Excited for CCG (CSG)?

[drcy]

[Casey2296]

I'm holding off on a large order hoping their flip includes a black apron and a decent looking label. If they hit those two requirements I'll be more than happy to send them the order. They have been in the grading game a long time so I'm assuming they would have the actual grading of the card similar to industry standards, if there are any standards, and from a few posts here apparently they have hired some good graders. Just looking at those pre-war cards in REA with SGC's abomination of a label makes me cringe. Too bad really, because the cards present so much better with a black apron, SGC just missed the mark on the label.

[Tyruscobb]

Although competition generally benefits consumers (e.g. lower prices, better service, etc.), I’m skeptical that any new third-party grader will help solve the hobby’s biggest problem - altered cards receiving numerical grades and over-grading.

The reason is the vintage fee structure. Most TPGs do not have a flat fee. Instead, the fee varies depending on the card’s value. This creates a subconscious financial incentive (and, unfortunately, probably a conscious one for some TPGs) to over-grade. Over-grading increases the card’s price, which, in turn, increases the fee. An increased fee increases the company’s profitability, which, in turn, may increase the grader’s pay. The current vintage fee structure has too many interest conflicts that have created the current problems.

Removing the financial incentive to over-grading is what needs to happen to fix the problem. TPGs should charge a flat fee to grade a vintage card whether it is a beater or a gem-mint 10. The fee should not vary depending on whether the card comes back a Poor 1 or gem 10. So, unless any new grader uses a flat vintage fee, the problem will continue.

A new TPG will make the existing TPGs improve their services and fees, as well as reduce turnaround times. However, any new TPG that uses the same vintage fee is equivalent to putting a bandage on a bullet wound - it will not cure the underlying problem. It may temporarily improve the situation, but eventually even a new TPG’s actual graders will fall victim to the above-referenced dilemma - increasing the company’s bottom line.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I’m skeptical that any new third-party grader will help solve the hobby’s biggest problem - altered cards receiving numerical grades and over-grading.

well said

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

...I’m skeptical that any new third-party grader will help solve the hobby’s biggest problem - altered cards receiving numerical grades and over-grading...

This.

The number of altered cards that get numerical grades is alarming. Trimming has become so prevalent, it seems as though most PSA holders could double as maracas.

[Usc1]

Originally Posted by Eric72

This.

The number of altered cards that get numerical grades is alarming. Trimming has become so prevalent, it seems as though most PSA holders could double as maracas.

I don’t this problem will ever be resolved unfortunately. Maybe even get worse with improving technology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Usc1

I don’t this problem will ever be resolved unfortunately. Maybe even get worse with improving technology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In a perfect world, technology would also improve on the alteration detection front.

I know, I know. Dream the impossible dream...

[hockeyhockey]

what's the latest on CCG starting up? i'm not well-versed on this, so apologies if this is a dumb question.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Although competition generally benefits consumers (e.g. lower prices, better service, etc.), I’m skeptical that any new third-party grader will help solve the hobby’s biggest problem - altered cards receiving numerical grades and over-grading.

The reason is the vintage fee structure. Most TPGs do not have a flat fee. Instead, the fee varies depending on the card’s value. This creates a subconscious financial incentive (and, unfortunately, probably a conscious one for some TPGs) to over-grade. Over-grading increases the card’s price, which, in turn, increases the fee. An increased fee increases the company’s profitability, which, in turn, may increase the grader’s pay. The current vintage fee structure has too many interest conflicts that have created the current problems.

Removing the financial incentive to over-grading is what needs to happen to fix the problem. TPGs should charge a flat fee to grade a vintage card whether it is a beater or a gem-mint 10. The fee should not vary depending on whether the card comes back a Poor 1 or gem 10. So, unless any new grader uses a flat vintage fee, the problem will continue.

A new TPG will make the existing TPGs improve their services and fees, as well as reduce turnaround times. However, any new TPG that uses the same vintage fee is equivalent to putting a bandage on a bullet wound - it will not cure the underlying problem. It may temporarily improve the situation, but eventually even a new TPG’s actual graders will fall victim to the above-referenced dilemma - increasing the company’s bottom line.

I’m sympathetic to this argument but it doesn’t answer a key issue: prices in every realm of the economy help find equilibrium between supply and demand. A big problem now is that people are sending in very inexpensive cards relative to the grading fee. You see it even with vintage where the grading fee is close to the value of certain vintage commons. A modification of this idea would be to set the grading fee on a scale based on the SMR value of a certain grade of the card, regardless of actual grade. This could have the same benefits of the above plan with the added benefit of metering the demand more.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I'm holding off on a large order hoping their flip includes a black apron and a decent looking label. If they hit those two requirements I'll be more than happy to send them the order. They have been in the grading game a long time so I'm assuming they would have the actual grading of the card similar to industry standards, if there are any standards, and from a few posts here apparently they have hired some good graders. Just looking at those pre-war cards in REA with SGC's abomination of a label makes me cringe. Too bad really, because the cards present so much better with a black apron, SGC just missed the mark on the label.

I second this! SGC had perfect labels before... have no clue why they opted for their current atrocity! Was working on a project with all SGC slabs and decided to go in a different direction because I had a bunch of raws and didn't like the non-uniform look with the older slabs and the new ones.