• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Analysis: How do CSG and PSA grades compare?
2 2

20 posts in this topic

I've submitted a couple of batches of vintage cards (mostly) to CSG and my impression is that they're tough graders, but I hadn't really crunched the data to confim this. Now that the CSG population report is starting to get some high enough numbers, it's probably valid to compare how tough CSG is vs. PSA.   I picked 10 cards that are amongst the highest population, plus some popular vintage cards.    I copied a spreadsheet into the message, so the formatting isn't great but the results are a bit stunning:

Year Company Player Set Num CSG Pop PSA Pop CSG < 6 PSA < 6 CSG 9+ PSA 9+
1989 Topps Griffey Traded 41T 805 78592 1.5% 0.7% 54.9% 74.0%
1989 Upper Deck Griffey Base #1 987 88568 9.3% 5.5% 8.5% 36.0%
1989 Fleer Griffey   #548 811 54854 2.2% 0.6% 25.2% 63.4%
1986 Topps Bonds Traded 11T 417 51570 1.0% 1.3% 15.8% 49.4%
1984 Topps Elway   #63 265 19982 16.6% 7.0% 2.3% 14.2%
1981 Topps Montana   #216 281 20946 27.0% 11.0% 2.5% 10.0%
1986 Topps Rice   #161 448 26708 10.7% 6.2% 2.5% 4.1%
2018 Topps Acuna Traded #US250 324 32380 0.3% 0.2% 92.3% 95.4%
2019 Prizm Zion   #248 222 39564 0.0% 0.0% 81.1% 96.3%
1970 Topps OJ Simpson   #90 108 3310 59.3% 34.2% 0.0% 3.5%

Based on these numbers, I can confidently say that CSG is the tougher grader -- in most cases WAY tougher.   Check out the '89 Upper Deck Griffey.  PSA has given a 9 or better to 36% vs. 8.5% for CSG.   Ultra-modern seems closer, but still the scales tip toward CSG.  Does anyone have any theories as to why this might be?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I'm especially interested in any comments from CSG on this topic!   I think they're doing everything right in my opinion.  Very responsive customer service, great turnaround time, beautiful slabs, re-grading cards from other graders, etc.  In no way am I suggesting they should ease up on their grading standards, it will pay off in the long run.   What happens when it becomes common knowledge that PSA is the easier grader?  

Edited by Thomas J Beard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2022 at 12:56 AM, Thomas J Beard said:

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I'm especially interested in any comments from CSG on this topic!   I think they're doing everything right in my opinion.  Very responsive customer service, great turnaround time, beautiful slabs, re-grading cards from other graders, etc.  In no way am I suggesting they should ease up on their grading standards, it will pay off in the long run.   What happens when it becomes common knowledge that PSA is the easier grader?  

That already is common knowledge, which is why they're (unfortunately) the most popular grading company. I'm with you when it comes to the many positives CSG brings to the industry, but unfortunately, there's more money than brains in this hobby. It's going to be tough for anyone to dethrone PSA. BGS and SGC have tried for 20 years. I'm not saying PSA deserves that top spot, my opinion is actually to the contrary, but getting them out of that top spot will be difficult unless more collectors wise up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't compare POP reports from PSA and CSG from cards from the 70's and 80's. A lot of those cards you gave as evidence of CSG being a tougher grader have been in PSA slabs for over 10 years. As time goes on, there are less high grade cards that are raw. A lot of the best cards have been graded already and also cards that are 30 year olds will have more opportunities to be damaged. You also need to consider a PSA 9 from 10 years ago is not the same way they grade today. That is why PSA new lighthouse slabs go for more money for the same grade. They grade tougher right now.

If you want to do this comparison, you need to compare cards from 2020 on. You also need to be careful about looking at POP reports. CSG changed their grading scale, eased up on surface grading according to Andy Broome on YouTube interviews, and changed their centering standards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, my quick data dump isn't a supposed to be a thorough analysis of the question and doesn't quality as a valid study.   I would have just kept it to myself, except the numbers were WAY different, especially on some cards.  Regardless of the diminishing numbers of raw vintage 9's and 10's out there, and regardless of the recent tendency for PSA to grade more strictly, it doesn't fully explain the differences.   I still think that part of the difference has to be that CSG is the tougher grader.  

I guess the two comments show that there's plenty of room for debate.  One the one hand, it's common knowledge that CSG is the tougher grader (I hope that's true, but is it really?), but on the other hand, the comparison is invalid because of two reasons: 1).  the best cards are already in PSA slabs, and 2).  PSA has gotten tougher over time.  Maybe both points are correct to some degree.     

I may have time to try and do a better job of comparing apples to apples with 2020 data only, although if anyone else wants to update my data with new columns for the PSA percentages for that timeframe, that would be cool.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From someone who has graded a lot of cards from PSA/SGC in the past and the new label CSG, I can tell you my experience. I never graded with the older CSG green labels, but from what I have seen, they are extremely tough for GEM MINT grades. Probably the toughest ever in grading for the old green slabs. 

From my last bulk order, I pre graded as I would for PSA. I was spot on for 95% of the grades, which is typically exactly how I am with PSA/SGC. The only difference that may make CSG a "tougher" grader is the same reason why SGC is "tougher." Right now if you dive into data, you will see the Gem Mint rates of SGC are lower than CSG across the board. What makes CSG a "tougher" grade then PSA is that PSA doesn't have a PSA 9.5 and they have lower centering standards. There are many PSA 10's that would grade a CSG/SGC 9.5 off of centering alone. 

What really annoys me is the price difference of a PSA 10 and SGC/CSG 10. SGC/CSG 10's should be worth more than PSA 10's, because they are more strict with centering and other characteristics. I think over time people will realize this and CSG/SGC will narrow the gap in prices. I am extremely satisfied with my first bulk CSG order and some of the grades were below what I expected and some above. However, they were consistent and fair. That is all you can ask for from a grading company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is part of it that the new cards are more asymmetrical. Centering in the 70’s and 80’s was a lot easier when there is a A rectangle around the card the shows some centering. I’m interested in knowing how the center some of the cards that don’t have borders. I would go leaner more about grading as I obviously don’t know a lot. I as long as people are paying a premium for PSA graded cards they are going to be at the top. I personally will go with the PSA,CSG,SGC,BSG. I get and see a lot of the new cards the the edges are cut poorly right out of the box. Some cards like the ‘21 panini Illusions are hard to even handle with out having them damage. If you know where I can learn more about grading I would love to know. One last thing PSA has the easiest site to use and the most info I think that may help with new collectors. I thinks is going to grow because a lot of the kids that were selling shoes 3 years ago are move over to cards. They like two things fast money and tech. That why the shoes market tanked for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data methodology is flawed. When CSG was $6 & $8 to grade, while PSA was $75, some dealers just bulked anything that should get at least a PSA 7 equivalent to CSG. It simply wasn't worth the time of going over each card with a loupe, if the grading cost was so low. This results in a downward skew on the CSG Pop report.

The same would hold true for the black label SGC cards when their submission fees were $7 & $9. They would have a bunch of submissions of cards that people figured would be worth $20 more in a SGC 8 or 9 than raw. Of course, PSA was $17 at the time, so it wasn't as extreme of a value proposition.

Now, with SGC costing more than PSA bulk, people might opt to just use PSA and wait until Dec for their card back.

In any case, the point is that, unless you send a bunch of CSG 9 cards and see them getting PSA 10 grades... similar to how folks on Twitter send PSA 5 cards to SGC to get 9.5 & 10 grades, it's hard to say who grades harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data methodology is over-simplified, but not invalid -- it's just a straight comparison of lifetime CSG and PSA population reports for a batch of popular cards.  You can certainly argue that drawing any conclusions from this data isn't valid, and I agree with that.  But I do think it's possible to float some theories to explain it.  Why is there a consistent difference between CSG grades and PSA grades, in some cases a huge difference -- with CSG consistently having fewer 9+ cards and more 6 or lower?   So far, the theories can be summarized as follows:

1.  Since the PSA report goes way back in time, the best cards have already been sent to PSA and have been graded and slabbed (mostly for vintage cards).  The pool of high-grade vintage raw cards worthy of sending in for grading is nowhere near what it was 30 years ago when PSA first started up 

2.  More recently, CSG offers the best pricing & turnaround times which allows for borderline gradable cards to be slabbed and still seem to make financial sense 

3.  If we looked only at data from 2021-22, the numbers might not be as different since PSA has tightened up some of their grading practices.  This could probably be validated if I knew where to find PSA data for only those years (but I haven't tried too hard to find it).

4.  CSG was using a different grading scale for their green flips, so it's not an apples-to-apple comparison (similar to Beckett, a 9.5 is a gem mint), although I combined 9, 9.5 and 10's together for both companies to try to eliminate this factor

5.  I'll add one from my own personal experience (I'm a collector first, not an investor), collectors like to display their favorite cards so, for $12/card, it's not crazy to send in my 1960's Packers cards, regardless of grade, so I can have a nicer display.    And that's exactly what I did.  

6.  Finally, CSG is just a tougher grader (especially on centering and surface)

My original post suggested #6 as a part of the explanation.  I can now see that the numbers could be explained by a number of other factors too, some that we probably haven't thought of yet.

I do think that it would be interesting to see if someone could find data to make the case that they're the EASIER grader.   I'd be intrigued to see that data.  

 

Edited by Thomas J Beard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2022 at 1:46 AM, Thomas J Beard said:

I've submitted a couple of batches of vintage cards (mostly) to CSG and my impression is that they're tough graders, but I hadn't really crunched the data to confim this. Now that the CSG population report is starting to get some high enough numbers, it's probably valid to compare how tough CSG is vs. PSA.   I picked 10 cards that are amongst the highest population, plus some popular vintage cards.    I copied a spreadsheet into the message, so the formatting isn't great but the results are a bit stunning:

Year Company Player Set Num CSG Pop PSA Pop CSG < 6 PSA < 6 CSG 9+ PSA 9+
1989 Topps Griffey Traded 41T 805 78592 1.5% 0.7% 54.9% 74.0%
1989 Upper Deck Griffey Base #1 987 88568 9.3% 5.5% 8.5% 36.0%
1989 Fleer Griffey   #548 811 54854 2.2% 0.6% 25.2% 63.4%
1986 Topps Bonds Traded 11T 417 51570 1.0% 1.3% 15.8% 49.4%
1984 Topps Elway   #63 265 19982 16.6% 7.0% 2.3% 14.2%
1981 Topps Montana   #216 281 20946 27.0% 11.0% 2.5% 10.0%
1986 Topps Rice   #161 448 26708 10.7% 6.2% 2.5% 4.1%
2018 Topps Acuna Traded #US250 324 32380 0.3% 0.2% 92.3% 95.4%
2019 Prizm Zion   #248 222 39564 0.0% 0.0% 81.1% 96.3%
1970 Topps OJ Simpson   #90 108 3310 59.3% 34.2% 0.0% 3.5%

Based on these numbers, I can confidently say that CSG is the tougher grader -- in most cases WAY tougher.   Check out the '89 Upper Deck Griffey.  PSA has given a 9 or better to 36% vs. 8.5% for CSG.   Ultra-modern seems closer, but still the scales tip toward CSG.  Does anyone have any theories as to why this might be?   

yes Going foward 30 examples is needed to form a conclusion according to scientific method. If these examples with green label scale i would blame it all on centering. Csg's green label crntering scale was crazy strict 50/50 around except 1 side for gem is really tough and the examples you picked especially the 80's cards centering is a major problem. With csg's new scale redo same experiment with 30 cards take out patches and dye cuts I gaurentee they are very similiar 5-10% difference with csg being slightly tougher because my personal bias is csg is the most accurate grader imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I'd revisit this topic after a number of additional submissions to PSA and CSG.   

I now think theory 1 is the most likely.

1.  Since the PSA report goes way back in time, the best cards have already been sent to PSA and have been graded and slabbed (mostly for vintage cards).  The pool of high-grade vintage raw cards worthy of sending in for grading is nowhere near what it was 30 years ago when PSA first started up.

The vintage or modern cards being graded by all the major card graders tend to be lower grades than they were 5-10 years ago.  Ultra-modern seems to be the exception, which is further evidence that theory 1 is probably the closest to reality.  I've heard that there are opinions that PSA is using a "population control" approach with older cards.  My last couple of submissions have been to PSA and it seems that awarding an "8" has become much tougher than it used to be -- again, that's to be expected based on theory 1 above and the fact that they've almost certainly increased their scrutiny on potentially higher-valued cards not wanting to flood the market and drive down the value and perceived scarcity of a higher grade.  

I know that's not a very original observation.   I still do think that CSG grades harder on centering and surface, while PSA seems to be tougher on edges/corners.   PSA also seems to be much more strict at kicking out cards that don't meet their "minimum size" requirements than CSG, especially those that may have been in a screw-down holder for some time.

Anyone have anything new to add?      

 

Edited by Thomas J Beard
A few typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2022 at 12:58 PM, redfoxdutchman said:

You can't compare POP reports from PSA and CSG from cards from the 70's and 80's. A lot of those cards you gave as evidence of CSG being a tougher grader have been in PSA slabs for over 10 years. As time goes on, there are less high grade cards that are raw. A lot of the best cards have been graded already and also cards that are 30 year olds will have more opportunities to be damaged. You also need to consider a PSA 9 from 10 years ago is not the same way they grade today. That is why PSA new lighthouse slabs go for more money for the same grade. They grade tougher right now.

If you want to do this comparison, you need to compare cards from 2020 on. You also need to be careful about looking at POP reports. CSG changed their grading scale, eased up on surface grading according to Andy Broome on YouTube interviews, and changed their centering standards. 

I don’t buy into all the best cards have been graded BS theory! Im willing to bet there are way more people out there that have taken extremely good care of their cards & never paid to have a single card graded then there are people out there that have paid to have cards graded! I’m of the opinion that cards should be graded on their merits alone & that the amount of high grades previously given out for the same card should play absolutely zero role in regards to the grading scale the card is graded on! Simply put a 10 should be a 10 & a 9 should be a 9 etc & Not a 10 being graded an 8 bc there have already been to many of the card submitted that were given 10’s & 9’s regardless if they were earned high grades or not! I find it extremely disappointing when I come across 2 of the same card that have both been graded by PSA where any layman could decipher that the lower graded card is in better condition then the higher graded card & I’ve unfortunately come across this exact situation way to many times to count that this was clearly the case at hand! It’s quite funny that in pretty much every single said situation I come across that the barcode/serial # on the card w/ the card w/ the clearly less deserving higher grade the serial/barcode #’s just so happens to be lower indicating it was graded before the card that’s in better condition but somehow having the lower of the 2 grades which is clearly not a coincidence! 

Edited by Raleighwood007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2022 at 8:38 AM, Thomas J Beard said:

 

3.  If we looked only at data from 2021-22, the numbers might not be as different since PSA has tightened up some of their grading practices.  This could probably be validated if I knew where to find PSA data for only those years (but I haven't tried too hard to find it).

4.  CSG was using a different grading scale for their green flips, so it's not an apples-to-apple comparison (similar to Beckett, a 9.5 is a gem mint), although I combined 9, 9.5 and 10's together for both companies to try to eliminate this factor

 

3. Actually fairly simple: Look at cards produced after CoVID started OR look at commons and minor stars from the junk wax era. CoVID caused prices to bubble, so people started submitting all sorts of nonsense to PSA hoping to catch 10s.

4. That is not exactly logical. Given time to review the green and black label outcomes, a CSG 9.5 is closer to a PSA 9+ than the hypothetical PSA 9.5. This is why the choice to reimplement Pristine as a grading tier to sports (rather than eliminating it from non-sports) by CCG (CSG/CGC parent company) is almost nonsensical. This action reflects the decision making that led to CCG abandoning SGC the first time around (green label).

1. I think more junk wax cases were broken during CoVID (yielding pack fresh or PSA 8.5 or better quality cards) that got subbed than the “best in PSA cases pre-CSG” argument accounts for. This is why I say the solution to #3 is look at junk wax semi stars. They were rarely submitted pre-bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 1:12 PM, Starbeanie said:

I'm interested in seeing what my latest submissions look like in person . 3 cards pulled from a 1987 Topps sealed factory set , all got 8.5's!! How off center can they be?

Were the cards curled from the way Topps packed factory sets in the 80s? That might have been enough to push the surface grade to an 8, which would mean an 8.5 overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2023 at 2:57 PM, Starbeanie said:

I'm just not good at grading cards? or is it CSG?

This got a 4. From a sealed set

https://www.csgcards.com/certlookup/1401002797009/

The edges are pretty bad, so I would say 5-6 range. There might be an issue with a surface wrinkle that doesn’t show up due to the strong white photos that CSG uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2022 at 1:46 AM, Thomas J Beard said:

I've submitted a couple of batches of vintage cards (mostly) to CSG and my impression is that they're tough graders, but I hadn't really crunched the data to confim this. Now that the CSG population report is starting to get some high enough numbers, it's probably valid to compare how tough CSG is vs. PSA.   I picked 10 cards that are amongst the highest population, plus some popular vintage cards.    I copied a spreadsheet into the message, so the formatting isn't great but the results are a bit stunning:

Year Company Player Set Num CSG Pop PSA Pop CSG < 6 PSA < 6 CSG 9+ PSA 9+
1989 Topps Griffey Traded 41T 805 78592 1.5% 0.7% 54.9% 74.0%
1989 Upper Deck Griffey Base #1 987 88568 9.3% 5.5% 8.5% 36.0%
1989 Fleer Griffey   #548 811 54854 2.2% 0.6% 25.2% 63.4%
1986 Topps Bonds Traded 11T 417 51570 1.0% 1.3% 15.8% 49.4%
1984 Topps Elway   #63 265 19982 16.6% 7.0% 2.3% 14.2%
1981 Topps Montana   #216 281 20946 27.0% 11.0% 2.5% 10.0%
1986 Topps Rice   #161 448 26708 10.7% 6.2% 2.5% 4.1%
2018 Topps Acuna Traded #US250 324 32380 0.3% 0.2% 92.3% 95.4%
2019 Prizm Zion   #248 222 39564 0.0% 0.0% 81.1% 96.3%
1970 Topps OJ Simpson   #90 108 3310 59.3% 34.2% 0.0% 3.5%

Based on these numbers, I can confidently say that CSG is the tougher grader -- in most cases WAY tougher.   Check out the '89 Upper Deck Griffey.  PSA has given a 9 or better to 36% vs. 8.5% for CSG.   Ultra-modern seems closer, but still the scales tip toward CSG.  Does anyone have any theories as to why this might be?   

you can easilly check by the gem rate data i havent checked in a while but cgc use to be twice as difficult to get a gem per card then psa, when it comes to vintage i think cgc are a little easier on corners if overall appearence of the card isnt affected but they are more strict on surface n color, compared to sgc they are very close a dude who grades with cgc a lot cracked around 30 sgc vintage slabs and sent to cgc got almost identical grades give or take .5.. imo psa sux at grading vintage it seems like they just give low grades to old card for no reason its very random, cgc sticks to their scale if you read the scale you can pregrade pretty good 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2