BGS

[rylin34]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

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+.

This is a better solution, fully agree. I still think they tested the waters here and will be announcing modifications ASAP. I wonder if there is potential for litigation given the millions spent on GEM MINT which is no longer? Not a lawyer but seems ripe for investigation

[bsavidge83]

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.

This seems like such an obvious solution! I have only graded one card with bgs in my life, so no skin in the game here. It does seem like this company has been in such decline that in their desperation they made a poorly thought out business decision, screwed their customers, and did nothing to solve the issue at hand, which as I see it is a confusing grading scale that new collectors don't get.

Just bump everything half a point and move on! Cards that would then be close to qualifying for black label should then be re reviewed at no cost to see if they qualify. Seems simple enough. But no...

[notfast]

Originally Posted by KPOD

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

I agree but BGS didn’t for the last 25 or so years.

Making this drastic of a change hurts the foundation of what their grading scale has been since their inception.

Glad I don’t have any valuable BGS cards anymore.

[rylin34]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

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.

That’s fine but the market isn’t saying that. Everyone knows the order BGS black>BGS 10 PRISTINE>PSA 10>BGS 9.5

[cardsin47]

Nothing like keeping it simple ! - especially to make sure you capture all the Newbies to the game of grading ~


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CheapThief]

It's just a move to try and gain a stronger foothold in the TCG space. They probably should have started another division for TCG, like what CGC did,but it is what it is.

[rhineland]

BGS is in a really tough spot right now. They can't do what CSG did since CSG decided to get rid of subgrades altogether. Getting rid of subgrades would sink BGS.

So, that approach of conversion is off the table unfortunately. Because to do that right, and convert all existing 9.5s into 10s, they would need to bump up subgrades on min gem 9.5s and true gem 9.5s to break into the new gem mint tier. It gets messy quickly, and the grading standards (unlike what the idiot visionary said in his video) change. I don't think they should change their grading standards or their scale.

The difference between a min gem 9.5, a true gem, and a gem + was made obvious by the subgrades awarded to a card. As a community of collectors, we knew the difference already and that was baked into how we talked about BGS grades.

BGS' business problem has nothing to do with its grading product. The scale works, and it's an objectively more complete, transparent, and precise scale than PSA.

The business problem with BGS is rooted in its marketing and customer experience. They haven't adequately communicated what I've stated above: that their scale is complete and precise and transparent. And they haven't used that as a way to capture a premium position in the hobby - which for many collectors they held by virtue of their gem +, pristine, and black label grades.

Here's what they need to do immediately.

1.Backtrack from this announcement, and return to the existing scale.
2. Actively start to position the company as premium, for all of the reasons stated above.
3. Lean in to the fact that you have a complete grading scale and standard.
4. Announce something that's actually visionary (to the degree that it's possible to be visionary in this market). Things like updates to the end-to-end customer experience that reinforce a premium position in the hobby. Here are a few:

• Grader's notes at higher-priced service levels.
• A more complete customer service experience where orders are tracked accurately and efficiently and transparently for the customer.
• High resolution photos of cards starting at a specific service level and above.
• A slightly updated label design with improvements to the slab case.
• Added security features to the case to protect collectors and the integrity of BGS' grading.
• Signing sessions with top athletes where cards submitted for grading get an auto (if desired) that also gets graded during the whole process.

There are other things, and it's not hard to come up with ideas. It certainly doesn't require whatever terrible R&D approach they took recently to come up with this horrible idea.

Hopefully they get it right because they're about to lose an enormous amount of loyalty.

[Stackfan]

Let's play devil's advocate, and this is a April fools joke to float this out there.... WHY in the world, you say you 85% of your gem mints are now NOT GEM Mint?!? If they want GM+ to be a 10; than fine. but they need to leave 9.5 Gem Mint alone, because that's been the 20+ year standard. Putting this thought out there alone, is going to put extreme fear into 85% if not ALL of BGS collectors. Brilliant.

CSG upgraded, their customers from GEM 9.5's to 10, and it helped. Imagine PSA pulling back in all their PSA 10's and returning 85% of them, with a mint plus 9.5 grade.


If this is not a joke, they've screwed up beyond repair. They'll basically be starting from scratch, because they've alienated their current market. Instead of simplifying, they've added two layers of complexity. Here's there best chance of fixing this:

A) Just make it a 10 GM Plus; and leave the 9.5 GM alone

B) OR include quad 9.5's as 10; (and probably 10, 9, 9.5. 9.5's too) as that's literally been your standard as a GM; If they felt they had to just make Min Gem's your Mint Plus as that's only 40% instead of 85% (although i still do not agree with that)

This opens a lot of other doors now too; Does 9.5, 9.5 , 9, 9 qualify as Mint Plus, what about 10, 10, 9.5, 8.5, Mint Plus? No? Because seems like they are added a another layer, despite what they want the narrative to be.

I'm not sure why they think this will get more people to submit to them. I love the slab; but instead of educating and promoting their brand/standards; they do this. Instead of trying to figure out why SGC/CSG took their market share, they are trying to chase down the inflated PSA 10. SMH. Colossal mistake.

[Scottish Punk]

Echo many other people's points
- 85% of current gem mints grades are now mint+ will piss off a lot of collectors as well as take a hit on the secondary market.
- don't know how much of that 85% includes quad 9.5s, but they should be bumped to gem on a reholder(I bet Beckett walks this back and makes this happen as an olive branch to their base)
- you will for sure see a lot more 10 subgrades going forward that would be all 9.5s. Throw a 10 on edges to bump to gem grade.
- this is precisely why PSA skipped the 9.5 subgrade when announcing they will add subgrades to their scale. It would immediately devalue millions of PSA 10s.
- BGS is just conforming with the same scale as SGC and CGS since their subs are less. Don't be shocked if they lose subgrades in the near future if these changes don't give them a boost. They will do it to "simplify" the grading scale.

[2010GBPackers]

As a person with only 2 BGS cards, and hundreds of PSA cards, I like this move for BGS. They began to be way too loose with their grading standards around 2015/2016 and lost their market share of modern cards to PSA. And while I understand the complaints, IMO BGS does need to overhaul their grading levels. As a matter of fact, people are complaining about them "devaluing" their slabs when in actuality they're just reflecting what the market has already been doing.

For example, a 9.5 "min gem" always sold for less than a 9.5 "true gem" (I'll get to that in a second) and a 9.5 "gem +" and those min gems continued their downward trajectory to having sales very closely mirroring a PSA 9. BGS reflecting this reality on their slabs is good IMO. If you were buying a bunch of "min gems," don't what to say other than you weren't buying gem mint cards, you just weren't. The fact that BGS let this happen for almost a decade is what led them from being dominant in the modern market to having PSA be the preferred grader.

As I hear folks complain that ~85% of 9.5's aren't gem mint anymore, I say "good!" They never really were. A 9.5 subgrade is a "mint +" subgrade, not gem mint. No doubt BGS let this slide for way too long, but just because they're correcting it and pissing off a lot of collectors doesn't mean they're wrong.

[Scottish Punk]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

As a person with only 2 BGS cards, and hundreds of PSA cards, I like this move for BGS. They began to be way too loose with their grading standards around 2015/2016 and lost their market share of modern cards to PSA. And while I understand the complaints, IMO BGS does need to overhaul their grading levels. As a matter of fact, people are complaining about them "devaluing" their slabs when in actuality they're just reflecting what the market has already been doing.

For example, a 9.5 "min gem" always sold for less than a 9.5 "true gem" (I'll get to that in a second) and a 9.5 "gem +" and those min gems continued their downward trajectory to having sales very closely mirroring a PSA 9. BGS reflecting this reality on their slabs is good IMO. If you were buying a bunch of "min gems," don't what to say other than you weren't buying gem mint cards, you just weren't. The fact that BGS let this happen for almost a decade is what led them from being dominant in the modern market to having PSA be the preferred grader.

As I hear folks complain that ~85% of 9.5's aren't gem mint anymore, I say "good!" They never really were. A 9.5 subgrade is a "mint +" subgrade, not gem mint. No doubt BGS let this slide for way too long, but just because they're correcting it and pissing off a lot of collectors doesn't mean they're wrong.

I agree with the sentiment here. CSG recognized this flaw in the carried over BGS scale early and pivoted. Since they were just starting out, the hit was smaller. The problem with BGS has been in practice. I haven't graded with them in a long time, but I get the impression that they only give out 10s in any subs sparingly. Does this mean 85% of cards going forward will fall in the mint+? They want to be the grader with the lowest gem rate?

[The_Reverend]

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.

When CSG transitioned they also eliminated the Pristine grade, which they had very few. I have a Pristine 10 UD Tiger Woods that I will never Redlands. There are only 6 and there will never be more.

[hmballin]

For those saying that a 9 sub grade shouldn’t be gem mint to begin with? What do you think the percentage of psa 10’s would have a 9 if broken down by category. I would imagine it would be a good % so I have never understood this argument.

[The_Reverend]

Originally Posted by Scottish Punk

Echo many other people's points
- 85% of current gem mints grades are now mint+ will piss off a lot of collectors as well as take a hit on the secondary market.
- don't know how much of that 85% includes quad 9.5s, but they should be bumped to gem on a reholder(I bet Beckett walks this back and makes this happen as an olive branch to their base)
- you will for sure see a lot more 10 subgrades going forward that would be all 9.5s. Throw a 10 on edges to bump to gem grade.
- this is precisely why PSA skipped the 9.5 subgrade when announcing they will add subgrades to their scale. It would immediately devalue millions of PSA 10s.
- BGS is just conforming with the same scale as SGC and CGS since their subs are less. Don't be shocked if they lose subgrades in the near future if these changes don't give them a boost. They will do it to "simplify" the grading scale.

[Crab]

The BGS 9.5 Gem Mint wasn't selling anywhere near a PSA 10 Gem Mint anyway. So that's probably what motivated this change. They know PSA is and will be #1 going forward. But now, their Mint+ 9.5 is going to outsell the Mint+ 9.5s from CSG and SGC by a landslide, making those companies basically useless.

CSG out of business in 18 months I'm calling. At least SGC has vintage. What does CSG have to offer?

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by hmballin

For those saying that a 9 sub grade shouldn’t be gem mint to begin with? What do you think the percentage of psa 10’s would have a 9 if broken down by category. I would imagine it would be a good % so I have never understood this argument.

That's the genius of not doing subgrades. BGS should follow suit. If I were BGS, I'd do (9, 9.5, 10, Black Label 10) grading standards without the 3 different categories of non-BL 10's.

9 - Mint
9.5 - Mint +
10 - Gem Mint
BL 10 - Pristine

I'd say if folks want to reslab their cards, you can, but the subgrades will disappear and I would stop doing sub-grades on all new submissions. IMHO, that would be their best move from here.

[Bob Ross]

Wait.

Why didn’t they include what a 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 will be?

Anyone?

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by Crab

The BGS 9.5 Gem Mint wasn't selling anywhere near a PSA 10 Gem Mint anyway. So that's probably what motivated this change. They know PSA is and will be #1 going forward. But now, their Mint+ 9.5 is going to outsell the Mint+ 9.5s from CSG and SGC by a landslide, making those companies basically useless.

CSG out of business in 18 months I'm calling. At least SGC has vintage. What does CSG have to offer?

Correct. Folks are overrating to this due to their own collection of BGS 9.5's. Sometimes you need to make difficult calls in order to "right the ship." I don't even like the company and can see this is the right call for them. As I mentioned above, though, I'd get rid of subgrades.

[GradingAnon]

Just wait until you hear about the new “Beckett Select” program ����#@♂️

Bringing in brand new people of the streets with no card experience and are going to train them for a couple weeks then turn them lose grading “low value” cards without subgrades and slabbing them in a new slab without an internal sleeve like PSA. All with little to no oversight. At this point, it seems clear they’re desperate for cash flow.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by Crab

The BGS 9.5 Gem Mint wasn't selling anywhere near a PSA 10 Gem Mint anyway. So that's probably what motivated this change. They know PSA is and will be #1 going forward. But now, their Mint+ 9.5 is going to outsell the Mint+ 9.5s from CSG and SGC by a landslide, making those companies basically useless.

CSG out of business in 18 months I'm calling. At least SGC has vintage. What does CSG have to offer?

You are forgetting that there won't be any actual Mint 9.5s because nobody will submit cards to them or downgrade their current label.

[threepointplay]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

Wait.

Why didn’t they include what a 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 will be?

Anyone?

Anything with a 9 sub-grade [or lower] drops into the 9.5 Mint+ category.

[Crab]

Originally Posted by Bcr

You are forgetting that there won't be any actual Mint 9.5s because nobody will submit cards to them or downgrade their current label.

Blowout Echo Chamber ≠ Reality. The fake outrage is laughable at this point

If people are willing to submit to SGC and CSG who have the exact same grading scale, they'll still submit to BGS. Especially when BGS continues to outsell either of those companies by big margins.

[threepointplay]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

As I hear folks complain that ~85% of 9.5's aren't gem mint anymore, I say "good!" They never really were. A 9.5 subgrade is a "mint +" subgrade, not gem mint. No doubt BGS let this slide for way too long, but just because they're correcting it and pissing off a lot of collectors doesn't mean they're wrong.

The challenge for Beckett, is that the current grading scale has been in place for over 20 years and this change will impact a huge portion of their existing customer base. How many of those customers are going to submit with them again?

Alienating such a large portion of collectors, feels like a very strange way to try and grow the number of new submissions.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Correct. Folks are overrating to this due to their own collection of BGS 9.5's. Sometimes you need to make difficult calls in order to "right the ship." I don't even like the company and can see this is the right call for them. As I mentioned above, though, I'd get rid of subgrades.

BGS 9 - Mint
BGS 9.5 (gold label) - Gem Mint
BGS 10 (gold label) - Gem Mint+
BGS 10 (black label) - Pristine

That should be it. No one cares about Mint+. They didn’t need to do anything to the existing 9.5 grade. What is their plan to manage the fact that millions of 9.5s have a gem mint label but all new 9.5s will have a Mint+ label? That’s an insane unforced error.

If they did the scale above, everyone would expect that they’re going to loosen up a bit on standards and hand out more 10 subgrades (as they should). They wouldn’t need to say they’re doing that but could imply it by incentivizing people to send in their existing 9s and 9.5s and 10s for a review with a great offer. Some would be upgraded upon review and others wouldn’t. But one thing would for sure happen: a BGS 9.5 Gem Mint would sell for more than a PSA 9 but less than a PSA 10, a BGS 10 Gem Mint + would start to sell for the same price as a PSA 10, and a BGS 10 Pristine would maintain and even strengthen its position as the most desirable and valuable grade in the hobby. Existing BGS 10s and Black Labels maybe lose a bit of value, but not much, and there would be no practical reason for those card owners to do anything even if they’re mad. Better to make that very small fraction of customers mad than to alienate virtually all past customers with this nonsensical move.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by threepointplay

Alienating such a large portion of collectors, feels like a very strange way to try and grow the number of new submissions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk