PDA

View Full Version : BGS grading system question


Razorback87
08-17-2015, 02:46 PM
I got a card the other day that is graded 10,10,9.5,8.5 in all four categories so if you divide that out 4 times it equals 9.5 exactly why would this card be graded a 9 instead of a 9.5?

asujbl
08-17-2015, 02:48 PM
Pretty sure you can't be higher than .5 above your lowest grade

mimaalni
08-17-2015, 02:49 PM
That is correct.

jewcer2k5
08-17-2015, 02:50 PM
you can't get higher than .5 above the lowest grade unless all 3 subgrades that are higher are at least 1.5 higher then your card gets a bump of a full point.

In your example if the last sub was a 10 instead of a 9.5 you would get a 9.5 on the card

glen87
08-17-2015, 02:52 PM
Grading FAQ (http://www.beckett.com/grading/faq)

straight from the source

Here is how we do it!
The overall numerical grade is not a simple average of the four report card grades. Beckett Grading Services uses an algorithm which determines the final grade using the 4 sub grades on the front label of the card holder. The lowest overall grade is the first category to observe because it is the most obvious defect, and the lowest grade is the most heavily weighted in determining the overall grade.

Razorback87
08-17-2015, 03:12 PM
Thanks guys.

CardMonopoly
08-17-2015, 03:34 PM
Pretty sure you can't be higher than .5 above your lowest grade

Generally true, but not always. You can get more than .5 higher than your lowest subgrade if the lowest subgrade is edges or surface. BGS places greater emphasis on centering and corners than they do edges and surface.

That is correct.

That is incorrect. See above.

you can't get higher than .5 above the lowest grade unless all 3 subgrades that are higher are at least 1.5 higher then your card gets a bump of a full point.

Not true. The lowest subgrade has to be either edges or surface, and if it is, then aggregate difference between that lowest subgrade and all the other subgrades has to be equal to or greater than 4.5.

See slab #7157768 for proof, and also slab #7248799 for proof.