BGS

[TBT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Most of us are intelligent and secure enough to understand and appreciate that a 9.5 is gem mint, and that there are differing degrees of gem mint. Same goes for PSA. The only people who want a new scale are people who see the addition of another 10 as a cash grab for themselves.

Interesting, I see it as the opposite. I think there’s a lot of money being made right now by buying high grade BGS 9.5s (cards which under an updated system would be classified rightly as Gem Mt+), crossing them to PSA 10, and selling them for significantly more than their original purchase price. And this is happening despite the fact that the original BGS-graded card is virtually guaranteed to be in better condition than some percentage of PSA 10s of the same card, owing to the simple fact that PSA’s Gem Mt classification is quite broad and lacks transparency. We are in a situation where PSA is not only avoiding any experience of pain tied to the inadequacy of its grading scale, but is actually benefitting from its inadequacy. And all because it puts the number 10 on a Gem Mt card, while BGS doesn’t.

I agree that most people here are intelligent and educated enough to understand the degrees of Gem Mt without a change from BGS. But wouldn’t a minor update assist the masses who are uneducated? Wouldn’t it allow them to avoid paying a premium for a PSA 10 on the basis of an ignorant belief that it is in “better” condition than a card currently labeled as a true gem BGS 9.5? The only person who suffers from the update is the one who currently benefits from others’ ignorance.

[gameissued]

Agree.. the 9.5 is already gem. But actually seeing the "10" is like a mental thing for people (and yes def a cash grab for everyone too).

My thoughts are to just keep it simple and leave everything as much to the original as possible. So without really changing anything else.. just designate the overall grade as a "10" ON THE LABEL in place of the "9.5" and call it a day.

Keep everything else the same, keep the same scale, same standards, subs, pop, etc etc. It's like a Pristine "Black Label" where nothing changed, just the color of the label. Same with re-slabbing white and blue labels to silver. Now it's just a "9.5" change to "10" for eye appeal only. The subs already tell you what the card is.. that's the whole point of subs.

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Most of us are intelligent and secure enough to understand and appreciate that a 9.5 is gem mint, and that there are differing degrees of gem mint. Same goes for PSA. The only people who want a new scale are people who see the addition of another 10 as a cash grab for themselves.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by TBT

Interesting, I see it as the opposite. I think there’s a lot of money being made right now by buying high grade BGS 9.5s (cards which under an updated system would be classified rightly as Gem Mt+), crossing them to PSA 10, and selling them for significantly more than their original purchase price. And this is happening despite the fact that the original BGS-graded card is virtually guaranteed to be in better condition than some percentage of PSA 10s of the same card, owing to the simple fact that PSA’s Gem Mt classification is quite broad and lacks transparency. We are in a situation where PSA is not only avoiding any experience of pain tied to the inadequacy of its grading scale, but is actually benefitting from its inadequacy. And all because it puts the number 10 on a Gem Mt card, while BGS doesn’t.

I agree that most people here are intelligent and educated enough to understand the degrees of Gem Mt without a change from BGS. But wouldn’t a minor update assist the masses who are uneducated? Wouldn’t it allow them to avoid paying a premium for a PSA 10 on the basis of an ignorant belief that it is in “better” condition than a card currently labeled as a true gem BGS 9.5? The only person who suffers from the update is the one who currently benefits from others’ ignorance.

Where were you when BGS began and a BGS 9.5 (even a min gem) outsold a PSA 10? PSA 10 doesn’t outsell a BGS 9.5 because it’s a better card. It outsells because the PSA brand is superior to the BGS brand. BGS has done nothing but tarnish their reputation over the past five years. Changing the scale does not improve upon that.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Where were you when BGS began and a BGS 9.5 (even a min gem) outsold a PSA 10? PSA 10 doesn’t outsell a BGS 9.5 because it’s a better card. It outsells because the PSA brand is superior to the BGS brand. BGS has done nothing but tarnish their reputation over the past five years. Changing the scale does not improve upon that.

PSA doesn’t have a strong brand, actually. If it did, a PSA 8 would sell for a dramatic premium over an equivalent grade from others like BGS, just as a PSA 10 does. It generally doesn’t. That’s because PSA lacks actual brand strength.

PSA’s current dominance revolves around the strength of its PSA 10 product. The PSA 10 product has actual brand strength - which is to say that it commands a premium price despite lacking a functional advantage over its competitor’s equivalent products. As has been properly identified by BGS and discussed ad nauseum on these forums, the strength of the PSA 10 product is largely related to the number 10, the mass ignorance of the fact that PSA 10 does not equate to condition superiority versus, say, a true gem BGS 9.5, and the market demand/arbitrage opportunity resulting from such ignorance.

BGS would be absolutely moronic to not address that gap. It sounds like they’re attempting to. Good for them.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by TBT

PSA doesn’t have a strong brand, actually. If it did, a PSA 8 would sell for a dramatic premium over an equivalent grade from others like BGS, just as a PSA 10 does. It generally doesn’t. That’s because PSA lacks actual brand strength.

PSA 8s sell for more than BGS 8 slabs. Since the premium isnt “dramatic”, it means the brand isnt strong? It is still a premium. It still means the brand is superior.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by TBT

PSA doesn’t have a strong brand, actually. If it did, a PSA 8 would sell for a dramatic premium over an equivalent grade from others like BGS, just as a PSA 10 does. It generally doesn’t. That’s because PSA lacks actual brand strength.

LOL

[Boostedwrx]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

LOL

X2

[TBT]

Originally Posted by mc1

PSA 8s sell for more than BGS 8 slabs. Since the premium isnt “dramatic”, it means the brand isnt strong? It is still a premium. It still means the brand us superior.

Well yes, by definition, where there is not an ability to command a notable price premium versus competitive products, brand strength is minimal or non existent. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I just generally don’t have an expectation that my PSA 8 will sell for much more than my BGS 8, if at all, and generally I’m correct. If you experience something different, I’d guess that you’re concentrated in a space where there is a surplus of newer or less educated buyers relative to other sports/categories, or there is a major difference in pop reports between PSA and other companies in the cards you focus on. I collect golf cards and the buyers are experienced and educated, so that’s what informs my observations.

Regardless, the point is that PSA as a company doesn’t have much of a brand advantage versus BGS. If it did, then all PSA grades would sell for a roughly equivalent premium versus competitive products that are functionally similar, just as all Apple phones do in their category. The PSA 10 product-brand and its perceived difference versus its main competitors is the reason for PSA’s current dominance. That’s it. And that perceived difference only exists with less educated buyers who want to see the number 10, as Khal himself implied when he said that everyone here (ie. educated collectors / “extreme users”) knows how to assess condition/scarcity between a PSA 10 and a BGS 9.5 without BGS changing its scale to include a variation of Gem Mt 10.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

LOL

Surely we don’t need to devolve into a photo cherry picking contest. The genesis of this debate is the fact that a very small minority of people here - yourself included - say that it makes no sense for BGS to update its grading scale, when it obviously does. I’m suggesting that your insistence on arguing that a rational move by BGS is irrational is that it can perhaps negatively impact you as a hardcore PSA supporter and someone who probably benefits financially from the arbitrage opportunity between BGS 9.5s and PSA 10s. I can’t understand why else you would be opposed to BGS doing something that could help them, even if it’s not the exact first thing you would do if in charge.

[discodanman45]

Rebranding with CSG upset some people with hardly any slabs out there and one year of grading. BGS doing this would be insanity with almost 25 years and millions of slabs out there. There are people with thousands of BGS slabs and now they would have re-holder all of their 9.5's if they want the new 10.

The market doesn't need 5 levels of "Gem Mint" cards. PSA doesn't know what Gem Mint means, and either does any grading company. Even the ones that use "AI." Having different levels of Gem Mint just leads to more shenanigans with people like "Eagle Eye" Joe Clemons and other insiders getting high percentage of above the regular Gem Mint to make more money with a closed door handshake.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Rebranding with CSG upset some people with hardly any slabs out there and one year of grading. BGS doing this would be insanity with almost 25 years and millions of slabs out there. There are people with thousands of BGS slabs and now they would have re-holder all of their 9.5's if they want the new 10.

The market doesn't need 5 levels of "Gem Mint" cards. PSA doesn't know what Gem Mint means, and either does any grading company. Even the ones that use "AI." Having different levels of Gem Mint just leads to more shenanigans with people like "Eagle Eye" Joe Clemons and other insiders getting high percentage of above the regular Gem Mint to make more money with a closed door handshake.

Not 5 levels of Gem Mt:

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

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by TBT

Surely we don’t need to devolve into a photo cherry picking contest. The genesis of this debate is the fact that a very small minority of people here - yourself included - say that it makes no sense for BGS to update its grading scale, when it obviously does. I’m suggesting that your insistence on arguing that a rational move by BGS is irrational is that it can perhaps negatively impact you as a hardcore PSA supporter and someone who probably benefits financially from the arbitrage opportunity between BGS 9.5s and PSA 10s. I can’t understand why else you would be opposed to BGS doing something that could help them, even if it’s not the exact first thing you would do if in charge.

The only time BGS 8's and PSA 8's are close in price are sub $30 cards, which don't have value in any slab and are $5 raw. I am not a PSA/BGS fan and this is the truth that PSA will be higher than other grades for any modern card. Lower grade vintage varies with PSA and SGC depending on how the card looks.

Why does it make sense for BGS to change its scale? To become another PSA copycat in the grading world. If Beckett uses its name it can stand alone in this market.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by TBT

Surely we don’t need to devolve into a photo cherry picking contest. The genesis of this debate is the fact that a very small minority of people here - yourself included - say that it makes no sense for BGS to update its grading scale, when it obviously does. I’m suggesting that your insistence on arguing that a rational move by BGS is irrational is that it can perhaps negatively impact you as a hardcore PSA supporter and someone who probably benefits financially from the arbitrage opportunity between BGS 9.5s and PSA 10s. I can’t understand why else you would be opposed to BGS doing something that could help them, even if it’s not the exact first thing you would do if in charge.

That’s not cherry picking. That’s the norm. How about YOU find some examples where a BGS 8 sells comparably to a PSA 8?

I’ve made my stance on this debacle very clear. What they decide to do has no impact on me. I sub with PSA and that’s it. I mostly buy PSA for my Registry sets. I own and still buy plenty of BGS slabs for my PC.

[rohara99]

I think PSA 8's typically outsell BGS 8's strictly because of the perceived brand superiority.

It all goes back to PSA and how they've leveraged their PSA 10's, it all trickles down to the lower grades, maybe not as severe but it still happens. Plus there are more PSA collectors/flippers then BGS right now.

Probably started with the set registry and then continued with faster turn around times... once that ball gets rolling its hard to stop.

Disclaimer.... all things being equal some BGS 8 cards with a 7 subgrade probably should sell for less then a comparable PSA 8.

[f2tornado]

I presume the original BGS 10 was meant to represent the Nadia Comaneci Olympic score of trading cards; a rare flawless presentation. That branding would be dead if they started scoring all gems as 10.

[majestik101]

Originally Posted by TBT

PSA doesn’t have a strong brand, actually. If it did, a PSA 8 would sell for a dramatic premium over an equivalent grade from others like BGS, just as a PSA 10 does. It generally doesn’t. That’s because PSA lacks actual brand strength.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

That’s not cherry picking. That’s the norm. How about YOU find some examples where a BGS 8 sells comparably to a PSA 8?

I’ve made my stance on this debacle very clear. What they decide to do has no impact on me. I sub with PSA and that’s it. I mostly buy PSA for my Registry sets. I own and still buy plenty of BGS slabs for my PC.

If you insist.

Note: First time posting images on this forum. Wow.

Edit: The images are hilariously small. I have no solution to that, which is also hilarious (to me). I genuinely envy the size of Khal Drago’s PWCC image.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by majestik101

Here’s a special one for you.

[rhineland]

[mc1]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

I presume the original BGS 10 was meant to represent the Nadia Comaneci Olympic score of trading cards; a rare flawless presentation. That branding would be dead if they started scoring all gems as 10.

Easy solution. Just have different color labels for each different 10.

[gameissued]

It took forever for them get rid of the horrific bright blue labels, lets not go down that route again. Leave the colors for HGA (a grading company I don't even acknowledge as legit).

Originally Posted by mc1

Easy solution. Just have different color labels for each different 10.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by rhineland

I deserve to be ripped to shreds based on the comical size of those images. I must redeem myself. Below are the sales I referenced for shits and giggles. All very recent and from various sports, with an emphasis on popular cards where PSA brand strength should be most obvious if it reliably exists. All data from 130 Point.

LeBron
2003 Topps #221 BGS 8 - $247.50 on April 3
2003 Topps #221 PSA 8 - $251.58 on April 2
2003 Topps Chrome #111 BGS 8 - $715.99 on March 28
2003 Topps Chrome # 111 PSA 8 - $720.00 on March 27

Brady
2000 Bowman Chrome PSA 8 - $1424 on March 14
2000 Bowman Chrome PSA 8 - $1575.00 on March 9
2000 Bowman Chrome BGS 8 - $1530.00 on March 9

McDavid
2015 Young Guns BGS 9 - $1286.00 on March 28
2015 Young Guns PSA 9 - $1371.99 on March 28
2015 Young Guns PSA 9 - $1265.00 on March 27

Tiger
2001 Upper Deck #1 BGS 8 - $31.00 on March 11
2001 Upper Deck #1 PSA 8 - $34.00 on March 9
2001 Upper Deck #1 PSA 8 - $28.00 on March 9

Kobe
1996 Topps Chrome #138 PSA 8 - $762.00 on March 27
1996 Topps Chrome #138 PSA 8 - $805.00 on March 26
1996 Topps Chrome #138 BGS 8 - $820.00 on March 25

Anyway, as is now painfully clear, the reality is that the price difference between PSA and BGS is largely found in the discrepancy between PSA 10 and BGS 9.5. And in many instances it doesn’t deserve to be there, just as it doesn’t deserve to be there (and often isn’t) when comparing 8s and 9s from both companies. PSA is not a particularly strong brand, but the PSA 10 is a very strong product-brand, and will continue to carry a value advantage until BGS fixes the problem with its numerical scale that allows PSA 10 to appear stronger than it is and BGS 9.5 to appear weaker than it is.

[oddstuff]

It's all Bo Derek's fault.

[waytoomanycards]

In reality, at a paltry output of 60-70k slabs per month, BGS 9.5's should be able to command a premium even without newbies understanding the scale.

After over two decades, they should have enough loyal followers in their niche (modern cards) to gobble up that tepid supply at high prices.

They don't because they chased too many of them away.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by TBT

2003 Topps Chrome #111 BGS 8 - $715.99 on March 28
2003 Topps Chrome # 111 PSA 8 - $720.00 on March 27

I only looked up this one and saw you cherry picked data. The $720 PSA 8 was an eBay Vault auction and some people don't want to deal with that nonsense. There were about 5 other LeBron's PSA 8's sold the same week for $100 more than the BGS 8. Just ignore the other sales and complain when others cherry pick, when that is exactly what you did.