I can assure you that they can be put back together without obvious signs. I received a rare Johnny Bench card I bought and when it arrived in the SGC holder it all but came apart without me even trying to open it. It was a hard to find card so I did not return and subbed it to SGC again (PSA no longer grades this card). I was shocked at how clean the slab had come apart. I could put it back together and you could not tell.

I would like to see that.

Excellent point! I was so focused on the slab astetics that I missed that completely.

Maybe thats the point of the slab. Ha

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I might still have the slab. I will have to dig around in my basement and see if I still have it. If I can locate it I will post a picture of it.

I thought I was the only one who thought that. That is a horrible overgrade for that card.

I've never found any of the slabs easy to open myself, Beckett being the hardest.
From any of the TPG's I have to use pliers to break off a corner of the slab, then run a flat head screwdriver through the space opened. Even then it's often pretty hair raising as I work down one side of the slab and pray I don't run into the card.
Slabs are always mangled afterwards, no chance of passing as othewise.

Never noticed any possible point in a closed slab to simply ease a small screw driver in and pry it open in c'est la vie fashion.

The Mays is ugly as sin in that holder.
Needs the flat black SGC background to create a prettier home.
Nice condition cards look fine in BGS and PSA clear tombs, but rough condition cards really benefit from an SGC holder.

Would be super interesting to see CSG's breakdown of grades for each area and which was lowest?
Surface shouldn't get a 2, corners maaaaybe a 2-3, centering I guess a 2, edges best at a 3.5/4.
Overall dragged up by the edges sub grade would be pretty lame.

I immediately thought the same thing. But then realized I was comparing it to the traditional standard, as dictated to us by PSA.

I have always believed that the current grading scale foist upon us has way too much room for variance at the low end, yet has miniscule (almost microscopic) variance at the top end. There really is not much visual difference between a 7-8-9-10. But the jump from a 1 to a 4 is practically life changing.

Perhaps CSG's grading scale will feature more even increments in condition from number to number. If that's the case, I could easily see the 2.5 grade for the Mays. If their intent is to emulate the PSA/SGC scale, then of course it is over-graded.

I personally would prefer a revamped and more evenly spaced grading scale that punishes poor focus or a crease more than a tiny pin hole or speck of paper loss.

Really can't agree that grading standards should be looser, or that's it's smart for CSG to head off on it's own interpretation.
Grading done consistently to the generally agreed upon standards adopted by the big 3 is what the majority of collectors want. It's the consistency that's maddening, leading to the suspicion of purposeful misdoing and froth you seen on this chat board.
No one needs a 1.5 to be a 2.5 because there's a feel good factor over not damning a card with over harsh judgement.
It's fine as a 1.5, the card is still whatever the card is upon visual inspection regardless of the number on the flip.

You want that Mays to be where it is? So where does this Mantle need to be bumped to? (Zero creases/wrinkles).

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...antle_BVG2.jpg

It's gotta be a 4 right, even though the back has wax stains and spots of paper loss?

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag..._BVG2_back.jpg

So without paper loss and wax stains, what does the card now deserve to be?


You're just opening more cans and finding more worms no-one will be able to navigate or agree upon.

My card's a 2, 2.5 on a great day.

That Mays is a 1.5, at best IMO.

CSG are setting themselves up for lack of credibility, as well as the very worrying possibility some buyers who think the flip number must be an honorable one from a TPG and pay a price they'll never re-sell it for.
CSG should stick to modern and overgrade if anything, much more likely to find a niche that is accepted that way.

Just added this to my collection the other day....may the reign of critical grading and high standards live long.
This 2.5 for the miscut at top and a tiny surface dent.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...ell_SGC2.5.jpg

I disagree with the current scale and would prefer a grade of about 4 for that Russell. Great card, despite the OC.

I know that people are acclimated to the current system and no new grading company is likely to change it anytime soon. I just wish that someone would.

As for the Mantle... Does the staining go through to the front? Or is that dark center area just a shadow of some kind?

That Bill Russel is laughable at a 2.5 It looks fantastic. The only problem I see is the centering, which AFFECTS PRACTICALLY EVERY 1961 FLEER you look at!!!

a couple of not so practically
 

I agree the Mays is over graded. Also that the flip is a HUGE detractor. Agree with an earlier comment that the biggest problem lies between gross inconsistency and gross incompetency! Anyone care to guess the grades on these?

I agree with all this. This is what the bottom end of the number scale should be for. To lump every card that has a fair amount of handling wear under a "2" grade, seems pretty silly to me.

For those of us who were around before grading company influences and the magical influx of pristine looking 50+ year old cards, this is what most of the cards looked like.

That said, yeah, that card doesn't look great in the holder. If you have a card of that value, at least spring an extra 10 bucks for the sub-grades so you fill up more of the dead space on the flip. :D

The Chamberlain looks like a '6', and the Russell looks like a '7'.

I'd go with grades of 'astonishing' and 'stunning'.;)

That's just my hulking self leaning over to snap the pic.
One day I'm going to pony up and get a real photographer to take high quality 'merch' pics of all my stuff and upload on a cloud somewhere.

I participated in a group submission to CSG and sent 15 cards. All modern era cards within the last 10 years or so. I just don't think the flip would look good with a vintage card in it and that Mays proves it.

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.

Well.....
 

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.

Csg
 

Dan, I’m hoping we can see your CSG graded cards when you get them back.

I think the consensus here is that CSG is not really going after the vintage market. Think about it. If you were starting this business would you go after the business that PSA and SGC have a monopoly on? And to make that decision easier, the market where they aren’t making any new cards?

It’s obvious that HGA and CSG are going after the modern market and I don’t blame them. Millions of new cards made every year and the younger generation are more open to change.

Just my 2 cents.....

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.

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.

Hi Andy--
 

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!!

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:

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.

Hi Andy--
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Excellent Analysis, Mr. Conroy
 

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

Now, when can you start?!?

Peace.

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

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

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!!

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0Reese%201.pnghttps://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...Dickey%201.png

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...peaker%201.png

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I thought the grading was fair.

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

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0Tyson%201.png

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

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. :)

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?

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...peaker%201.png

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

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

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

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.

https://media.tenor.com/images/abb73...7724/tenor.gif

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.

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. :confused::confused::confused:

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

From what I have seen
 

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

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.

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.

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.

I finally found a t206 graded by CSG on ebay.

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

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

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.

Any idea how many pixels that would be. :D

10 Feet = 11520.001451339 Pixels

(your welcome) :)

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.

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/

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)....

Horrible holders I would never buy that garbage sorry

I think it follows the Beckett formula. The card's grade can be no higher than a half grade above the lowest grade. In the one card that had two subs tied for the lowest grade, they just went with that number.

The general rule is the total grade can only be .5 higher than the lowest subgrade. There are exceptions but they are rare and when the other subgrades are all significantly higher, and usually consistent to each other

EDIT: What Bobby said.

Thanks, guys. That makes sense.