BGS

[2010GBPackers]

I'm sure we could have a 5-year long back and forth over which 8 sells for more, a PSA 8 or BGS 8, but it's just deflecting from what many don't want to see - a challenge to PSA and/or their BGS 9.5's taking yet another hit value-wise.

As a non-BGS buyer, it's a bit strange to be backing a company's idea when I don't believe in their model, but here we are. TBT is 100% correct (and so is BGS) that something finally needs to be done with their 9.5 label. (Sidebar: there's a reason PSA steered clear of the 9.5 label way back when they introduced half-grades and BGS fans never made the connection between PSA dominance and the slow slide of value in the BGS 9.5 label)

We all can most likely agree, approx. half BGS 9.5 slabs are mint cards and the other half are gem mint cards. The fact is, saavy collectors have been snatching up those great 9.5's and crossing them to PSA 10's over the last ~5-7 years. So now you have an even more concentrated amount of BGS 9.5 slabs containing what are clearly mint/mint+ cards. That's the main problem they're trying to correct - getting true Gem Mint cards into Gem Mint 10 holders....and they shoud be!

PSA also has plenty of 10's which are not equal to other 10's, but because of their ambiguity (no subgrades, no level between Mint 9 and Gem Mint 10) they are able to pull it off. That's one reason I'm a believer in getting rid of subgrades. Let's also be truthful, BGS hands out 9.5's like candy; PSA 10's? Not so much. Especially on notable cards. And that's another advantage of PSA. Sure, you aren't going to ever have them admit it but they protect their PSA 10 pop count on big cards, and it may not be the most ethical way, but it is a good business practice in the collectible arena.

I guess it's just you and I, TBT. Levels within levels is a terrible idea, a complete non-starter for me. The only exception I'd have to live with if I'm BGS is the Black Label, although begrudgingly so.

9 - Mint
9.5 - Gem Mint
10 - Gem Mint +
Black Label 10 - Pristine

[TBT]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

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.

Well, I took screengrabs on my phone aiming for an image that showed BGS and PSA in the same screen. You’re right that the most recent sale of a PSA 8 was $810 on April 1. Of course, the BGS 8 that sold for $715.99 on March 28 had a 7 on surface, so it too appears to be a potential below-average example. But by all means, have a look at all of them and see if you find any other issues with my quick analysis.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I'm sure we could have a 5-year long back and forth over which 8 sells for more, a PSA 8 or BGS 8, but it's just deflecting from what many don't want to see - a challenge to PSA and/or their BGS 9.5's taking yet another hit value-wise.

As a non-BGS buyer, it's a bit strange to be backing a company's idea when I don't believe in their model, but here we are. TBT is 100% correct (and so is BGS) that something finally needs to be done with their 9.5 label. (Sidebar: there's a reason PSA steered clear of the 9.5 label way back when they introduced half-grades and BGS fans never made the connection between PSA dominance and the slow slide of value in the BGS 9.5 label)

We all can most likely agree, approx. half BGS 9.5 slabs are mint cards and the other half are gem mint cards. The fact is, saavy collectors have been snatching up those great 9.5's and crossing them to PSA 10's over the last ~5-7 years. So now you have an even more concentrated amount of BGS 9.5 slabs containing what are clearly mint/mint+ cards. That's the main problem they're trying to correct - getting true Gem Mint cards into Gem Mint 10 holders....and they shoud be!

PSA also has plenty of 10's which are not equal to other 10's, but because of their ambiguity (no subgrades, no level between Mint 9 and Gem Mint 10) they are able to pull it off. That's one reason I'm a believer in getting rid of subgrades. Let's also be truthful, BGS hands out 9.5's like candy; PSA 10's? Not so much. Especially on notable cards. And that's another advantage of PSA. Sure, you aren't going to ever have them admit it but they protect their PSA 10 pop count on big cards, and it may not be the most ethical way, but it is a good business practice in the collectible arena.

I guess it's just you and I, TBT. Levels within levels is a terrible idea, a complete non-starter for me. The only exception I'd have to live with if I'm BGS is the Black Label, although begrudgingly so.

9 - Mint
9.5 - Gem Mint
10 - Gem Mint +
Black Label 10 - Pristine

Yeah, it’s weird that it’s even a debate or a contentious idea. BGS can do something to address an obvious product gap without negatively impacting their existing cardholders at all. I’ve never seen a situation where certain people are so adamant that a company should NOT fix an obvious product problem. It’s bizarre.

In any case, I don’t have anything against PSA. I buy PSA slabs all the time when the best card is sitting in them. Do PSA 10s deserve to carry a price premium over true gem BGS 9.5s? Of course not. Would BGS be wise to elegantly address the problem that allowed PSA to get an unwarranted advantage? Of course. Next.

[majestik101]

Originally Posted by TBT

Here’s a special one for you.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by majestik101

Lol. That’s well played and fair game.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by TBT

Yeah, it’s weird that it’s even a debate or a contentious idea. BGS can do something to address an obvious product gap without negatively impacting their existing cardholders at all. I’ve never seen a situation where certain people are so adamant that a company should NOT fix an obvious product problem. It’s bizarre.

In any case, I don’t have anything against PSA. I buy PSA slabs all the time when the best card is sitting in them. Do PSA 10s deserve to carry a price premium over true gem BGS 9.5s? Of course not. Would BGS be wise to elegantly address the problem that allowed PSA to get an unwarranted advantage? Of course. Next.

Yeah, just have 5 or 6 different 10s. As I said before, just use different color labels.

4 x 9.5 subgrades = gem mint 10. Makes perfect sense.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by TBT

Yeah, it’s weird that it’s even a debate or a contentious idea. BGS can do something to address an obvious product gap without negatively impacting their existing cardholders at all. I’ve never seen a situation where certain people are so adamant that a company should NOT fix an obvious product problem. It’s bizarre.

You realize you are in a very small minority, right?

[TBT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You realize you are in a very small minority, right?

As those who understand often are, Khal.

[rohara99]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Let's also be truthful, BGS hands out 9.5's like candy; PSA 10's? Not so much. Especially on notable cards.

We dont need to do a huge deep dive on this but generally speaking the pop report %'s of BGS 9.5 True Gems is generally on par with PSA 10's.

[zdawgs]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You realize you are in a very small minority, right?

Stupid statement. Just because the majority thinks one way doesn't make it right.......majority of Germans once thought Hitler was a great ruler too

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by zdawgs

Stupid statement. Just because the majority thinks one way doesn't make it right.......majority of Germans once thought Hitler was a great ruler too

First off, great comparison. I always find the most intelligent of arguments invoke Hitler.

This isn’t about right or wrong. If the majority opinion of their consumers is that the scale is fine as is, tell me how it makes sense for BGS to change the scale? They’re going to give their consumers something they didn’t ask for, while ignoring everything that’s being asked for? Brilliant stuff.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by zdawgs

Stupid statement. Just because the majority thinks one way doesn't make it right.......majority of Germans once thought Hitler was a great ruler too

Fine, BGS should piss off a majority of their customers or potential customers. Lets see how that works out for them.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

First off, great comparison. I always find the most intelligent of arguments invoke Hitler.

This isn’t about right or wrong. If the majority opinion of their consumers is that the scale is fine as is, tell me how it makes sense for BGS to change the scale? They’re going to give their consumers something they didn’t ask for, while ignoring everything that’s being asked for? Brilliant stuff.

The thread is littered with explanations on why a minor update makes sense for BGS, but I’ve yet to see a single counter argument to those explanations that isn’t rooted in a logical fallacy. At present you’re digging in deep on the “bandwagon” fallacy, which started with your textbook suggestion that the idea is bad because the “majority” disagree with it (nevermind how dubious that claim is in itself). You then took it a step further by suggesting that BGS should not fix a product gap because their customers have not been begging them to do so, as if businesses succeed merely by giving people exactly what they say they want. You’ve no doubt read the famous Henry Ford quote on that.

[Reddzonesports]

Originally Posted by mc1

Excellent. They need to add new color labels such as teal and bring back blue and white. They will need those colors to distinguish between all the different 10s

I really like that idea. I am from the school of thought that understands the real difference in the levels and valuations of Gem Mint and higher graded cards. A standard Gem Mint grade was never the end all be all of the graded card world. High BGS Gems have always commanded a premium over their True Gem / Min Gem counterparts, and the consensus market has made Beckett the undisputed leader in the category of various Gem Mint & Pristine Grades. Clearly, and furthermore defining the Level of an overall 10 grade through different color Gem Related Labels & subgrades is an awesome idea.

Although, one wonky looking thing about this idea, no matter how you cut it, is that labels containing 1 or more 9.5 subs can somehow equate to an overall Gem Mint 10 grade, but a new 9.5 would be a Mint+.... One thing I can think to eliminate this sort of visual inconsistency is to retain all subgrades in numerical form up to the Number 9 while replacing the Gem Mint 9.5 & Pristine 10 subgrades with symbols, such as different color diamonds which also clearly define the level of the overall 10 grade.

Or just skip the 9.5 Mint+ entirely.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by TBT

The thread is littered with explanations on why a minor update makes sense for BGS, but I’ve yet to see a single counter argument to those explanations that isn’t rooted in a logical fallacy. At present you’re digging in deep on the “bandwagon” fallacy, which started with your textbook suggestion that the idea is bad because the “majority” disagree with it (nevermind how dubious that claim is in itself). You then took it a step further by suggesting that BGS should not fix a product gap because their customers have not been begging them to do so, as if businesses succeed merely by giving people exactly what they say they want. You’ve no doubt read the famous Henry Ford quote on that.

You’re being intentionally obtuse. Search my name in this thread or the other BGS thread. Not that hard.

[Reddzonesports]

My final thought on this is I am glad Beckett showed out with an idea for a potential change in this direction. Making a Gem Mint a 10 gives a majority what they want and shuts down the shade they have received by toxic opposition to the 9.5 vs. 10 argument when it comes to valuation & visual appeal. Furthermore, adding a new Gem Mint+ 10 grade, also shows everyone, opposition included, they can do you one better as well because all those labels already have their report cards ready for it, and they've been grading high Gems since day one. I completely resisted the idea prior to their announcement early this month for a change from 9.5 gem. It seemed the gem Mint 10 marketing in the hobby was just a new, trendy buzzworthy thing that would not hold up. That it was just a reaction to a valuation shift where BGS grades had commanded a premium in the hobby from day one and for so long, only to be surpassed. But maybe Beckett is just the last one in the 10 pool who can make the biggest splash of them all? Looking at this I saw something i hadn't seen before, an opportunity to rethink the possibilities of how this could actually work to the benefit of the greater hobby, the collector, the investor and the company, psychologically, value wise, cost, growth etc...and anything else positive you can think up about it. I hope they find a real way to make this work out. It really looks like it can.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You’re being intentionally obtuse. Search my name in this thread or the other BGS thread. Not that hard.

Obtuse about what? You’re saying that the update below is a bad idea, right?

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

You’ve given various reasons for your opinion that don’t really respond to the actual idea and the proposed merits of it. I’m paraphrasing here, but I’ve seen the following:

“They have other problems to solve.” (red herring)

“People already understand how to evaluate degrees of Gem Mt so a change like this wouldn’t matter.” (If this were true, there wouldn’t be a significant price difference between true gem BGS 9.5s and PSA 10s, but there often is.)

“True gem BGS 9.5 sells for less than PSA 10 because PSA has a stronger brand, so a change like this wouldn’t matter.” (Countered by the inconvenient reality that in general, the price premium for PSA over BGS is very small or even non existent in near-mint and mint copies of heavily traded cards across various sports.)

“The majority of people think this change is bad.” (Bandwagon fallacy, but unsubstantiated to begin with.)

“BGS customers aren’t asking for this so it’s a bad idea.” (Bandwagon fallacy, but also counter to widely accepted business wisdom.)

There might have been others. Not sure. It’s a long thread.

[zdawgs]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

First off, great comparison. I always find the most intelligent of arguments invoke Hitler.

This isn’t about right or wrong. If the majority opinion of their consumers is that the scale is fine as is, tell me how it makes sense for BGS to change the scale? They’re going to give their consumers something they didn’t ask for, while ignoring everything that’s being asked for? Brilliant stuff.

The Hitler comeback made me laugh.....very true as I should have invoked something else.

You keep saying the majority doesn't want this......I guess you know majority of colletors then and ran a poll? Just because you dislike it, quit acting like the majority of others agree with you. I would agree that the most outspoken have not liked it, but often times there is a slient majority (think recent election. Biden supporters were fairly quiet while Trump supporters were most outspoken and shocked that they weren't a majority).

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by zdawgs

The Hitler comeback made me laugh.....very true as I should have invoked something else.

You keep saying the majority doesn't want this......I guess you know majority of colletors then and ran a poll? Just because you dislike it, quit acting like the majority of others agree with you. I would agree that the most outspoken have not liked it, but often times there is a slient majority (think recent election. Biden supporters were fairly quiet while Trump supporters were most outspoken and shocked that they weren't a majority).

The thousands of comments on their IG post said otherwise. But sure, you have the silent majority behind your back.

[zdawgs]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

The thousands of comments on their IG post said otherwise. But sure, you have the silent majority behind your back.

I have followed these forums and I don't believe Khal Drago has every been wrong

[zdawgs]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

The thousands of comments on their IG post said otherwise. But sure, you have the silent majority behind your back.

You're a PSA homer. Of course you don't want Beckett to change anything because they are continuing to lose customers to PSA.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by zdawgs

You're a PSA homer. Of course you don't want Beckett to change anything because they are continuing to lose customers to PSA.

I would have loved if BGS rolled with what they put out last week. I never miss an opportunity to dance on the grave of a #@#@#@#@ organization.

[zdawgs]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

I would have loved if BGS rolled with what they put out last week. I never miss an opportunity to dance on the grave of a #@#@#@#@ organization.

So we can take everything you say with a grain of salt. Thanks for clarifying

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by zdawgs

So we can take everything you say with a grain of salt. Thanks for clarifying

You are struggling.

Objectively, I found their new scale to be a disaster. Should not be implemented unless they want to bury the company for good.

Selfishly, I’d find a tremendous amount of joy in seeing BGS continue to self implode.

[seanbros55]

All this thread is missing is a few dozen ”Occam’s Razor” references…my personal favorite on the boards…