After all the hype of the last ~2 or so years we saw the meteoric rise and fall of graded pokemon card prices, the birth of new grading card companies, and a massive influx of participants in the hobby.
If you collect graded cards, which company’s slabs do you actually have as a part of your collection? Not inventory to be sold.
Personally I’m a PSA maximalist and want all my slab labels to match. Do you have a mix of different slabs?
Choose 1 or all; what does your slab collection contain? If you choose “other” feel free to comment which company you have slabs from as part of your collection so we can berate you.
Edit: I wasn’t sure how the poll would calculate results, but the way it’s showing is the “% of voters who chose a specific answer” - which is why it’s over 100%.
I have PSA/BGS/CGC items that I have no plans to sell but that’s more just a matter of “the card happened to be graded by the company already when I bought it”.
If I were starting with a stack of raw cards today, my collection items would probably all go to CGC (pls don’t send me to the unpopular opinions thread).
PSA and CGC because they are the same size. Some error/misprints/oddities cards are only graded by CGC. Hence, it is evitable to have some CGC slabs in the collection.
I only have PSA in my main collection and I will likely only grade with PSA in the future. I have a few CGC slabs and I like the physical slab, but the grading scale, grading scale changes and diminished resale value compared to PSA mean I don’t really count them as part of my collection.
With Pokemon, I’m like 99% PSA. I have a single 9.5 CGC WOTC Charizard because I managed to get it cheaper than a PSA 9 at the time and it’s well graded. I have a modest graded MTG collection and it’s BGS & CGC because MTG collectors have this weird obsession with sub-grades and PSA doesn’t offer those.
At some point or another I’m probably going to turn all the CGCs into PSA/BGS mainly because I prefer the labels more on them. I have no qualms with CGC or their grading, just not a fan of the label with most cards due to how it clashes with the colours (especially a red background card).
If CGC had a more neutral coloured label, I think I would gladly take them over Beckett because the slab itself is great for it clarity and size. The new label is a little bit better at least. Maybe I just need to get used to it, I dunno.
95% of my slab collection is PSA, with the remaining 5% being CGC. I originally started collecting PSA and continued to do so throughout the years, having a pleasant grading experience with them for the two submissions I have done.
When CGC started, I gave them a try with a submission and felt like their grading process was too harsh for the value received. Majority 8.5s with few 9s, one 9,5, and no 10’s. As a buyer, I enjoyed being able to get certain cards for below PSA equivalent cost. However, when they changed their grading standards I stopped buying CGC.
All in all, I will eventually cross grade all of my CGC over to PSA when their turnaround times get back to reasonable levels
This is the primary reason I’ve been opting mainly for CGC with personal collection cards. The slab simply offers a better viewing experience than PSA slabs, IMO. At the same time, I agree with @jabby that the label color is unfortunate. I don’t mind the blue label that much, but I absolutely would prefer a more neutral color scheme.
No weird auto-6 grading standard for near-unnoticeable surface defects (though I do love some discount pristine 6’s for my binders)
Best security features on the label (not that anyone would counterfeit them instead of PSA, anyways)
HQ close enough to me that I get cheap overnight shipping and I can drive over there if needed
Good online “infrastructure” (submission entry/tracking, pop report, scans, etc)
They haven’t fucked me (yet)
As mentioned above, there’s definitely some concern about grading standards since even in the short time they’ve been around, there’s already “old label” vs “new label” standards with the relics of the great 8.5 era. I generally like the way they grade currently, but having precedent that it can change is worrying.
I find it looks great with most modern cards, usually because they have a wider colour palette it seems. For example, they look really good with most modern Japanese cards with the silver borders or most of the Full Art SWSH cards. It’s mainly with some vintage WOTC that I can’t stand it on most cards. So like Base Set Charizard and pretty much any red back card in any other set, or a red back Magic card looks even worse to me with the blue gradient label.
Regardless, I’m still happy to pick up the odd CGC slab because the grading is usually solid on them and can often go for cheaper at auction.
Mostly PSA, as they have been the standard and most popular since I began collecting.
Over the last few years I have, of course, collected some CGC cards because they were the only reputable grader available(and their prices were low).
I just bought my first BGS graded card. I have never been against owning BGS, but the opportunity only came up for a card I wanted just recently.
For me, the biggest factor in whether or not the label “works” is the color scheme of the card. There are some cards with color schemes that really clash with the blue label (I think deep red cards are the worst offender).
But by the same token, I think the label color scheme works very well with certain cards. Like with this Academy:
The blue gradient combined with the blue sky and silver borders of the card itself and also the multi-coloured top part of the CGC label combined with the actual holo of the card is just perfect to me. So it’s really a hit or miss, unfortunately. It would be nice if they made some adjustment or label options for certain cards, but it seems they want to stick to the signature blue format since that is what they are known for from the comic side of things. Anything could be possible though.
I have a couple Beckett slabs but PSA and CGC are my main two, especially since I collect and grade errors. It’s a shame CGCs resale value isn’t as strong as PSAs, I’ve really been warming up to them.
Also I really like SGCs cases! Wish it was more common to see in Pokémon!
CGC I enjoy the clear case for taking photos, subgrades, error classifications, minimal upcharges. Use them for most of my error and Chansey collection.
PSA I enjoy for the satisfaction of a PSA 10 and collecting 10 sets, and the decades of data in the pop report. When PSA 10s become valuable I sometimes downgrade condition.
BGS I enjoy for the same reasons as PSA and also like the metallic label and heft though I don’t like the 8 and below label at all.
Sticking with PSA for the foreseeable future. Best overall package between value/looks/cost (especially when the value tier comes back). I have CGC slabs, but intend to crack and cross them to PSA. Love CGC slabs, but the label hurts it. Plus the cost of sub grades is a bit too much, and I like having them. CGC 9/9.5s are the best value when buying slabs though.
Maybe if they used the CSG label instead of the blue label? Not sure how I feel about it, but its a bit more neutral.
This is 100 percent the worst part of PSA’s grading system and unquestionably needs to be corrected. A card with an indent that isn’t even noticeable to the naked eye and is otherwise pristine should absolutely not receive a 6 while a card with noticeable whitening on all four corners gets an 8. It is an asinine and archaic concept and it boggles my mind that PSA has allowed it to drag on for this long.
