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

[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.

[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.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by hcv123

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

Any idea how many pixels that would be.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Any idea how many pixels that would be.

10 Feet = 11520.001451339 Pixels

(your welcome)

[icurnmedic]

For those interested , I have a order that was "received " ( around 8 days after arrived) 3/4/21 and has yet to be graded.To be fair it is an economy order. However , That was early on, so I would not think that it would have been backed up at that point. I called CSG 5/17/21 and the lady said should be shipped by 6/17/21, but nothing as of yet.
Thomas Church

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

For those interested , I have a order that was "received " ( around 8 days after arrived) 3/4/21 and has yet to be graded.To be fair it is an economy order. However , That was early on, so I would not think that it would have been backed up at that point. I called CSG 5/17/21 and the lady said should be shipped by 6/17/21, but nothing as of yet.
Thomas Church

They definitely got buried after (and even before) the PSA and SGC shutdowns. I shipped a modern-ish oddball test lot of 19 multi-sport cards to them on March 11th, they marked as received on April 14th, and has been in "Scheduled For Grading" limbo for a couple weeks now.

I think they jumped in the game either two months too early, or two months too late....depends on how you look at it. They certainly weren't prepared for the volume, or have suitable accounting practices in place to keep people up to date on where their cards were

Unfortunately I don't see much of an alternative on those types of cards I sent in. PSA is out for the foreseeable future, and $30 bucks + a possible research charge, from SGC, for modern oddball stuff they don't have a very good track record with, doesn't really make any economic sense either.

These cards won't make or break me either way, but I had to satisfy my curiosity with this newer company.

[D. Bergin]

CCG including CSG and the rest of their grading brands, sold to The Blackstone Group.

Whatever that means long term, I have no idea.

https://www.csgcards.com/news/article/9254/

[Frankish]

Just got my first CSG submission back. Decided to send an assortment of cards, none too valuable, to check it out (this was at $8/card, I think, or something like that). The new cards came back much as expected, 9s and 9.5s.

I'm still trying to figure out how they arrive at grades for vintage cards. For the most part, I agree with their sub-grades but then the final grade puzzles me.

A few examples from this submission:

(card, final grade, sub-grades: centering, corners, edges, surface)

1956 Topps Yogi Berra, 3.0: 8.0, 5.5, 7.0, 2.5
1977-78 Topps David Thompson, 5.5: 5.0, 8.5, 8.5, 6.5
1952 Bob Feller, 2.5: 8.0, 2.5, 4.5, 2.5
1981 Donruss Jack Nicklaus, 5.5: 8.0, 6.0, 8.5, 5.0

Just puzzling (to me)....