BGS

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by Crab

Wonder what percentage of people complaining about this know that CSG 9.5 and SGC 9.5 aren't gem mint grades either according to their grading scales.

Funny how the phony "buy the card, not the grade" crowd has a collective brain aneurysm when realizing their BGS 9.5s might lose a few dollars in value. I think you'll all survive

Yes, buy the card, not the grade. But you still pay for the grade when it's in a BGS slab!

I bought my quad BGS 9.5's for a premium because of the accurate grades. I value them both for the card and the grade.

SGC states on the flip that 9.5's are Mint+ -- not gem mint. CSG has the same grading scale and subgrades as BGS.

[Jolten Joe]

maybe my math is off but if you have a BGS 9.5 with 3 9.5 subs and a 9 sub doesn't 9.5+9.5+9.5+9 = 37.5 then divide that by 4 to get your overall grade which comes to 9.375.

So if that is the case those 9.5's were over graded all along.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by Jolten Joe

maybe my math is off but doesn't 9.5+9.5+9.5+9 = 37.5 then divide that by 4 to get your overall grade which comes to 9.375.

So if that is the case 9.5's were over graded all along.

It's not about the numerical grade that was assigned -- it's about how it's classified. If all the subgrades classify as gem mint, and the subgrades are used exclusively to determine the overall grade, then cards with all subgrades of 9.5 should be at least gem mint -- there's no wiggle room.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

SGC states on the flip that 9.5's are Mint+ -- gem mint. CSG has the same grading scale and subgrades as BGS.

CSG got rid of subgrades almost a year ago and has the same grading scale as SGC now. SGC 9.5's just say Mint+, no gem Mint

[auburn35]

If the photo is legit, it appears BGS altered their banner by putting a "10" sticker over the 9.5 Centering grade.

Also, the CEO motioned a couple weeks ago, they would be debuting their new label at the show, with a new slab coming around the end of Q2 (June?). Maybe this grade change is the "new label" referenced but has anyone heard/seen any talk about an actual new label?

Among the other concerns, if new labels and slabs are upcoming, seems silly to transition to a new grade scale, prior to the release of the new label/slabs in the works.
Trying to double dip on reholder fees?

CEO's discussion of the new label/slab starts at 48:40, if anyone is interested.
https://ttmcast.podbean.com/e/ttmcas...-kunal-chopra/

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by oddstuff

BGS has always been ridiculed for their graded cards with three 9.5s and a 9.0 could qualify as a "gem mint"...so this new scale addresses that finally. For sure those holding quad 9.5s now see their cards as devalued...those cards still say "gem mint" on the label right now...and they are still quad 9.5s. It's the new cards that get quad 9.5s with this new scale that won't get the "gem mint" designation any more. The old quad 9.5s will take a hit in value, but I don't think it will be as significant as some think it will be. As some have mentioned also, some equate a quad 9.5 to a PSA 10 in terms of card condition. I can see that as why BGS came up with this new scale requiring a card to have one 10 sub grade plus three 9.5s in order to qualify for the newly created BGS 10 gem mint level. This allows those cards to have a clear distinction as a better card than most PSA 10s...at least that is what I think BGS is trying to do to promote/sell their grading service. This creates a new level of higher quality card that may be more reachable for people's cards than the "old" Pristine 10 which requires three 10 subgrades (there is something about a 10 being "perfect" over a 9.5). As it is before this new scale, one of the top reasons people sent their cards to BGS (when they could send it to PSA instead) is that they think they have a card with strong enough attributes to get a BGS 10. Now with the new scale, more cards may be deemed as possible BGS 10s by potential submitters. Going forward, there should be more BGS 10 gem mints (not pristines) and BGS is hoping those cards will create a following for those people who are tired of PSA's gem 10s that are really not "gem mint". I use to grade with BGS and now exclusively with PSA. This new scale though will have me thinking twice about PSA...now if only BGS can improve their customer service, web form and order tracking, they may just make themselves more relevant. I was reading BGS's replies to some Instagram comments and the door isn't closed yet in terms of them making some sort of label distinction between Pristine 10s and gem mint 10s on the new scale. There may still be a remote possibility that they may change their mind and include quad 9.5s as part of the gem mint 10s (think the odds are very low but not impossible).

And...for anyone that thought their minimum gem cards (three 9.5s, one 9.0 subgrade) were "gem mint" don't know what to tell you...other than those cards are typically valued as a PSA 9 or less. I would never buy a minimum gem card unless it's seriously discounted.

Great points / well said

[KhalDrogo]

Ignoring that they just trashed 20+ years of their grading standard, here’s the big issue.

9.5/9.5/9.5/9 - Previously gem, now mint +. Submitter loses money.
9.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 - Previously gem, now mint +. Submitter loses money.

These subgrades represent the majority of the current gem mint slabs. Brilliant stuff Beckett.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Jolten Joe

maybe my math is off but if you have a BGS 9.5 with 3 9.5 subs and a 9 sub doesn't 9.5+9.5+9.5+9 = 37.5 then divide that by 4 to get your overall grade which comes to 9.375.

So if that is the case those 9.5's were over graded all along.

Thats not how they calculate final grades. The final grade formula doesnt weigh each subgrade equally. Thats another confusing quirk of the subgrades! They dont really specify how they arrive at each final grade, I believe.

PSA is just as bad or worse for similar reasons. Have you ever sent cards to BGS then to PSA? You could have a card with two 9.5s, a 9 and maybe 7 corners. PSA would assign that card a 6 or 7. Theyre basically ignoring the best subgrades and giving it the LOWEST possible grade. Same happens if the surface is bad but the rest of the card is nearly perfect. Theyll give it a 5 or 6 and thats the best youll get.

[rylin34]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Ignoring that they just trashed 20+ years of their grading standard, here’s the big issue.

9.5/9.5/9.5/9 - Previously gem, now mint +. Submitter loses money.
9.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 - Previously gem, now mint +. Submitter loses money.

These subgrades represent the majority of the current gem mint slabs. Brilliant stuff Beckett.

Beckett knows this too so guess what will be more common now? Sub 10's and completely hurts the existing value of 10's and highly desirable PRISTINE grades. They say the standards are not changing, but they have to give out more 10's otherwise who is submitting for MINT+ when their slabs already sell for 30%+ discount to PSA 10.

[KhalDrogo]

85% of current gem mint slabs have subs that are less than 9.5/9.5/9.5/10. If grading standards are not relaxed, then going forward, only 15% of cards that would have previously been deemed gem mint will still be gem mint.

[rylin34]

This math checks out. I looked up the data on the 2011 Topps Update Trout and here are the findings:

Total 9.5 pop = 4,375
# with at least 1 10 and nothing below 9.5 = 738
% that would be considered GEM MINT new standard = 16.87%
Cards that would be considered MINT+ = 83.13%

83% of the existing 9.5 GEM MINTS. This cannot be real (their decision).

[rylin34]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

85% of current gem mint slabs have subs that are less than 9.5/9.5/9.5/10. If grading standards are not relaxed, then going forward, only 15% of cards that would have previously been deemed gem mint will still be gem mint.

This is the only result that makes any sense. 10's have to become more common. Certainly they would've done this simple analysis to figure out how ridiculous this is. If they don't change grading standards their submission numbers will drop even more. Makes me think they will be including quad 9.5's based on the backlash. Still doesn't make it any better but at least you honor the existing standard.

[The_Reverend]

Originally Posted by Crab

Wonder what percentage of people complaining about this know that CSG 9.5 and SGC 9.5 aren't gem mint grades either according to their grading scales.

Funny how the phony "buy the card, not the grade" crowd has a collective brain aneurysm when realizing their BGS 9.5s might lose a few dollars in value. I think you'll all survive

The difference is CSG, when they made their change, converted all quad 9.5 to csg 10. The issue stands, what they said in forever does not hold water. I am a buy the card not the grade guy, but going forward I am buying the card in the slab of companies that did not downgrade the value of my collection. Anyway it is twisted, BGS screwed all of the past supporters of their product. I am just ONE collector, but my wallet will speak for me. The next Dallas show will be good and tense at dealer tables.

[threepointplay]

I have very little skin in this game as my collection is currently overwhelmingly raw. I own a total of 13 graded cards & only two are impacted by this grading scale change. A long held 97-98 Finest Tim Duncan RC and a 2011-12 Panini Past & Present Modern Marks Autograph of Stephen Curry, bought in 2022. Both woulld fall under the Mint+ category if they were re-labelled.

I had though recently been looking at grading some more cards from my personal collection & have been in research mode of late. Beckett was a consideration, as I like the aesthetic of there slab and inclusion of sub-grades.

But [on the assumption this is not an April fools joke], this change throws a rather different light on things! Surely this leaves such a bitter taste in the mouth for such a large portion of collectors who own their slabs, it does way more harm than good to their product offering?

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

BGS screwed all of the past supporters of their product.

This is my take, too. They obviously didn’t consult with any Collectors ( or did, and didn’t care … ) to see how could they implement this desired grading scale change, without financially hurting any presently slabbed Card values.

This will ( or should ) come back to bite them, big time ….

[The_Reverend]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

This is my take, too. They obviously didn’t consult with any Collectors ( or did, and didn’t care … ) to see how could they implement this desired grading scale change, without financially hurting any presently slabbed Card values.

This will ( or should ) come back to bite them, big time ….

Maybe they don’t think it will hurt them long term. They devalued these cards in my collection. They are in my collection, but according to them, Pujols and Rodgers graded a while ago, are no longer GEM MINT! I looked and I had only around 15 BGS Gem Mint slabs, these are no longer classified as such. I have a Topps Chrome Carmelo that does not fit, but the sub-grades are on the back.

[rohara99]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

85% of current gem mint slabs have subs that are less than 9.5/9.5/9.5/10. If grading standards are not relaxed, then going forward, only 15% of cards that would have previously been deemed gem mint will still be gem mint.

This.

I checked my PC and I’m at ~8% of my 9.5’s that would stay gem mint. Ouch.

Now I have a significant amount of old labels, which never had 10 subs, that likely should get regraded but F that extra cost.

[The_Reverend]

Originally Posted by rohara99

This.

I checked my PC and I’m at ~8% of my 9.5’s that would stay gem mint. Ouch.

Now I have a significant amount of old labels, which never had 10 subs, that likely should get regraded but F that extra cost.

Sad how this company screwed all of their very loyal supporters. I will not give them money to reslab my Gem Mint cards with a Mint+ label. They were making progress with people like me, I had 20 cards I was going to send to them, but now I will send them to one of the other 3 companies I use.

If people speak with their wallet, likely not to happen on a broad enough scale, BGS will get the message.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by rohara99

This.

I checked my PC and I’m at ~8% of my 9.5’s that would stay gem mint. Ouch.

Now I have a significant amount of old labels, which never had 10 subs, that likely should get regraded but F that extra cost.

…. and this exact situation should have either been anticipated and known, or worse ~ known and they didn’t care

[harkthesound]

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

The difference is CSG, when they made their change, converted all quad 9.5 to csg 10. The issue stands, what they said in forever does not hold water. I am a buy the card not the grade guy, but going forward I am buying the card in the slab of companies that did not downgrade the value of my collection. Anyway it is twisted, BGS screwed all of the past supporters of their product. I am just ONE collector, but my wallet will speak for me. The next Dallas show will be good and tense at dealer tables.

CSG had the benefit of a short history with the green labels, but they did approach it logically by saying they were going to relax their standards and therefore justifying Green 9.5 = Black 10. I believe it was all Green 9.5's, not just quads, that converted to Black 10. The fact that the labels look so drastically different helped make the transition manageable and a non-issue.

So, what if BGS followed their lead and did the same, making all old BGS 9.5 = BGS 10 Gem Mint? To have the subs match the top line number, they'd have to do something like bump all historical subs by 0.5. That would hurt the owners of Pristine 10's, but that's a small percentage compared to owners of 9.5's. Having an easily distinguishable post-transition label would help also.

It would result in a potentially crippling reslab effort, but it could preserve value and not destroy the brand, while still aligning with industry standards.

[rylin34]

Originally Posted by harkthesound

CSG had the benefit of a short history with the green labels, but they did approach it logically by saying they were going to relax their standards and therefore justifying Green 9.5 = Black 10. I believe it was all Green 9.5's, not just quads, that converted to Black 10. The fact that the labels look so drastically different helped make the transition manageable and a non-issue.

So, what if BGS followed their lead and did the same, making all old BGS 9.5 = BGS 10 Gem Mint? To have the subs match the top line number, they'd have to do something like bump all historical subs by 0.5. That would hurt the owners of Pristine 10's, but that's a small percentage compared to owners of 9.5's. Having an easily distinguishable post-transition label would help also.

It would result in a potentially crippling reslab effort, but it could preserve value and not destroy the brand, while still aligning with industry standards.

I'm all for the greater good of the hobby, but this is exactly why I posted earlier about the ultimate decline of PRISTINE. If the cat is already out of the bag and the decision will not be walked back, the only logical thing to me is that quad 9.5's will be GEM MT 10. This is least disruptive to all holders. I'd bet this is what is decided in due time.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rylin34

This is the only result that makes any sense. 10's have to become more common. Certainly they would've done this simple analysis to figure out how ridiculous this is. If they don't change grading standards their submission numbers will drop even more. Makes me think they will be including quad 9.5's based on the backlash. Still doesn't make it any better but at least you honor the existing standard.

Who is going to want to submit their cards to them after they damage their reputation and goodwill with these changes?

If they downgrade the large majority of existing BGS 9.5's, they'll destroy a chunk of the market values of those slabs. And if they change their grading standards to fit their new grading scale, they'll damage the credibility they've established on card grading.

What they should have done is, instead of downgrading any existing slabs, they should have upgraded quad BGS 9.5's to Gem Mint 10. In turn, upgraded pristine to 10+.

[KPOD]

Let’s be honest, a card with any 9 subgrade should have never been considered or labeled “gem” in the first place

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

…. and this exact situation should have either been anticipated and known, or worse ~ known and they didn’t care

I think they're desperate. They've fallen to 4th place in monthly card submissions behind SGC and CSG.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rylin34

I'm all for the greater good of the hobby, but this is exactly why I posted earlier about the ultimate decline of PRISTINE. If the cat is already out of the bag and the decision will not be walked back, the only logical thing to me is that quad 9.5's will be GEM MT 10. This is least disruptive to all holders. I'd bet this is what is decided in due time.

Non-black label pristine cards are just glorified gem mint cards. They need to be black label to be true pristine.

The subgrades are ultimately what give pristine cards a premium value. Otherwise they are theoretically no better than PSA 10's.

Call non-black label pristine cards 10+. Give quad 9.5's the basic 10 label.