insight. I suppose the grading company can control their POP as unethical as that would be.

@patrickmullen5348 I honestly think that's more of an urban legend as I can't say I've shared that experience. Any time I have graded key rookies or rare cards of the greats (Tom Brady, Michael jordan, Kobe etc.) I've received results that I've expected. Like you have ask the question on how does pop control actually benefit a company? Like the grading company doesn't own the cards, we do. Sometimes I think as customers we need to also look at our own cards without being emotionally invested into them. What we want vs. what it is don't actually go hand in hand. Pop Control in my opinion and personal experience along with bad day graders etc. just feel like things folks say. I just do my best during inspections to not get surprises.

Thank you so much for this. These kinds of videos are never fun but I do hope it helps them in the long run.

@@frostyfeetcards I enjoyed it..I like TAG ... Unfortunately no grading company can be truly too tough as then people won't grade cards because it's not going to get the highest grade for resale. That's the biggest issue I see with any type of truly consistent grading. As for them, knowing that that card has been graded before that, I think should be something that they should pick up on.

@mikehamm007 I cannot agree with that statement more my friend. As a hobby community, we are the ones that put pressure to all these companies to give us what we want more so then to give us what we have. Tons of videos with folks pissed off at 9s feeling that it is because (pop control, bad day grader, blind person, it was perfect, they suck etc.) Then the other side will say (They give out 10s like candy). When CSG launched it was constant "they are too strict" they adjusted and now "they're garbage" HGA started "They only give out 9.5's) They adjusted "They are a gimmicky company" That's why in my opinion, you can't really go wrong with any company you choose to grade with.

@@frostyfeetcardsI understand where you're coming from. But people have stopped grading with PSA as well because they're giving less than 9s on things.

@mikehamm007 as they probably should really. I've seen some horrible 9s and 10s for sure. We should really just go for who we like the most and be good with the decision.

I have a different opinion of altered but. This video was basically to debunk the false claims by TAG that they could identify the same card through "fingerprinting". I felt it was a overpromise in a current hobby where a lot of cleaning is happening.

Exactly! Well said.

I'm like the Hobby version of Veronica Mars... But easier on the eyes 😂 Thanks man. Nah I was just experimenting with a theory based on my understanding on how segmentation identification works and where the weak points could potentially be.

If it was flagged as a resubmission. Why was it a population 2 before you deleted the 1st one without saying 1 word to me as the customer of potential duplicate submission? I'm not convinced that if I had done this video an entire week later that the pop 2 wouldn't still be there. I appreciate you guys for at least making a PR attempt to once again dismiss my findings on your product instead of addressing these issues that you will run into again. Secondly, to come on my channel and insinuate I may have omitted anything to each individual commenter and for the 2nd time shift the accountability over me is enough for me to not be a customer. I paid .99 for you guys to "wipe down" the card, how do I know the damage wasn't done by your staff? To use the word alter is also troubling because I didn't get an altered designation back, why?

@@frostyfeetcards Frosty, nobody is dismissing-- in fact we just thanked you for your video. Because of your video, we are making an update to the system that when a card is determined to be a resubmission with a lower grade, it will automatically remove the previous grade from the Pop Report. How the system currently works is it flags a card as a resubmission for further review and verification. Your previous submission was in the queue for review and removal, and has since been removed. The TAG system is set up so that resubmitted cards are not rejected unless they are scored higher than the previous grade. It is our objective to eliminate the submissions where people intentionally alter cards in order to get a more favorable grade. We give the submitters the benefit of the doubt that they might not have known that the card was previously submitted, and may have new incidental damage on them. This could easily happen when cards trade hands: for example, if someone cracked a TAG slab, sold to someone raw, who then submitted to TAG without knowledge of the previous person's submission. We believe this is the most fair way to approach resubmissions for every collector. With all of this being said: Are you going to make another video explaining that you missed that scratch and that your findings were not accurate? As shown in the DIG report, that new scratch is the primary reason why the card was regraded from a 10 to a 9. That scratch was not present on your first submission, and your previous video findings prove this as well, as you did not mark any defects in the center of the card. As we stated before, cards are only marked as resubmissions if they are submitted and get the same grade and assigned the same cert number. There are other user posted videos of this happening on RU-vid. Your submission was flagged as a resubmission, and then was assigned a new cert number when proceeding with reprocessing the grading because it was deemed to have new defects and deserved a lower score. You have stated that your objective is to present your findings and not to attack TAG. We would appreciate if you did not dismiss this fact.

@@taggrading No because I didn't miss a scratch. But you're welcome to keep deflecting the accountability onto me. I paid the $.99 wipe down service intentionally just in case. For all I know, you could've unintentionally created a scratch during that process that wasn't previously present or when it left my possession. We're done though. This is where we part ways as I can already see this conversation will go nowhere. I wish you guys the best.

@@taggrading That is not a thank you. You can't thank someone then go at them. That is straight passive aggressive.

@@frostyfeetcards Don't even bother bro. I think these guys showed their true colors. They actually write this crap thinking people can't see through the BS response.

I actually did pay the .99 for them to carefully wipe off any debris lol

No because they make up rules on the fly that only apply if it is in their favor from what I'm seeing on all the "CTRL + V" responses. They left out that corners and edge scores were different the 2nd time around with score bumps and deleted the first sub from existence. Then they say they are protecting customers that don't know the card is being resubbed by only allowing a lower score lol. Yet they say they knew this one was cleaned and even used the word altered. Then they proceeded to slab and grade the "altered" card anyways after "knowing" and sent it back to Frosty without the altered label and never notified him of any of it. I don't know about you bro but I feel so protected sending my stuff there now 🤣

Lol thank you. The point of the video though was meant to be an unbiased review to see if you can resubmit a card successfully. The PR team has now made an appearance to basically in my opinion, discredit my findings once again.

We did say thank you, as a matter of fact it was the first thing we said in the comment back to him, despite it being very accusatory. Just as Frosty is a growing RU-vid channel, we are a small and growing company. Videos like this are important that we respond to and take accountability for if we are in the wrong. We respond to every video we can and engage in as many conversations as we can. This video was missing a big piece of information that was the catalyst in it not being marked as a resubmission. The card was flagged for resubmission and assigned a new cert number due to the damage and scoring change. There was a significant scratch detected that was not present in the first submission. It is evident in the DIG report which you are free to look up-- defect #2 in the surface defect section, from Ohtani's stomach to his thigh. This scratch was responsible for taking the grade out of a 10 into a 9. The TAG system is set up so that resubmitted cards are not rejected unless they are grading higher than the previous grade. We give the submitters the benefit of the doubt that they might not have known that the card was previously submitted. This could easily happen when cards trade hands: for example, if someone cracked a TAG slab, sold to someone raw, who then submitted to TAG without knowledge of the previous person's submission. We believe this is the most fair way to approach resubmissions for every collector.

@@taggrading thank you for more copy and pasting Actually to add to this, if you’ll be transparent with everyone. If that scratch didn’t exist in the first submission… how did you identify that this card was a resubmission? Seems like from Frosty’s first sub (10) to the second sub (9) that completely different flaws were found.

@@jordans6779 Haha! Their last sentence bro "We believe this is the most fair way to approach resubmissions for every collector." Wait... I thought the pitch was you cannot resubmit 🤣 Screenshot saved for my FB group if their comment has moved to the removal queue 😂

Lol what's up brother

@@gradedcards5516 100% agreed.

This is fair and the card did not come back altered. It's not about giving home field advantage. It's about considering variables which includes cleaning as not one single company can identify if a card has been cleaned or not. How would your theory even make any sense? How would I clean a card to make those specific flaws more noticeable when I eliminated the other 9? I left those flaws because of a response from both TAG and a member stating that the flaws I found were also found by TAG but we're not deemed as punitive worthy compared to the 9 they found. Once I eliminated the 9, then suddenly the others are punitive? No one is getting special rules as it's a unbiased test. What you are suggesting is a controlled scenario which is extremely biased. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Bro, read what you wrote. A fair test means equal ground and level playing field, Your suggestion basically dictates when, where and how this can be conducted. That is not a test, that is a set up. You don't even have to say it but I bet you have quite a bit of TAG slabs don't you? 🤣

And what if I didn't?

Go watch Frosty's video history bro before you say something. This card just came back and SGC 10 in a video after he cleaned up TAG's mess.

@@frostyfeetcards Bro, ignore the TAG troll.