Would anyone know how the market perceives the value of BGS 9.5 min gem, BGS 9.5 true fem and BGS 9.5 gem+ agaisnt CGC 10 (non-pristine)?
I won’t get into the bgs +/- quad Chad grades because imo its a bunch of nonsense
CGC 10 and bgs 9.5 are pretty comparable in price for most cards
1 Like
As wailmer said, BGS 9.5 and CGC 10 are more or less the same price at the moment.
A caveat is that stronger cards get a premium, weaker ones definitely have a lesser realised price on auction.
So if someone uses a weak copy CGC 10 as a last sale price to buy your strong copy CGC 10, tell them to kick rocks as they are NOT the same.
7 Likes
In the end of the day, I feel the market will value the final grade number more than anything. PSA 10 generally will command the most premium, with few exceptions. When it comes to BGS & CGC in Pokemon specifically, BGS has never had the best rep. I collected some BGS slabs in MTG, but I still haven’t bought a Pokemon in a BGS slab. If I ever did, it would probably be a 9.5+ grade.
In the past, CGC 9.5 is/was a CGC 10 in the new grading standard they have. There’s not a ton of BGS 9.5 sales to compare to, but you’re probably going to see a premium on CGC 10s more often than BGS 9.5s for most cards out there. The psychological factor of having a 10 vs 9.5 plays into things quite a bit.
On a personal note, I would probably consider a BGS 9.5 and CGC 10 to be a similar desirability/value to my own personal collecting preferences. I think you’ll be more than happy with the condition of either one, but the long-term value will probably be on the CGC 10 if you ever decided to sell said card, especially as CGC seems to have built a better reputation compared to BGS in Pokemon so far.
2 Likes
I dont think Becketts reputation with bad customer support / delayed submissions has anything to do with the actual graded card and the premium it holds. Becketts grading standards are by far the strictest in terms of gem mint 10s. Thats why it holds a premium over psa 10s and cgc 10s by a good margin and for good reason. Also, if were talking about reputation specifically, CGCs reputation and track history is even trashier than becketts, so I dont think that was a good example to use. We cant say becketts rep is bad and cgcs is not, that would be incorrect. cgc has made clowns of themselves when it comes to rep throughout the community on multiple different occasions.
As for bgs 9.5s, I would go with a psa 10 or cgc 10. Not only because its a 10 and the top standard of their company but because the cases are a little more transparent and show off the cards a bit more on top of it being a gem mint 10. If they decide to go with a beckett 9.5 it would have to be a strong 9.5 and depends on the card as well.
Also side note, a lot of my psa cards move in the slab, I know they said they are updating their cases but I havent seen it yet. Its a shame since the whole point of it getting it graded is to protect it. Cant do that when the card can come loose any second and there goes your prized possession / investment. As for protection and support of a card, beckett slabs are top tier. I havent seen cgc cases have this problem really either.
1 Like
Beckett will always hold a piece of the market for having sub grades but what has been said is correct. I grade with Beckett when I think one category may hold back a card from a higher grade with psa but it is otherwise great. PSA is stricter outside of BGS 10 normally in my book. I like BGS way more than CGC because they do subgrades which is different and I think CGC was a major mess when changing their standards. If I want a single grade, I’ll do PSA.
2 Likes
I feel that BGS 9.5-10s or Black Labels were pretty much the only thing that could gain a good premium with Pokemon, especially prior to Covid. Lower grades were always pretty poorly valued, at least compared to the same PSA card. Even then it was usually very specific cards like WOTC Charizards and stuff. As far as I’m concerned, CGC should never even taken off in Pokemon, but it was because of BGS’s prior failures to be a good viable alternative to PSA that CGC even became an option in Pokemon. Then you had all the pile up & delays with PSA & BGS during Covid that allowed CGC to further capture some of the market. Also, if I recall there was a ton of CGC shills on E4, Reddit and YouTube that were eventually exposed as many were going around saying CGC 8.5 = PSA 10 and other wild claims.
So I’m definitely not trying to say CGC is a great option in all respects, but I think it’s safe to say that the market has at least preferred them over BGS in Pokemon the past while, but the market broadly prefers PSA over both. So my opinion at this time is that if one is grading in Pokemon, it’s probably PSA > CGC > BGS. If you’re not worried about maximizing sale value, then grade or collect whichever one you want by all means. I personally have collected all 3 at times.
2 Likes
I always find it interesting that the number one feature of BGS that people bring up is strictness. I agree that the highest grade being hard to get is why people like BGS. But the word strict implies something more, something systematic.
Like for instance, of I randomly took 1 in 10,000 gem mint cards at PFM grading and gave it a special orange label that was super desirable, I’m not sure anyone would really describe that as me being “strict”.
For a real grading company, the more detailed the grading scale is, the more percise your measurement has to be in order for your grade not to be based on measurement error. That’s why we are more willing to accept a 1000 point scale from TAG than from a human grader (even that should be questioned though).
So the question that remains is whether you think BGS can consistently grade on an 80 point scale (4 subgrades x ~20 grades). If a human can’t consistently tell the difference between a card that is 78/80 vs 79/80 vs 80/80 (ie. BGS 9.5 vs BGS 10 vs BGS BL), then functionally what they are doing is not much different from PFM grading.
Whether you think it’s possible is a matter of opinion but from my perspective if PSA/CGC can barely keep a 10 point scale consistent, I don’t see how turning it into an 80 point scale does anything to help.
6 Likes
My personal perspective? I’m taking the BGS 9.5 min gem or gem mint over the CGC 10, especially if its significantly cheaper.
Plenty of reasons to hold the BGS 9.5 in higher regard than the CGC 10, in my opinion.
In my opinion
BGS Black Label → BGS pristine 10 9.5 centering → CGC pristine → BGS pristine 10 not 9.5 centering → BGS 9.5 ( if quad 9.5/+)= CGC 10 → BGS 9.5 ( not quad 9.5) → CGC 9.5+
Other grades are equal.
So many different grades for a condition range of pretty minty to really minty.
11 Likes
All three companies have the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever and remove subgrades and half grades across the board
2 Likes
I’ve recently submitted over 300 cards to CGC so I’ll let you know what I think comparable to BGS when I get them back in terms of grade and service.
Maybe “tight assed” graders is a better term. I just used strict because they are strict with their grading and its a known fact. Im not justifying how they give the 10 or what 1000 points tag company uses to get a 10. Im just factoring in that they dont gives 10s almost as if theyre paid not to. Im not saying they do it right or are honest in their assessments but one thing is for sure, its tough as hell to get a 10. They are known for being extremely “stingy” on 10s.
Also to your point of accepting 1000 point scale from tag. Wouldnt that be the definition of strict? Whether its from ai or human?
1 Like
I agree that the lower grades ( bgs 9s, 8.5s etc) are less desirable that psa 9s and 8s. For sure. Im just talking about pristine 10s and 9.5s. I think the reason cgc has taken off is because they were already an established grading company for many many years. They just decided to dabble in tcg at the right time, covid. I dont believe any other company could have pulled that off it they werent as established as cgc. Their prices were cheaper and the turn around times were faster, thats why everyone was picking them and still chooses them for submissions. As for investment purposes, id say bgs pristines still hold supreme over cgc pristines by far.
“market has at least preferred them over BGS in Pokemon the past while” I agree with this when it comes to submissions. I was just talking about what I think the OP meant, which is investment / grading standards.
1 Like
Strict implies a standard or rule. Of course all grading companies have standards but the standard is only meaningful if it’s replicated.
For example, let’s assume the TAG scale has a margin of error of ±50 points (I made this up). This error could be calculated by repeating the scan from scratch and rerunning the grading algorithm. Let’s also say that TAG has a special label for cards that get a grade of 998 or higher. Under these conditions with a large error rate and a very percise window for a special grade, whether a card gets 998+ is entirely due to measurement noise, aka random chance. This is not a strict grade, this is a lucky grade.
If the margin of error was ±0.1 points, then we could reliability say whether a card is above the 998 point threshold, which makes it strict and had little to do with luck unless you’re really close to the 998.0 boundary.
In the context of BGS, they have to demonstrate that their margin of error is smaller than the difference between a Pristine 10 and BL 10 for it to be “strict” and not just a lottery. Personally I have yet to be convinced.
1 Like
Everything I wrote above has more to do with the BL than anything else.
In general I do agree that BGS 10s collectively are graded more strictly than PSA 10s after you account for the variability/margin of error of both companies. Hard to say if it would be statistically significant without actually numbers but if I had to guess I’d say it would be.
2 Likes
HOT TAKE
just buy / grade the slabs you like
6 Likes
I wonder if CGCs credibility has risen based on grading the cards (discozard. protoise, alphas etc) and doing the leg work PSA was unwilling to do.
I think it’s established the ranking goes as follows:
Black Label BGS > Pristine CGC / BGS 9.5 > PSA 10
I wonder whether CGCs non mint grades (1-9) will eventually be perceived nearer or on par to PSAs (1-9) market value in the next 2 years.
In terms of the latest non-sports TCG grading figure’s their growth has been quite incredible. Perhaps even their Pristine 10s are already ranked higher than BGS 9.5.
A post was merged into an existing topic: The Giant Professional Grading Thread