CSG Card Grading Comp - 1st card on Ebay???

[68Hawk]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I had the Chamberlain pegged at a 6-6.5 (great centering) and the Russell at a 7-8 stunning card - even under 10X magnification.

PSA graded the Chamberlain a 6 and ROBBED me on the Russell with a 6 as well!! Freakin' ridiculous.

Agree the Russell looks a 7, but again I'm in the band of grade harder not softer so not shocked.

That Wilt however, with the centering and overall eye appeal....that card has long time hold written all over it. It will sell over grade and possibly 2 grades up in time and in the right auction. And there's no other card issue of his comparable, it's an important one for basketball collecting.

10 years time and that card will bring truly astonishing money.
Congrats on owning it.

[forceplay sport]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

At the end of Feb I sent in cards to CSG @ 3 different levels--Bulk, Economy & Standard--all w/ different completion dates. Just got word that Standard & Economy are ready to ship & Bulk will be a bit longer (as expected).

Anxious to see the results as they are ALL cards I plan on Selling as I continue to liquidate my life-long collection.

Fred, I sent in a few under economy at the beginning of March and I'm showing scheduled for grading, curious if you will get your economy before the 40 day
turnaround.

[GoldenAge50s]

I am keeping track of everything & will give a report as I receive cards back. I am thinking I will get my Standard order (25 days) back this coming week--it would be nice to get them that fast! We''ll see!!

[GoldenAge50s]

Promised UPDATE:

My STANDARD submission (25 days) was logged in 3-11, shipped back 3-17 & recvd in hand yesterday 3-25----14 days total.

One comment on grading--CSG seems to be tough on centering--I will have a better opinion when I get ALL my cards back.

Expecting my ECONOMY lot (40 days) maybe tomorrow.

Here's my '55 Aaron:

[forceplay sport]

Fred the card looks great, not sure I agree with the grade though. I feel one thing they could do to improve is change the way it prints out on the label, since you chose no sub grades. If nothing else to take up the space and make it
look more uniform.

[GoldenAge50s]

I agree w/ you--The corners & edges are very sharp and there are no stray print marks--the only thing I see is the OC, which is the basis of my comment about centering. I feel as though it should have graded just a tad higher.

[ValKehl]

Fred, I suggest you contact CSG and ask them how much the reduced the grade on your lovely Aaron card for the relatively-poor centering. And, if you kindly let us know CSG's answer, this will give all of us a good idea as to what to expect when we submit.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I hate to be "that guy" but if you look at the back scan there is a ding in the top border over the L in FALSE, possibly some damage on the bottom border under the home run total, tiny corner touches and pretty noticeable toning. While I think it's an awesome 6, I think the grade is right.

[Oscar_Stanage]

that is a sweet Aaron...
The way centering works for the technical grade, the card has to meet a specific requirement, (with some leeway I'd assume).

A CSG 7 has to be 70/30 or better.
A CSG 6 has to be 75/25 or better.

I am guessing the tools came up with something like this.... I zoomed in /out on the screen a few times and measured... I got slightly better than ~80/20 every time. I think it is too far from 70/30 to get a 7...

corners/edges/surface have way more subjectivity because the grader is applying his opinion to a description.

[marzoumanian]

I agree 100 percent with it. You're hired!

Now, when can you start?!?

Peace.

[toledo_mudhen]

Being the Centering OCD kinda guy that I am - I had to take a measure on this one -

I have always personally used the JRuler Utility to measure borders in Pixels.

On your Aaron - I come up with

Left = 22 Pixels
Right = 19 Pixels
Centering L to R = 53.6/46.4

Top = 29 Pixels
Bottom = 9 Pixels
Centering T to B = 76.3/23.7

So if my measurements are correct then the T/B Centering would be just a tad bit under what their stated requirements are for a 6

Still a great card but I would really question them if it was in a 7 holder

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

that is a sweet Aaron...
The way centering works for the technical grade, the card has to meet a specific requirement, (with some leeway I'd assume).

A CSG 7 has to be 70/30 or better.
A CSG 6 has to be 75/25 or better.

I am guessing the tools came up with something like this.... I zoomed in /out on the screen a few times and measured... I got slightly better than ~80/20 every time. I think it is too far from 70/30 to get a 7...

corners/edges/surface have way more subjectivity because the grader is applying his opinion to a description.

[GoldenAge50s]

After reading everyone's comments & re-examining my card w/ a magnifier, I am changing my opinion of the grade.

I hate to be "that guy" but if you look at the back scan there is a ding in the top border over the L in FALSE, possibly some damage on the bottom border under the home run total, tiny corner touches and pretty noticeable toning. While I think it's an awesome 6, I think the grade is right.

Scott--
Your above comments are "right on"--you sure have an "eagle eye" for grading!
There IS a minute mark over the L in False and on the bottom, under the HR total is a wee indent--my magnifier sees it as a tiny "rubber band" indent! (I now remember noticing this when I was preparing the card for submission)

Bottom Line is: I now think the Grade of 6 is very fair & accurate!


Thank You ALL for the comments--they have all been well thought out & most of all, VERY correct!!

[Exhibitman]

These are on their way back from CSG. I think the grades were accurate and I am pleased with the way they look. As for flip size, I do not mind the 'older guy' big fonts. I am an older guy...

[D. Bergin]

Package arrived on 3/15 according to tracking for a 19 card "Economy" order. Hasn't been logged into the system yet, as of today.

According to the new CSG chat boards, this is normal, and it looks like they are getting a bit backed up already.

Still, not going to complain yet. My PSA "Express" order arrived on the 5th, was logged on the 8th, and hasn't moved past that point since then.

[forceplay sport]

Looking at Adams slabbed cards, I still think if you choose not to go with sub grades they could space it the label better, other than that I like what they are doing.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by forceplay sport

Looking at Adams slabbed cards, I still think if you choose not to go with sub grades they could space it the label better, other than that I like what they are doing.

+1

[D. Bergin]

Lots of talk on the CSG boards of cards getting returned ungraded for being "Oversized". Particularly the 89UD Griffey Rookie, which seems really odd to me.

[Usc1]

Anyone get a T206 in the CSG holder yet? Curious what it looks like.

[Exhibitman]

My order should arrive at my office tomorrow, so I will get my first in-person look at their product. Looking forward to it! I will scan and post side by side by sides of CSG, PSA and SGC holders so we can compare them in perspective.

[packs]

Are they hard plastic holders like PSA / SGC or more bendy like the old GAI holders?

[Exhibitman]

My order from CSG came in today.

Packing: CSG has a nifty molded foam insert that firmly holds each card separated by about 1/2". No tape or bubble wrap to surgically remove, no holder-on-holder contact. It is nice enough and effective enough that I am going to save it for when I send slabbed cards to auction. A definite bonus.

Holders: The CSG holder is almost exactly the same size as the PSA holder, maybe a fraction of a millimeter larger. I use Superior Fit Innovations sleeves for my graded cards; they fit precisely with virtually no tolerances. The PSA sleeves fit the CSG holders almost perfectly; over half were tight squeezes but all did fit into the sleeves. The larger labels on the CSG holders is accomplished by minimizing the margins between the edge of the holder and the card rails. The CSG holders are polished and smooth all around. No sharp seams or edges. In hand, they look great. The smooth, polished surface does require more care; dusting them off with a nylon cloth is a must before you put them into sleeves because with the 100% clear background every speck of dust shows.

Card Condoms: CSG follows the BVG model of a four-point heat seal to prevent the cards from rattling around. A definite improvement over PSA, and for thin cards (like the Susini Speaker I sent in) over SGC's gasket. The only exception was the 1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson, which is in an unsealed sleeve because it was too large for a safe margin for the welds.

My verdict: I like the product. The holders have a blend of the better features of BVG and PSA.

[perezfan]

Thank you Adam, for the great overview and analysis. Very helpful... I initially thought the CSG slab would be too big, but sounds like it's right in line with the others.

Here's a link to an article that many here might find to be of interest. Sounds like they already may have a leg up on a couple of major competitors...

https://www.csgcards.com/news/articl...e-color-added/


Given the current TPG ethics issues, backlog situation and crazy price increases, I am now a lot less hesitant to give this company a try.

[Zact]

I will personally pass on csg until I see a larger sample size. I have seen a few post war vintage items that looked inaccurately graded vs psa

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Zact

I will personally pass on csg until I see a larger sample size. I have seen a few post war vintage items that looked inaccurately graded vs psa

I would like to see how the sales hold up compared to PSA.

[JK]

Adam, how was the accuracy of the grading? Also, any chance you could post a few more examples of cards in the slabs?

[GoldenAge50s]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Lots of talk on the CSG boards of cards getting returned ungraded for being "Oversized". Particularly the 89UD Griffey Rookie, which seems really odd to me.

I had a '55 Bowman Mantle returned ungraded for that very reason--I don't agree as many cards from the '50's will vary by a mili-fraction when piled together. I think any other grading Co would have OK'd it.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

I had a '55 Bowman Mantle returned ungraded for that very reason--I don't agree as many cards from the '50's will vary by a mili-fraction when piled together. I think any other grading Co would have OK'd it.

The 55 Bowman seem to be all over the place in width. For me the Willie Mays was the hardest to find raw that wasn't extremely short.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

I had a '55 Bowman Mantle returned ungraded for that very reason--I don't agree as many cards from the '50's will vary by a mili-fraction when piled together. I think any other grading Co would have OK'd it.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to think it's a gasket issue, and CSG will resume grading those type cards when they start to further customize their slabs in the near future.

Unless they think these are all sheet cut cards............in which case they should say so.

[Exhibitman]

I thought the grading was fair.

I will post more scans shortly. In the meantime, here's one:

[RayBShotz]

Adam - Thanks for the analysis of your experience and the scans of the product. Very insightful.
RayB

[D. Bergin]

Well, it looks like CSG is flooded, LOL! They just updated their two lowest tiers to 75-80 "WORKING" days (16 weeks), plus it's taking them weeks or longer just to get cards into the acceptance/arrived stage once it hits their Post Office.

Oh well.

[perezfan]

Just revisiting this thread to see if anyone has seen a Tobacco/Caramel Card in a CSG slab yet? Eager to see how these smaller cards look, as PSA, SGC and Beckett are no longer viable alternatives for me.

If someone has access to an image and can post it, that would be great.... Thanks!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Just revisiting this thread to see if anyone has seen a Tobacco/Caramel Card in a CSG slab yet? Eager to see how these smaller cards look, as PSA, SGC and Beckett are no longer viable alternatives for me.

If someone has access to an image and can post it, that would be great.... Thanks!

This doesn't count?

[perezfan]

Thanks Adam...

Not familiar with that particular issue, so don't know how the size and shape compares to a T206 or E95, for example. Your card looks more square and less rectangular.

That's a lot of blank space in the slab. I really prefer the look of SGC for smaller-sized cards, but am not very fond of them these days, either.

Regardless, thanks for re-posting that. Super-cool Tris Speaker card, and looks like they graded it pretty tough!

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Thanks Adam...

Not familiar with that particular issue, so don't know how the size and shape compares to a T206 or E95, for example. Your card looks more square and less rectangular.

That's a lot of blank space in the slab. I really prefer the look of SGC for smaller-sized cards, but am not very fond of them these days, either.

Regardless, thanks for re-posting that. Super-cool Tris Speaker card, and looks like they graded it pretty tough!

Nice card but you know others will claim it's O/C. Not the card but the slabbing.

[D. Bergin]

Well, LOL. The gravy train has ended on CSG.

They've already instituted a price hike before most people who have submitted to them in their entire history of existence have even gotten their cards back.

It's for the good of the customers, you see.

Not as huge a price hike as the other established TPG's, but a price hike nonetheless.

Also comes with a convenient deadline to make sure they get hit with an avalanche of new submissions, just before they go into effect.

https://www.csgcards.com/news/articl...Z2H1CTeuU3u6VU

[JK]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Lots of talk on the CSG boards of cards getting returned ungraded for being "Oversized". Particularly the 89UD Griffey Rookie, which seems really odd to me.

I believe that CSG would prefer that you trim those cards up and resubmit at a higher value tier

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Well, LOL. The gravy train has ended on CSG.

They've already instituted a price hike before most people who have submitted to them in their entire history of existence have even gotten their cards back.

It's for the good of the customers, you see.

I do not understand the criticism of price hikes. these companies have no choice. it is not possible to hire and train enough graders to ever meet industry demand and maintain any sort of standard. either grading becomes a luxury good, or the demand eventually wanes to the point where they can meet it.

my guess is the latter, and all the 3rd rate grading options go out of business.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

I do not understand the criticism of price hikes. these companies have no choice. it is not possible to hire and train enough graders to ever meet industry demand and maintain any sort of standard. either grading becomes a luxury good, or the demand eventually wanes to the point where they can meet it.

my guess is the latter, and all the 3rd rate grading options go out of business.

Grading companies to customers throwing money at them hand over foot.

[Oscar_Stanage]

I bought a CSG 8.5 card- 85 o-pee-chee Gretzky, because the price was good. As soon as I had the card in hand, I knew it was mis-graded. I figured it was a 7 at best.
came back SGC 6.5. this can happen to any card slabbed a few years ago... but there is no excuse for cards getting graded in 2021 to be off that much.

SGC = PSA. CSG is not in-line with the top graders.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

I bought a CSG 8.5 card- 85 o-pee-chee Gretzky, because the price was good. As soon as I had the card in hand, I knew it was mis-graded. I figured it was a 7 at best.
came back SGC 8.5. this can happen to any card slabbed a few years ago... but there is no excuse for cards getting graded in 2021 to be off that much.

SGC = PSA. CSG is not in-line with the top graders.

Wait, what? You're complaining that you cracked an 8.5, then SGC gave it an 8.5 although you think it deserves a 7?

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Wait, what? You're complaining that you cracked an 8.5, then SGC gave it an 8.5 although you think it deserves a 7?

Confused as well.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Wait, what? You're complaining that you cracked an 8.5, then SGC gave it an 8.5 although you think it deserves a 7?

lol, sorry. it came back an SGC 6.5! I fixed it in the original

[hcv123]

so far. I wouldn't touch a CSG card with a 10 foot pole.

[D. Bergin]

I don't know. I've seen modern collectors complaining CSG is tougher then the other TPG's on some things. Maybe they are working on different parameters, depending on the issue.

And again......we have the vast amount of trimmed cards out there, that the big TPG's have given glowing reviews to, that technically should be nothing more then an "A".

For some reason, that seems worse to me then a point and a half difference on an OPC issue, which has natural printing flaws in them that collectors haven't agreed on how to grade correctly in decades.

[perezfan]

Maybe CSG has their own scale and doesn't follow the flawed PSA model. Perhaps they punish some attributes more harshly than others, and some less. That's fine by me, as I see no consistency at all within PSA these days.

Also, I've always felt PSA is way too harsh on pinpoint paper-loss and way too lenient on poor focus/registration. Also hate that there's a huge range for difference at the bottom of their scale (1-4), and only microscopic variance at the top end (7-10). Some PSA 2s look like 7s, and some look like they've been crumpled up and pulled from a trash can. It's an idiotic scale, of which the grades are not indicative of the cards' overall appeal.

Not to mention the small fact that tens of thousands of altered cards reside in PSA numbered slabs. Why they are put on a pedestal as the standard-bearer, I will never understand. Oh yeah... money.

I'm glad to see some new blood in there to shake things up. Maybe CSG will make it - maybe they won't. But the competition is undoubtedly a good thing for the hobby.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Maybe CSG has their own scale and doesn't follow the flawed PSA model. Perhaps they punish some attributes more harshly than others, and some less. That's fine by me, as I see no consistency at all within PSA these days.

Also, I've always felt PSA is way too harsh on pinpoint paper-loss and way too lenient on poor focus/registration. Also hate that there's a huge range for difference at the bottom of their scale (1-4), and only microscopic variance at the top end (7-10). Some PSA 2s look like 7s, and some look like they've been crumpled up and pulled from a trash can. It's an idiotic scale, of which the grades are not indicative of the cards' overall appeal.

Not to mention the small fact that tens of thousands of altered cards reside in PSA numbered slabs. Why they are put on a pedestal as the standard-bearer, I will never understand. Oh yeah... money.

I'm glad to see some new blood in there to shake things up. Maybe CSG will make it - maybe they won't. But the competition is undoubtedly a good thing for the hobby.

there is nothing flawed about the grading scale. No one is creating their own scale when the marketplace revolves around PSA (not because they are better/stricter but because 90% of card volume is PSA). A big part of grading is process, which IMO SGC has down cold. based on my experience with a CSG card, they do not have a good process. any card graded TODAY by any legitimate grader could not possibly be crossed at more than 1 grade up/down, and 90% would cross with the same grade. the fact that CSG graded a 6 as an 8.5 shows me they are not in the game.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

there is nothing flawed about the grading scale. No one is creating their own scale when the marketplace revolves around PSA (not because they are better/stricter but because 90% of card volume is PSA). A big part of grading is process, which IMO SGC has down cold. based on my experience with a CSG card, they do not have a good process. any card graded TODAY by any legitimate grader could not possibly be crossed at more than 1 grade up/down, and 90% would cross with the same grade. the fact that CSG graded a 6 as an 8.5 shows me they are not in the game.

That assumes a level of consistency and competence from PSA and Beckett and SGC that at the moment I'd classify as "marginally above a fairytale" on the believeability scale.

Process isn't everything, it's entirely possible to get bad results with a great process, and great results with very little process.

[Jcosta19]

I finally found a t206 graded by CSG on ebay.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/402942315893

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

any card graded TODAY by any legitimate grader could not possibly be crossed at more than 1 grade up/down, and 90% would cross with the same grade. the fact that CSG graded a 6 as an 8.5 shows me they are not in the game.

PSA has graded the exact same card a GOOD 2 in one instance, then NM 7 upon being cracked out and resubmitted.
PSA has missed pinholes in cards and given them NM 7s.
I guess that makes the point that PSA is not a legitimate company.