May Grading Numbers - CGC and SGC

[parkplace33]

From Gemrate:

May 2025 - Grading Recap
Overall grading activity was ⬆14% in May compared to April and ⬆36% YoY.

May results set a new high for the fourth consecutive month.

Grading activity crossed 2.4 million cards in May, up ~300k compared to April.

PSA graded 1.65m cards - ⬆6% vs Apr, ⬆21% YoY. [Record high]

CGC graded 570k cards - ⬆67% vs Apr, ⬆209% YoY. [Record high]

CGC appeared to benefit from a few large bulk orders, including nearly 100k Topps 50/50 Ohtani cards.

SGC graded 145k cards - ⬇13% vs Apr, ⬇17% YoY.

Beckett graded 59k cards - ⬆3% vs Apr, ⬇1% YoY.



There were 21 business days in May ’25, 22 business days in Apr ’25, & 22 business days in May ’24. On a per business day basis, PSA was ⬆11% in May vs Apr, CGC ⬆75%, SGC ⬇9%, and Beckett ⬆8%.

Whats going on with CGC and SGC?

[BobbyVCP]

I think CGC is rising because they have become the choice for grading most TCG cards now...

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

So if SGC is down year over year, then why are they slower than this time last year?

Wonder if Collectors made them cut staffing.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

So if SGC is down year over year, then why are they slower than this time last year?

Wonder if Collectors made them cut staffing.

Scott, it is an excellent question. Another concern I have is their marketing. I really haven't heard from them at all in 2025.

[perezfan]

There's no way SGC should've been down in May. They had received a flood of submissions from multiple Card shows in mid-late April in addition to their regular mail-in submissions. Collectors (the company) must have put the brakes on them for some ridiculous self-serving reason.

Also, I would love to see the numbers with Ultra-modern cards and Pokemon factored out. Those segments likely represent 90% of this published data (or more).

[Peter_Spaeth]

The decline of Beckett is stunning.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by perezfan

There's no way SGC should've been down in May. They had received a flood of submissions from multiple Card shows in mid-late April in addition to their regular mail-in submissions. Collectors (the company) must have put the brakes on them for some ridiculous self-serving reason.

Also, I would love to see the numbers with Ultra-modern cards and Pokemon factored out. Those segments likely represent 90% of this published data (or more).

This graph is just for sports, but also includes modern. Most of CGC's sports is modern, but that is a pretty stunning number.

[particra17]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Scott, it is an excellent question. Another concern I have is their marketing. I really haven't heard from them at all in 2025.

Marketing is exactly the type of function that PSA is going to kill first. Any horizontal function that is duplicative of PSA is just extra cost.

It makes no sense for PSA to operate SGC as a competing brand. The cost to hold that up destroys the value accretion.

But PSA doesn't need to shutter the SGC brand; they just need to remove the incentive to use SGC as an true alternative to PSA and (effectively) rebrand it as a lower-cost, non-premium option with longer wait times and less resale viability. Essentially use it as a low-margin option for people who would never pay the premium price for PSA. What they don't want to do is have it cannibalize PSA's existing share. That's a disaster.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by particra17

It makes no sense for PSA to operate SGC as a competing brand. The cost to hold that up destroys the value accretion.

Accretion is the gradual and incremental growth of assets and earnings due to business expansion, merger, or acquisition.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by particra17

Marketing is exactly the type of function that PSA is going to kill first. Any horizontal function that is duplicative of PSA is just extra cost.

It makes no sense for PSA to operate SGC as a competing brand. The cost to hold that up destroys the value accretion.

But PSA doesn't need to shutter the SGC brand; they just need to remove the incentive to use SGC as an true alternative to PSA and (effectively) rebrand it as a lower-cost, non-premium option with longer wait times and less resale viability. Essentially use it as a low-margin option for people who would never pay the premium price for PSA. What they don't want to do is have it cannibalize PSA's existing share. That's a disaster.

To many important big piece cards that are owned by prestigious collectors reside in SGC Slabs with RECORD SALES. They will never be considered as non premium price pieces to PSA.

The only way this could change in my mind is if PSA Crosses those Big Cards Owned By the Important people at equal even grades.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by particra17

It makes no sense for PSA to operate SGC as a competing brand. The cost to hold that up destroys the value accretion.

Disagree. A two-brand monopoly should always be stronger than a single brand monopoly because it gives them more strategic flexibility. To protect their overall market share, Collectors Holdings should decide on a unique brand strategy for SGC (vintage, value, etc) - this will create a larger barrier of entry for competitors and effectively protects the PSA brand and market share. Letting SGC die a slow death creates opportunity for new/existing competitors to eat away at PSA's market share which is exactly what CGC is doing.

Ray Van