Hey everyone!
(In an attempt to be as clear as possible, this post got significantly longer than originally planned…apologies in advance that some sections were less well written due to time constraints. I hope you enjoy reading long messages)
As some of you may have heard, I recently had my Illustrator graded with TAG. During the past two weeks, I received a lot of questions about my decision to grade with TAG and what I learned from the technology they use.
The purpose of this thread will be threefold:
- Share my experiences during my ownership of the Illustrator that led to my final decision to grade with TAG.
- Share my understanding of the processes and technology that TAG utilizes based on what I researched and subsequently saw at their facilities (If interested, please verify this section with TAG Grading in case I misrepresent something).
- Initiate a thoughtful conversation regarding the current state of the Grading and Authentication industry. Specific aspects of this topic have already been addressed in these threads (not an exhaustive list):
The case for old and new certifications in PSA
New vs old PSA certs - market value
PSA - New certs Vs Old certs
Black Label Bubble? 
Card cleaner @RocketCollects on Instagram is openly altering cards and grading them
To crack or not to crack? CGC 10 Skyridge reverse holo
PSA/DNA Pokemon autograph authentication is in a bad place
By nature of this exposition, I will not be providing a TL;DR. For easier referencing, I have provided a Table of Contents below. In addition, if you are leaving a comment, I respectfully ask you to read the relevant sections of the post before commenting (I know, it is long, but I am trying to avoid any gaps that can cause confusion or misinterpretations so I am trying to cover all of my bases). I poured too much time and energy into drafting this so I have no interest in repeating myself unless necessary. Any subsequent posts will hopefully provide meaningfully complementary or opposing viewpoints.
Table of Contents
Part I: Backstory AKA “My Rant”
- Acquisition of the Illustrator (optional read)
- Experiences with the Big 3 Grading Companies
- The Definition of “Standard”
Part II: Innovation
- Enter TAG
- The Tech
- AGS Grading in Comparison
- Aesthetics and Customer Experience
Part III: Discussion
- “If it Ain’t Broke [enough]…?”
- Market Demand
- The Value of Grading and Authentication
Part IV: Closing
- Final Thoughts
- Q&A
Part I: Backstory AKA “My Rant”
1. Acquisition of the Illustrator
I had always entertained the idea of owning an Illustrator. When a seller first pitched a payment plan to purchase the Illustrator nearly a decade ago, I respectfully declined - not just because I would be risking the equivalent of my first year’s working salary post tax on a single piece of cardboard in a highly speculative market, but mainly because I really wanted to expand my collection of heavily nostalgic cards. In 2023, however, when I held this particular Illustrator below, I was taken aback by the condition on the card (not flawless by any means but indisputably clean - there was a speck of whitening from the blade during the cutting process and the centering was also not ideal). After months of discussion and coordination, this card finally flew in to my local coffee shop in October:
I was pretty ecstatic. Waking up to this card on my bookshelf next to my bed during the first few weeks hit differently.
2. Experiences with the Big 3 Grading Companies
After months of staring at my Illustrator, I started assessing how the other grading companies would grade the card. For this Illustrator, I “bought the card, not the grade,” and I did not want to associate my Illustrator with the other inflated grades that CGC had given to other high-end cards and to submissions from specific customers (as an example, this is a recently graded CGC 10 2014 No. 1 Pika):
The amount of whitening shown in the scan is egregious. Having held this exact card, I can tell you it looks even worse in person with the visible scratches and missing surface sheen.
An even more recent example is the CGC 10 Pristine Alpha Black Lotus that was purchased for $3 million. From what I have heard (verification would be helpful if anyone can confirm), this was originally in a BGS 9.5 BASE slab:
The corners look like actual whitening, but I can’t speak to the actual condition of this card since I’ve never held it. These types of images only provide one view so it can either conceal other damage or accentuate edges if the card is not directly perpendicular to the camera.
Regardless of the countless stories of favoritism given to specific customers and “more press worthy” cards, I could confidently explain why my Illustrator card would not qualify for a BGS 10 or CGC 10 Pristine based on the respective companies’ grading rubric when no favoritism is applied to their standards. But a PSA 10? Between all of the defects I could identify on the card, the biggest uncertainty was the centering. The only other significantly noticeable defect was the blade cut at the bottom left corner of the card. I thought I had seen some holo surface scratches, but I could not replicate after repeatedly trying so I did not consider this as
noteworthy damage. In the past nine years of grading solely with PSA (except for one experimental submission to [BGS in 2023] (Black Label Bubble? 🫧 - #110 by cpbog1) in which I determined their scoring on centering were often times eyeballed - the times when BGS gave 9.5 or a 10 on centering were too inconsistent when I was able to confirm measuring distance to the millimeter across all four sides at different locations on each of these sides), I had witnessed their grading standards reflected in thousands of my cards across the “eras” of 2xxx certs to 8xxx certs. Based on all of the PSA 10s I have assessed over the years (from light offcentering, to minimal edgewear, to whitening caused during manufacturing, and to even the notorious silvering that was prevalent on the TRR and Deoxys gold stars), if the centering is accepted, I was confident that this Illustrator had an incredibly strong chance to enter the realm of PSA 10 assuming I did not miss a noteworthy defect on the card.
After much deliberation ($$ cost for the review), the fateful day arrived when I walked into PSA headquarters to hand over my Illustrator for their “professional” review. The entire experience was incredibly cordial and hospitable (the private conference room, free snack bar, coffee, and water were a nice touch).
After seven hours of sitting on pins and needles, I finally met with one of PSA’s supervisors who gave me the unfortunate news. He told me that the grader reviewed the card and identified that “the centering had a slight rotation. But this was still within acceptable range. What pushed it over was this.” He then flips the card over and points to that one manufacturing whitening from the blade cut next to the bottom left corner of the card:
Can’t really see it? Allow me to focus in on the whitening:
I am unable to enlarge this any further:
I was honestly expecting him to identify some other defect that I must had missed on the card, but he ended his statement there. Verbatim, my response was “Wait, is that it?”
He nods, and I follow up with a question, asking if the standards for a PSA 10 recently changed, citing the PSA 10s I personally received, referenced above. He begins to visibly look uncomfortable, and he tells me that the standards haven’t changed, but “you know, it’s probably because it’s the Illustrator.” I was stunned. My mouth was open for an awkward 30 seconds in silence while I tried to process what he had just told me. PSA’s supervisor just highlighted the fluidity of their grading “standards” through their discrimination of the cards that they review. When I had found out several years ago that PSA had different graders based on the value of the card that they are grading, I was surprised, but I accepted this natural progression based on their level of experience (and the inevitable inconsistencies that come with this decision); however, the thing that I cannot accept is that PSA’s “grading standard” also adjusts based on the value of the card. I have always heard of the rumors around additional scrutiny for specific cards. Although I still do not believe PSA is actively “gatekeeping/POP controlling,” this additional scrutiny of specific cards inadvertently creates this consequence. Why should the card matter when grading based on a defined standard? The same standard must be applied to an Illustrator as to a Base Caterpie; otherwise, the grading rubric is no longer “standard.” Call it stupidity or optimistic ignorance, but I foolhardily believed and placed faith in their grading system throughout the years, even when accounting for the inevitable human errors and differences between grader experience.
3. The Definition of “Standard”
“Something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
For over a century, the kilogram was formally standardized based on the mass of platinum-iridium that was forged and placed in France. This was the standard collectively agreed upon by the scientific community (side note: I always found it comical that people show packs are heavy and show the digital weight on their scale, but they never once confirmed that their scale was properly calibrated to the actual standards). But even in 2018, the scientific community acknowledged that such a defined model was not as true as the mass when derived from the speed of light and Planck’s constant. I am, of course, not claiming that card grading standards should be as precise as the measurement of mass, BUT these standards must have some substantive definition and not be swayed by the feelings of the grader or the type of card that they are grading.
If the rules change based on a specific card or specific groups of cards, PSA cannot claim they have a single standard. Instead, they should claim they have multiple standards based on card classification and valuation, or alternatively, simply advertise the standards more as “recommended guidelines based on past experience of assessments.” The recent interview with PSA’s President, Ryan Hoge (I recommend watching this interview in its entirety - there are many insights and updates from PSA), also highlights this duality of “an opinion-based service” that has a “grading standard.” Frankly speaking, this justification from PSA has been so ingrained in their communication that they do not realize (or care) they want to have their cake while eating it. As Hoge says, at the end of the day, at least they’re “trying” to be consistent.
I want to be absolutely clear: I am not complaining about PSA’s publicized grading standards (although I have raised issues in the past with their use of relative comparative adjectives as CYA BS to protect themselves from liability). I am also accepting of the inevitable human errors that come with this opinion based service and the subsequent efforts to actively mitigate some of these errors.
I am raising awareness about their ability (or lack thereof) to uphold those standards in a meaningfully consistent manner for all types of cards AND their customers.
Diamond grading is held to a high standard of consistency and accountability. Even when buying a diamond worth only a few hundred dollars, the report is there and consistent:
Prospective buyers of the diamond would then verify through here:
https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=2221805840
To then find the report here: GIA - Report Check - 2221805840
Imagine if the industry leading diamond graders such as GIA or AGS adjusted their grading standards when evaluating the prestigious Hope Diamond. “The Hope Diamond should have a higher level of sparkle and brilliance than other diamonds so we will observe its Cut in a dimly lit room.” Or alternatively, “With the attention that the Hope Diamond will bring, it is safer to undergrade than overgrade.” Blasphemous. If the latter is truly a concern for the company, then the “standards” are not clearly defined enough.
At the end of the day, for any grading company to have merit in their brand, they need to uphold their defined grading standards by actually standardizing their grading processes. If the process cannot be standardized, whether it be for conflicts with different responsibilities between different graders, or CYA final say, then the branding will inevitably fail to sustain once a better option becomes available.
Look, the PSA supervisor was an incredibly kind and amicable person so it is highly possible that the supervisor is someone who is simply uncomfortable with any form of confrontation, even when responding to simple follow up questions. If this were actually the case, and he spoke inaccurately on behalf of the PSA grader, the mere implication from his statement of additional scrutiny based on card is a testament to a nonexistent, single standard within PSA. I still left the PSA headquarters with the uncertainty I came in - “if centering is acceptable, the white speck is actually the difference between PSA’s 9 and 10?” If the identified defects were clearly outlined for the reasons why this card could not receive a PSA 10, I would have gracefully accepted the information without any resentment (as a point for clarification, PSA agreed to review my Illustrator on the condition that they explain to me the defects if it did not qualify for a PSA 10). Instead, receiving uncertainty from the Professional Sports Authenticators at all levels between the communication, inconsistent explanation of the grading standard, and the plausible adjustment to their own standard based on the card in review were incredibly alarming. The final cherry on top - I still had to pay thousands of dollars for this “professional” review of uncertainty. In one sentence, the entire day’s interactions felt like “Oo rare card but ehhh, no Grade 10 today because the card is the Illustrator, and it has white speck - ‘based on experience, eye appeal, and market acceptability.’” If they had lied and told me the centering was in fact the determining factor, I would have more readily accepted that than their actual explanation of “white speck diff.”
Part II: Innovation
4. Enter: TAG
After this most recent grading experience, I had effectively lost faith in all of the grading companies. I viewed PSA’s longevity and quality brand reputation as close to the industry standard as possible, existing faults and all. But to experience so many issues within one interaction, I was incredibly disheartened.
Coincidentally, several hours after I wrote this post about grading consistency, a community member started talking to me about TAG Grading. I was intrigued. I had first heard of them last year, but I honestly was not sure if they were a glorified version of the gimmicky AGS Grading. TAG was approaching their 100,000th publicly graded card and they wanted a big card to commemorate that milestone. I reached out to them, and they offered to give me a tour of their facilities before deciding whether or not I would grade with them. After asking many questions and meeting their team, I have to say that I am thoroughly impressed.
I had the opportunity to sit down and speak with the founder and CEO, Steve Kass, who was a longtime sports card collector. After he retired in 2009-2010, he spent a lot of his free time sorting through boxes of his 1950s Topps collection. Everything in his collection was raw, and that was when he started learning about grading companies. He was floored that the grades he received from the Big 3 were inconsistent, often times receiving higher grades upon his resubmissions to the same companies. In 2010, he founded TAG with the core mission of transparency and consistency in grading, which entails mitigating errors of upholding standards, removing human biases, etc. They began working on concepts and R&D. In 2015, he and his team began filing patents which can be found here and here.
5. The Tech
5/11/24 Edit: TAG uploaded their behind the scenes video showing the process
TAG uses photometric stereoscopic imaging - high resolution camera and a series of different lighting configurations (they apparently have a series of unique light arrays/patterns that appear only as five flashes to the human eye) within a housing to conduct image capture for each side of the card. The key takeaway with this technology is that if enough noise during the imaging phase is reduced, the output would result in a fully exposed detail of the depth and surface orientation of the cards. Again, if done correctly, this technology is noteworthy because not only will defects be consistently identified, but the complete detail of the card’s surface can create a digital fingerprint of the card. Since no two cards can be exactly the same, this means that cards that are resubmitted will not only receive the same grade, but they will receive the same cert#. This also means that alterations and cleaning from foreign agents on cards can be fully identified through this imaging process, whether it is trimming, polishing, or inking. And theoretically, there will finally be a true and accurate Pop report of graded cards (at least from the grade the card first receives and up).
While developing the software for TAG, the founder hired several “senior graders” who used to work at the Big 3 grading companies. They were emphasizing to me that they were not trying to create a new grading standard but to match as closely as possible to the “accepted existing industry standards” from the past few decades. From there, they started building out the software and algorithms for the software to learn the scoring of the many different defects that exist (i.e. the severity of a single defect, how multiple defects can impact the overall appeal of the card (PSA’s “eye appeal” disclaimers) based on the severity of each of these defects, etc.). TAG has a glossary of terminology that they use during the grading process. What was interesting was their term “Corner Surface Wear - CSW” which through their image capture, the software could consistently identify a distinction between this CSW and edgewear. I had asked about the progress of their software, and they told me that at this point, their software is robust enough that the priority for them during QC is to validate that there are no false positives for nonexistent defects. From what I understand, the precision and accuracy testing between the imaging and software were completed before they began publicly grading customer cards. When TAG graded my Illustrator, they performed image capture on both sides of the card (took approximately 25 seconds per side), and then the grade, along with all subsequent defects were identified and scored.
If I were to summarize my in-person first impression of TAG into one word, I would describe them as “thoughtful” in both their hardware and software, actively working toward their goal for transparent and consistent grading results. When TAG gave me the tour of their headquarters, it quickly became clear that they were incredibly meticulous and thoughtful at every step. They accounted for variances like the inherent and unique curvature of every card (no cardboard is perfectly flat) when taking an image of the card. The minor curvature can distort and impact the consistency of evaluating defects on the card during image capture (this is why scanner covers flatten the objects they are scanning to reduce fringe noise) and especially when comparing to every other card that gets scanned. Because there are a lot of marginal noise from scans, TAG found a way to do the opposite, where they flattened the card from underneath by depressurizing the base so it effectively “sucks” the card flat. And because each cardstock is different, they tested and adjusted the required pressure based on the cardstock to not damage the card in the process. When I asked about the platform where they place the card for image capture, they told me it was coated to reduce friction such that when positioning the card, it would mitigate the risk of damaging the surface of the card.
6. Aesthetics and Customer Experience
I remember when I opened my first MacBook nearly fifteen years ago. The unboxing was incredibly smooth and clean - there were minimal paperwork, the cords and cables were carefully tucked away from initial view, and the entire process was a full-blown experience. Meanwhile, Dell and HP laptops had corrugated cardboard fully exposed while cheap twist ties were used. Steve Jobs and Apple new early on that the customer experience, which does not replace the importance of quality of the product, enhances those qualities through the unboxing experience. This is the sentiment I felt when I went through the unboxing of TAG’s slab. The box, when opened, has each slab sealed in their own wrappers so it felt like you were opening a tailor-made pack. And then the slab itself - I thought CGC slabs were incredibly clear, but TAG slabs felt and looked like a different tier above. Laser etching replaced the archaic paper/metallic labels, which allows for an incredibly clean label design (I am still personally debating on the aesthetic transparency of this design as it makes it difficult to read with certain backgrounds, but it definitely enhances attention to the card itself, which was TAG’s primary intent). It’s as close to experiencing the thrill of a raw card but with graded protection.
They etch the QR code with the grade, which pulls up their Digital Image and Grading report (DIG), which has already been covered in this thread. The specific report to my Illustrator can be found HERE. The summary looks as follows:
Lastly, as a means for reducing the risk of fraudulent fake slabs, and second-hand reslabbing, TAG partnered with Proof Authentication. Every TAG slab also receives a laser etched anti-counterfeiting code on the back of the slab. The confirmation/authentication process of the slab is two steps:
Scan:
Read:
The authentication does require downloading a separate Proof Authentication app, which is annoying, but if the codes truly cannot be counterfeited, the inclusion of this code will provide significant protection to customers of TAG and its brand. I have not spent enough time researching this startup so if anyone has any additional information or possible flags regarding the tech, please let me know.
7. AGS Grading in Comparison
Unlike TAG’s photometric stereo, AGS Grading employs laser scanning to map out the surface of the card to identify and then take a separate image scan to review centering (I never had the chance to directly speak with AGS to confirm, but this was what I could gather from their promotional materials),
The presentation of AGS always felt a bit gimmicky, for lack of a better word. Innovation in this space is not rocket science - it is quite the opposite in that all of this technology have already been developed and the only innovative approach is in the application. The AGS team did not seem to carefully consider many of the important aspects of what they built in order to protect their mission of consistency. An example of this was their attempt to address scalability and continuous grading. AGS created their AGS app to allow consumers to capture images of their own cards, and allowed AGS’s software to learn from these new, uncontrolled inputs. In theory, this would be a great concept for open sourcing, but in practice, the amount of noise that this uncontrolled data introduces to their software when it had yet to be fully developed is mind boggling. And if all of this is actually what is happening, then their grading standards would inevitably skew and change over time with enough data inputs, which is alarming. In one of their promotional videos, they claimed that they have “patented, AI technology.” I could not find a single patent from them. It is possible that they filed patents under a different company name, I guess?
Part III: Discussion Topics
8. “If it Ain’t Broke [enough]…?”
I believe PSA is making strides towards integration of technology into their grading, but my goodness does it feel slow (again, please consider watching the full interview of Ryan Hoge, and let me know if I am being overly biased or you can agree that PSA is trudging along way too comfortably). The benchmark for innovation is low when after several decades, their most innovative improvement regarding grading for the customer is the storage of high-resolution scans (I am not considering the UX improvements for submissions of cards). During the past few years, they finally started integrating computer-based review of centering through the acquisition of Genamint in 2021, but with existing technology (again, technology has been out there, it only needed to be applied to this industry), there was so much more they could have done given their working capital and resources. It feels like PSA has been very comfortable maintaining itself as the leading grading company in the industry, continuously capitalizing on the market without the necessity for much innovation. This situation feels very similar to Blackberry vs Apple, where Blackberry believed that the tactile keyboard and prompt email notifications were the most valued assets of a phone. Even Blockbuster vs Netflix, where Blockbuster, through a series of poor leadership decisions, opted to stand behind the in-person store experience instead of competing Netflix.
If PSA really wants to maintain their core value of eye appeal, I am fully accepting of that if the eye appeal factor is only applied to one-off scenarios, which was PSA’s original intention, instead of a blanket application to all cards under review. PSA has had ample opportunity to leverage technology to facilitate their graders in providing more consistent grades to their standards while maintaining their core values. Understandably, the integration would not have necessarily been a drop in the bucket, but because they chose the most conservative approach of minimal innovations, they are now resorting to a waiting game to see how companies like TAG perform in the market.
9. Market Demand
From what I have seen, the grading market is effectively divided by three main demographics: collectors who care wholeheartedly about condition; collectors and enthusiasts who do not know much about card condition and opt to place their trust in the opinions of third-party graders and authenticators; and entities who primarily want to capitalize on the arbitrage opportunities of the inconsistent grades from the grading companies. The first group, assuming they prefer slabs instead of raw cards, would opt for a company like TAG, whereas the second group will continue to be a battleground for all of the grading companies in attracting individuals in this group. My ‘guestimate’ is that we will know within the next year just how large the third group is in the market, and whether or not TAG can gain control of the first two groups to sway the level of impact of the third group. My hot take: The community (accounting for everyone in the collectible space) was not prepared for the increased valuation of cardboard. As collectors of cardboard mature, the shift for increased understanding of the grade will be paramount. Anecdotally, TAG has since graded several trophy cards, three additional Illustrators, and one Black Lotus from collectors who cared more about knowing the condition of their cards than anything else.
10. The Value of Grading and Authentication
There is incredible and undeniable value to have a reputable third party provide authentication of a particular card or asset. I am also a proponent for third party grading because much of the community and enthusiasts do not always know how to evaluate the condition of their own card, and they would also like to protect the card from damage. These qualities of third-party grading provide the foundation for such companies…assuming their integrity and brand remain steadfast. For example, common best practice is for graders to not have a vested interest in the cards that they are grading to minimize conflict of interest. One of the recent occurrences with such conflict was PSA’s autograph grader. In practice, minimizing conflict of interest is a challenging issue to address when the reliance is based entirely on the opinion of the grader. And at the end of the day, every company, regardless of industry and level of autonomy, will have the onus of maintaining their integrity and brand for their customers.
Part IV: Closing
11. Final Thoughts
TAG Grading seems incredibly promising and on track to disrupting the grading industry, which quite frankly is primed for disruption. As a testament to how low the bar has been for innovation in this space, when I visited TAG headquarters, they proudly emphasized to me that they use medical grade ion blowers to remove dust particles on the cards and slabs prior to grading and encapsulation. I honestly assumed for the longest of time that these were standardized in the grading industry. I immediately realized, however, that this was not the case when I remembered the ridiculous amount of dust particulates I could see between the sleeve and slab of my BGS black labels. The general feedback I received from other community members was that “it happens.”
“It Happens” - mistakes, human errors, inconsistencies, bad players, incompetent employees, human biases, questionable tech, and inaccurate data “happen.” While I am all for “going with the flow” in many scenarios, if key improvements can be made at scale, should the major players of the industry not be actively trying to break the current status quo?
Ultimately, consistency and accountability take precedence. Earlier I referenced grading diamonds - when GIA and AGS (the top two widely accepted industry standard labs for grading diamond quality) issue a certification, the recipients receive clear understanding of what quality of diamond they are receiving. Additional examples of their reports are below:
GIA-2115155783.jpg (5643×4361) (whiteflash.com)
AGS-104115370001.jpg (4233×5346) (whiteflash.com)
As technology improved over the years, even GIA highlighted the improved features. Look at their progression during the past two decades.
As mentioned at length above, whether TAG is the answer remains to be seen. Whether they get acquired also remains to be seen. I am all for innovation in this space if it means there can be quality improvements for collectors and enthusiasts in this industry. And for this to occur, these innovations need to be stress tested to continuously highlight potential failure points so that these mitigations can occur proactively on the front end, and not reactively. Questions worth considering when choosing TAG for the long term: What are points of failures that can impact the integrity of their consistent grading scale? What happens if one of their light sources fail - will the system identify the missing light source, or would it continue grading the card based on the reduced image quality? Is there potential for noise in their data that can negatively impact the resulting grading of the card? How accurate is their precision of their 1000-point scale? How accurate is the digital fingerprinting if certain defects are adjusted and resubmitted? Do all resubmissions gain the same cert every single time? What if certain parts of the digital fingerprint is adjusted? Is Proof Authentication truly impossible to counterfeit? Some clarity as to how the grading algorithms work when accounting the varying different defects would be helpful - although the human element will be removed, (which is great when eliminating biases, error, and favoritism), we as the customers will have no visibility as to whether or not the algorithm runs correctly every single time until TAG scales (the sad reality is that this is still better than the possible maybe grades from graders evaluating on a good or bad day).
Although there are still questions left to be answered, I strongly believe TAG has positioned themselves to be the disruptor in the grading and authentication industry. Whether if TAG continues to successfully scale or the Big 3 companies are willing to adapt and integrate the applications once the signal is strong enough, the future of the grading industry will be much better than the present state.
I look forward to the day when I can retire the phrases, “this card should receive a 10 on a good day.” “Buy the card, and not the grade.”
Hope this helps,
cpbog1
12. Q&A:
This section is dedicated to additional questions I have received that some people have asked during the past two weeks.
Q: Seems like TAG is looking for a buyout. Do you agree?
A: Currently, I do not believe they are building solely for the sake of being acquired. As mentioned above, the founder essentially created this company when he realized the huge misses from the industry leading companies. In addition, their larger vision is the creation of a decentralized grading service. The implications are significant if they can reach that milestone.
Whether or not TAG gets acquired before they achieve decentralized grading remains to be seen.
Q: Are you migrating your collection entirely over to TAG?
A: No, I have historically been a binder collector #bindergang. I used to pursue PSA 10s for the sake of completing goals with that label, but I realized that I gain even more joy completing binder copies that are in mint condition. That being said, I still own slabs from every major grading company. In terms of authentication, there are still merits to the services these grading companies can provide. But if I choose to grade cards to truly know the condition in the future, they will be graded with TAG.
Q: Some people have said it’s the cleanest Illustrator copy out there. Do you agree?
A: Given that there are still more Illustrators yet to be seen, I am uncomfortable making any such claim or assumption. And quite frankly, I have no interest in those comparisons. I only care about the condition of my own card. If in the future, however, it comes to light that a cleaner copy results in an exponentially higher valuation, I might feel a little bad, but that’s a future me problem dealing with future personal insecurities.
Q: PSA generally doesn’t have to disclose the reason why the card receives a certain grade, correct?
A: Yes, that is correct, but in this situation, PSA and I agreed in advance that they would share their findings if I opted to move forward with the grading review service. This is particularly why I was dissatisfied with the shared findings - the communication they provided resulted in an equivalent level of uncertainty as I had when walking into PSA headquarters.
Q: So did you grade your Illustrator with TAG because it didn’t cross into a PSA 10?
A: No, because all of the reasons I wrote above in this post. But, if PSA did provide a 10, I would not have graded with TAG as early as I did. So, yes in that regard, the end result is the same. Distinctions for the reason matter in that given the current trajectory of the company and my appreciation for unbiased transparency, I feel our paths would have inevitably crossed whether it was today or later down the line.
Q: So is a PSA 10 the same as TAG 10?
A: No, not just because a PSA 10 is inherently inconsistent, but the execution of each company’s grading standards is completely different from the next grading company. I know people want to make equivalency claims, but these types of quality comparisons just don’t make sense. The community can make comparisons from the secondary market but not from the grading standards of these companies.
Q: How much is TAG paying you?
A: haha, unfortunately, nothing at all. I am just a big supporter of innovation and disruption in a stagnant industry. I’ve actively lived my life thematically breaking the status quo, and if I can support an entity that has been innovating and providing meaningful solutions to existing problems, I will support in the areas that make sense.
I trust Jason enough to believe this is his real opinions but there really does seem to be a “push” from the company onto the hobby. Though I can’t really blame them for trying to advertise. As long as it’s all organic and honest I’m fine with it.
Goin to sleep… again
)
How precise? Could we replicate that on a fake slab, to avoid the cracking mis-match? But then the fingerprint still would not match…
), and I’d read about the concept of “market grading”. In coins, there are two types of grading, even through there is only one scale (Sheldon Scale, rated from 1-70): technical grading, and market grading. It always seemed a bit strange to me, but it’s an accepted fact in that community.
