New Grading Company - CSG

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Chad,
Can you rotate the Johnson image and compare it to the size of the label?

To be honest, I'm not confident enough in the scaling to make that comparison. It was done by hand and is not exact by any means. This is just meant to give an idea of what it could look like. I think that it's fair to say that the label and a T206 would be pretty close in overall surface area.

EDIT: OK, when I figured out that the flip is almost exactly the width of the 1957 Topps, or 2.5 inches, I created a better scale. The T213 in images above is undersized. It should be a little larger. I'll try to fix those. This image should be accurate.

EDIT2: The original images in my post above with the T213 WaJo have been corrected. The card was a bit too small in all holders, but esp. the current CSG holder (as can be seen in Phil's reply). The scale should be very close to true now.

[Pre War Starter]

Curious to other PreWar guys.
Do we REALLY need the qualifiers?

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by Pre War Starter

Curious to other PreWar guys.
Do we REALLY need the qualifiers?

I have never seen the need for Qualifiers on any card. The final grade is what it is. I couldn't care less about edge numbers, corner numbers or anything else.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Frank A

I have never seen the need for Qualifiers on any card. The final grade is what it is. I couldn't care less about edge numbers, corner numbers or anything else.

The qualifiers are an option, for which the submitter will pay a nominal fee. For vintage, I agree there is no need. If/when I submit, I will not request the qualifiers. But I believe many of the modern card collectors may opt for it.

I hope CSG is indeed reading this and can respond to some of the Forum's basic concerns. As the "new kid on the block", you'd think/hope they would be extra-responsive to consumer inquiries. If people get the sense that GSC cares (and is responsive), it would give them an immediate leg up on their current competition.

I agree that the smaller square slab for Tobacco/Caramel cards may not be feasible or cost effective. But hopefully (especially as a new advertiser here) they can at least provide a response to concerns over the flip size and color, as it pertains to smaller-sized cards that are 100+ years old.

There is just no way that the flip size should be comparable to the cards themselves!

[buymycards]

I have been using SGC because I like the look of their slabs. I have about a dozen cards on my wall that were graded by PSA or Beckett, and a dozen or so raw cards. I had planned on sending them to SGC, but with the current mess at SGC I will hold off.

I agree with many of the other posters about the CSG slabs. They aren't very attractive and they haven't explained about their plans to keep the smaller cards from sliding around.


(The photo is actually a vertical wall. )

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by buymycards

...........


(The photo is actually a vertical wall, after the earthquake )

........ known as the great "Boscobellringer"

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

........ known as the great "Boscobellringer"

In Wisconsin, we keep our cards on a horizontal wall so they don't fall off during natural disasters.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I had planned on sending them to SGC, but with the current mess at SGC I will hold off.

What is the 'current mess' at SGC?

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

What is the 'current mess' at SGC?

The current mess at SGC is the raise in prices, coupled with missed deadlines. My last order took 4 months for them to grade. Add in the loss of the registry and the new pop report that made it even more inaccurate than the previous version, it all adds up to a mess.

[RayBShotz]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The qualifiers are an option, for which the submitter will pay a nominal fee. For vintage, I agree there is no need. If/when I submit, I will not request the qualifiers. But I believe many of the modern card collectors may opt for it.

If I read their website correct the qualifiers are far from "nominal".
Appears if you want sub grades you pay $10/card extra for those.
Do I have that right?
RayB

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by RayBShotz

If I read their website correct the qualifiers are far from "nominal".
Appears if you want sub grades you pay $10/card extra for those.
Do I have that right?
RayB

Yes you're right... not really nominal for cheaper cards. Somewhat nominal when looking at a percentage of the fees for high-end cards.

[steve B]

Looking at it from the angle of keeping costs down, a gasketed holder makes the most sense. Even with modern CNC machining, a set of dies for injection molding is a big investment.
3D printing has potential, but right now it's painfully slow, and isn't great for clear stuff.

So a size that can hold most "regular" cards and a gasket to adjust the size is the most cost effective.

I've thought for years that the gasket could be made in different colors. That would allow some customizing, like team colors, or even just a lighter choice for cards like 71 Topps or 50 Drakes.

I knew the square "thing" I mocked up wouldn't appeal to everyone, it's what I could do with the old image and paint in a few minutes. Plenty of room for improvement. There's really no big reason most T size cards couldn't be in a small slab. the 3x4 size of a toploader could be pretty good.

I've been trying to figure out a slab with a pocket to contain a detailed report/certificate.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Pre War Starter

Curious to other PreWar guys.
Do we REALLY need the qualifiers?

The only qualifiers I would need are trimmed, colored, or altered.

[steve B]

Looking at that, I'm thinking that for T cards a holder that had the label on the side would be pretty nice. It could probably be made so it would easily fit existing storage boxes.

Sort of like this

Originally Posted by chadeast

To be honest, I'm not confident enough in the scaling to make that comparison. It was done by hand and is not exact by any means. This is just meant to give an idea of what it could look like. I think that it's fair to say that the label and a T206 would be pretty close in overall surface area.

EDIT: OK, when I figured out that the flip is almost exactly the width of the 1957 Topps, or 2.5 inches, I created a better scale. The T213 in images above is undersized. It should be a little larger. I'll try to fix those. This image should be accurate.

EDIT2: The original images in my post above with the T213 WaJo have been corrected. The card was a bit too small in all holders, but esp. the current CSG holder (as can be seen in Phil's reply). The scale should be very close to true now.

[Jcosta19]

Originally Posted by steve B

Looking at that, I'm thinking that for T cards a holder that had the label on the side would be pretty nice. It could probably be made so it would easily fit existing storage boxes.



Sort of like this

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[RayBShotz]

So Leon, what is your interpretation of how CSG will actually slab a T206 card for instance?
Custom fit slab, slabbed with a baggie, slabbed with a gasketed insert?
Sounds like you might have had more correspondence than most of us.
Curiously interested now.

By the way, I like the shorter slab interpretation without the insert, but not the square one.
Question I would still have is how will they center or stabilize the card in the center of the holder?
RayB

[chadeast]

I like the creativity, but I was trying to present something that would be feasible for CSG. Even one different holder size is going to be a big challenge, due to the hit to logistics and economy of scale. Different size, so different transport requirements, storage requirements, different ultrasonic welder horn, lower overall quantities of each holder type making each one more expensive, etc. are all going to push hard against making any alternate sized holder.

I am guessing that having a super specific holder for only certain issues of cards is going to be an absolute non-starter economically. With that in mind, my hope was to present an alternate holder design that would better conform to the aesthetic needs of many, while still being able to hold any standard size or smaller card. I realize that a change of this magnitude is unlikely, and this may all be a non-starter, but I was hoping that it might stimulate enough feedback from the community to at least get CSG to take notice.

And the proposed square holder may meet a need for denser storage, but it doesn't help the aesthetic situation, IMHO.