PSA vs. BGS

slum22

I have noticed recently a wider and wider gap in prices realized on Ebay for PSA graded cards vs. their (theoretically) equally graded BGS/BVG cards. I wanted to hear some opinions on why there is this gap? I also wanted to hear opinions on whether you think the gap will continue to widen or stay the same or narrow? You can also include SGC in the discussion but it seems like the grading industry has lined up with PSA, BGS and SGC in that order of popularity. Looking forward to hearing some opinions and getting insights.

RyanAdmirer

There is a theory that if a higher selling price and thus value is what you are after that you should use PSA for vintage cards and BGS for modern or newer. IMO this one seems to be more than just a popular theory- if you compare sold prices on Ebay of the same card I believe more times than not this theory proves to be true. I have not spent an enormous amount of time investigating that for truth nor have I taken time to collect data to prove it.

There is another PSA/BGS theory that says a 9.5 card is equal to what PSA would grade as a 10. The same theory says that a BGS 10 card is superior to a PSA 10. I suppose if you take the time to look at the standards PSA uses to grade a 10 there are small exceptions (such as at least 75/25 centering on the back) that may indeed alllow for a card to be PSA 10 but not BGS 10. But at the same time, I don't recall ever seeing one of my cards come back as a "10" that I didn't believe to be perfect when I sent it in. I do, however, seem to have at least a couple I've sent in believing to be "10" that have came back less. So I certainly do not believe PSA should tighten their standards.

BTW- I have yet to send in a BGS sub so if anything I'm biased towards PSA.

mlbfan2

For which cards do PSA cards sell for more than BGS cards?

I just did this search on ebay (sold auctions): 1989 upper deck griffey (psa,bgs) 9
The 7 highest auction sales (single cards only) were all BGS.

For this search: 1986 fleer jordan (bgs,psa) 9
The 2 highest were BGS.

But, obviously these are small sample sizes, and they don't really prove anything.

stangrider

In my opinion it's easier to get a BGS 9.5 than a PSA 10. Due to the four subgrade calculation it can allow a card with 9 centering to end up in a 9.5 case as long as all the other subgrades are at least 9.5. I feel that if the same card was submitted to PSA it wouldn't have a chance at a PSA 10 due to centering issues.


That being said I do also believe that BGS 10 is a tougher grade than PSA 10 and is often why they go for stupid money.

BGS for modern (especially auto's b/c of the auto grade) and PSA for vintage (registry/no sheet cut cards/ect.)

Dpeck100

PSA is dominating right now. People put money on winners. Until you see any major adjustment lower in market share, PSA graded cards will sell for more. There is no disputing in most cases that PSA graded cards are selling for much more then their counterparts and this leads to even further strength as the perception is that they will indeed sell for more and this drives future submissions and helps maintain market share. It is a self perpetuating cycle.


As a collector I have for the most part given up on BGS cards. I have purchased a number of them to try and improve my wrestling sets with very limited positive results. There have been a few nice one's and many bad one's. Once you have determined that you want your sets in a PSA holder you now have to analyze what are the chances I can get this BGS card in a PSA holder and base your costs on what you think the probability is. After a number of expensive failures collectors give up and this hurts the demand for cards graded by BGS. The PSA set registry has easily been the most devastating blow to BGS as a grading company.


I think the future holds more of the same. BGS has been weakened dramatically as so many of the older cards that are what dominate the hobby in terms of long term valuable cards sell for much more in a PSA holder. Clearly BGS has maintained some stronger numbers on newer cards but in many cases these cards do not sell for much more then 2 times book value even in Gem Mint condition and this really gives them limited power in the hobby. PSA routinely has cards that sell for $0.05 sell for $800 or more in one of their Gem Mint slabs and this drives behavior. There is clearly room for more then one grading company and competition is good. I am a PSA guy and people like me are helping cause the disparity that you are referencing.

CocoaBeachDodgers

Back a few years ago, when I was deciding which grading company I wanted to go with, I was comparing different TPG cards. I was using just the large AH's where the 2 examples were side by side. It's not all that often that you get 2 with the same basic grade, but I was able to compare about 20 examples, all high grade vintage. In every example, bar none, the PSA sold for more (sometimes quite a bit more) than it's equal counterpart. Now I am not saying this always happens, but it did on all the auctions I compared. Also, as I watch on a regular bases for years, I strongly believe this to be true. It seems that most people believe the PSA set registry is the strongest factor causing this.

MattyC

The BGS 10 Michael Jordan Fleer RC and all the BGS 9 Star Jordans beg to differ. I do prefer PSA with all my vintage baseball. I prefer SGC for my PreWar with PSA a very close second.

But lots of modern basketball and most noteworthy the Jordan Fleer RC, which is a major card in the hobby, tend to sell higher in BGS than their PSA counterparts-- when the subgrades are elite. So a perfect, direct, apples-to-apples comparison between say a PSA 9 Fleer Jordan and a BGS 9 Fleer Jordan cannot be made-- for the BGS 9 could have low subs or it could be bordering on 9.5 grade by a mere half point, and in that latter case it would trump the PSA 9 example by a wide margin. Similarly a BGS 9.5 Jordan with one or two Pristine 10 subs would go for higher than a PSA 10.

Modern autos also tend to be more sought after, especially by younger collectors, in BGS holders. And these are widely collected and can go for ridiculous sums. Any modern baseball I buy (harpers, Trouts, Yankee prospects), I want in BGS holders.

So while I am more of a PSA collector because I tend to go for older baseball, by no means would I color it as one-sidedly as above, because it all depends on what one collects. I would not say certain cards "dominate" the hobby and because they are primarily PSA-graded cards then PSA dominates BGS, because there are legions of collectors who could care less about a Wagner or Mantle or Cobb or Ruth, or a Registry Set. To some guys a modern graded BGS auto is the world. I am not one of them but that doesn't mean I dismiss the money spent on those type of cards.

I would also add that bargain hunting in an attempt to cross over, and then looking at a failed cross to PSA for the registry as a slight on BGS is a bit specious and unfair to BGS. What if a collector wanted to similarly bargain hunt for BGS 10 Pristines and failed to cross many PSA 10s and spent much money trying at that endeavor? Also, we all know how much politics plays into that crossing scenario, and it is why so many crack and resub. People do buy cards form SGC and BGS to own in those holders for a variety of reasons (aesthetics, slab security, grade breakdowns), and not just to cross to PSA for a registry set. (The registry is a big driver in the hobby, for sure, but it is not the end all be all of collecting.

ThoseBackPages

Collect slabs long enough, and you'll find yourself going through phases.

for my HOF RCs Collection, PSA is my slab of choice. For my current Focus, i am collecting current RCs in BGS 9.5 form, without any subs lower then 9.5 They arent as easy to find as one might think.

slum22

@mlbfan2

I mainly collect basketball. The cards I have been purchasing or looking to purchase recently follow the PSA > BGS trend:

1980-81 Magic Bird RC's go for $1200+ in PSA 9 and I bought one for $900 in BGS 9
2003 Topps Chrome Lebron James RC's run around $290 in PSA 10 and I bought a BGS 9.5 for $190
1986 Fleer PSA 10 Michael Jordan RC's go for $8000+ in PSA 10 and around $3500 in BGS 9.5
1986 Fleer basketball commons go for $50+ in PSA 10 and mostly around $70 while most BGS 9.5 commons go for $30-40

A quick search on almost any pre 80's baseball card will show much higher values for PSA than BGS from my searches. A common statement I hear is go PSA for vintage and BGS for modern, but even Bryce Harper RC's and Andrew Luck RC's carry premiums in PSA 10 vs. BGS 9.5 in the majority of Ebay auctions. So along with what I have seen in Lebron James RC's and Kevin Durant RC's PSA seems to have surpassed BGS in modern value as well.

mcadams

Mattyc brought up the key issue here- BGS Subgrades. If a BGS 9.5 has only 9.0 and 9.5 subgrades, it will sell for less than its PSA 10 counterpart. However, if a BGS 9.5 has 9.5 and 10.0 subgrades, it can sell for equal to or higher than its PSA 10 counterpart. Buyers of modern BGS slabs pay a fair amount of attention to subgrades and factor those into their pricing decisions.

Dpeck100

I just did a search of 1983 Topps and the price differential between a BGS 9.5 and a PSA 10 is huge on all three of the key rookie cards. There are Tony Gwynn sales at $190 for a BGS 9.5 and the lowest for a PSA 10 is $356. I realize $166 in this example is not a huge sum of money but on a percentage basis it is huge. This is an 82% premium. Even if you were to use the VCP average on both I would predict it is at least 50% higher on average or more.

There are numerous examples of key hobby rookie cards that have a similar result and this is driving behavior. There are certainly examples where this doesn't apply but it is not remotely the norm.

MattyC

As mcadams said: it's all about the subs-- and the specific cards in question. We can all hunt down and cite examples til our fingers are cramped from typing. Both do a good job and both slabs have commanded huge money. Depending on what one collects, that will influence their opinion. I'm pretty even on the issue because I have both vintage and modern in my collection. I will concede that as a general rule, if one ignores the subgrades, PSA will sell for more--- but to ignore the subgrade issue is to ignore how BGS collectors collect. It's in some ways a whole other language with its own nuances.

Very rarely does a 9 or 9.5 BGS card with 10 subs fly under the radar and not sell for more than it's PSA counterpart. And when it does, you can really wind up with an insane deal as opposed to what someone spent on the PSA card. I have a Jordan Fleer that will cross to PSA 10-- it is staying in it's BGS slab with 10 for a subgrade and all 9.5s-- and that's after discussing at length with experts in selling like Brent (PWCC).

BostonAmericans

Never mind.

ClockworkAngel

For those of us that are into the older cards from the 60's, 70's, and 80's it's not even close. The gap is wideningevery day it seems. I don't follow modern cards much so I can't comment there.

A good example:

PSA 9 MintV Reggie Jackson recently sold for almost $7,000.00

BGS 9 Mint Reggie Jackson recently sold for a little over $3,000.00

Huge gap for what is called a Mint card by both grading companies.

Why is this? The Dmitri Young collection helped. I think it's just a domino effect. People look at examples like the above Reggie and want to invest in the best as well as what will get them the best return and that's PSA. Almost Everything I own is PSA as a result (except the above Reggie in BGS 9 lol)

However, I think there will be a correction soon. BGS is very good and reputable and I think they are undervalued in comparison.

It would help if BGS would start offering the subgrade service for older stuff. Does anyone know why they only offer this service for cards made after 1980?

eagles33

I think the psa registry plays a big role in the price delta on some cards. I don't think the bgs registry has anywhere close to the following psa does.

rabbitpunch

As a hockey collector, I see PSA 10 getting way more money than BGS. BGS sellers are begging for sales on their hockey and most sit forever. Several examples are: PSA 10 1997 Zenith Vincent Lecavalier sold fir about $215 while a BGS 9.5 from one seller sat at $65 for months and that's with a BIN. Probable eventual sale as I don't see it listed anymore. Another card is 1989 OPC Joe Sakic. PSA (when available) sell for about $225 average while a BGS 9.5 can usually be had between $50-$60. There are tons of BGS 10 that collectors/sellers are trying to dump with no takers. I'm just speaking of hockey exclusively and it may be different for other sports. I don't own any bgs cards thank goodness.

MattyC

I'm amazed at the smug attitude in some of these responses.

japhi

<< <i>I'm amazed at the smug attitude in some of these responses. >>



I think it depends on what you collect. The Sakic example above is a good one. That card in PSA is really hard to pull out of wax. Over 25% of BVG submissions at 9.5 or higher, less than 3% of PSA subs made a 10.

What are your thoughts on this card? If you collected hockey what would you think of the TPG that put it in a slab?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BVG-BGS-10-1966-67-TOPPS-35-BOBBY-ORR-ROOKIE-CARD-PRISTINE-POP-1-RARE-/370753886522?pt=US_Hockey_Trading_Cards&hash=item5652a7593a

burke23

For 70's and 80's stuff, BGS's approach of grading cards that were knowingly sheet cut kills the value of a 9.5 versus a PSA 10. Not sure they do it anymore. Of course PSA has had some slip through as well, but their stance was to not intentionally slab sheet cut.

The registry is also huge for anything 80's or before.

rabbitpunch

Lol! Yea that Orr came out of pack alright. Doesn't surprise that its Jason Martin's card. He has endless amounts of sheets.

MattyC

BBG, do we really want to start listing every overgraded PSA card?

mygotta

BBGirl - what type of measurement are you using to gage the widgth of each side? inches? centimeters? pixels? digital rulers? Just curious. I find scans help at least with some of the 2-dimensional technicalities concerning centering and gives a closer inspection of printing and sharpness of corners as well.

I bought a modern BGS card and it was an instance of "buying the holder and the not the card". Once I got it I was not satisfied because it was a 9 centering with everything else a 9.5. So the average technicality merited the card a 9.5, however, I feel the card is at best a PSA 9 or even a PSA 8 as I feel the centering is that visible. I should post it. Its a 91 UD Jim Thome card.

In the same breath I have bought BCCG 10's and they can range from a PSA 7-9 and still get 10's. So, at this point, I am sticking with PSA. I have had success with modern PSA cards and they sell just as well in my opinion.

The other thing that sticks out to me is that many BVG/BGS sellers on eBay will spam their keywords with PSA, while I never see a PSA seller spam their keywords with BGS or BVG. To me that says more about what people search and want than anything else.

miwlvrn

FWIW, there are some oddball & foreign issues, both vintage and modern, that PSA won't grade but BGS will. I first send my cards to PSA; the ones that come back not graded due to what set they're from in turn go to SGC if vintage or BGS if modern.

I do believe that without the existence of the set registry, there might be more parity in some of the realized sales prices, meaning in some cases the final value has to do with the set registry participants bidding against each other rather than on the quality of the card or standards of the grading company. As long as the set registry exists, I find I have higher sales prices w/ PSA for vintage, far and away. On modern cards, that is not always the case.

soundgard

BVG by a mile.

PSA holders are a joke.

japhi

The problem with that Orr card isn't that it was overgraded due to centering / tilt, it's that it was ripped from a sheet. If that card could get in a PSA holder it would be in one, and it would have been sold by now at a huge price.

I'm not even a PSA junkie, I prefer the SGC holder and think they grade appropriately, but there is no doubt that Beckett is brutal on hockey earlier than 1990. Also, BCCG is a joke and it reflects on the brand.

mygotta

<< <i>


mygotta, I'm measuring in pixels using Adobe Photoshop. >>



How accurate is this method? When I think of pixels, I am thinking the dots that make up the screen, which are a fixed width/height. Correct? And so changing the size of the card on the screen would give you different results. So the number "30" is arbitrary to itself, but only in relation to your screen.

CocoaBeachDodgers

I think it is a little unfair to compare cards with subgrades to cards without subgrades.
This is also comparing apples to oranges!

If you want to include subgrades than you have to evaluate the non-subgraded (PSA) card as high end, low end or in middle of that particular grade. Than if you have a card with high subgrades you would have to compare only the prices of a high end PSA card of that grade. And we all know what a premium top of their grade PSA cards can fetch! I must admit though, I mostly collect vintage and it probably does matter what you collect when making this evaluation.

vladguerrero

This thread is pretty funny.

slum22

So it seems like there is an opinion out there that the PSA Registry plays a role in the value difference between PSA and BGS/BVG. I actually agree with this theory. Beckett was very negligent in not having a working registry for the past 2 or 3 years as it allowed PSA to further strengthen their grip on the Registry niche. That said, Beckett has relaunched their registry and I believe they are trying to promote it. If Beckett is able to create a viable registry I wonder if that would narrow the price gap on some cards.

I don't collect everything so there are lots of areas of sports card grading I am not aware of. That said I am sure there are differences in the graders between the companies for certain, specific categories (particularly some vintage cards that may require specific expertise/knowledge to verify authenticity). However, for many sets, in particular modern sets, it would seem that authenticating and grading would be fairly straightforward. I think there are plenty of examples on both sides, PSA and BGS, where we could find a card that was overgraded; for example, I once had a PSA 10 86 Fleer basketball card with a large yellow print dot on the red border (I sold it because I certainly didn't think it was a 10 despite what the label said). And I am sure there are cases where BGS cards come back with 9.5's that should be 9.0's and so on.

I haven't submitted to PSA but I have bought many graded PSA cards and I have both submitted to BGS and bought graded BGS cards. I feel that both companies grade fairly and at a high level of strictness, so that a card in either flip that's 9 or above would be legitimately be Mint or Gem Mint. I do wonder if there is some opportunity to be had in purchasing BGS cards at a relative discount to PSA now should the perceived difference in value changes later.

I do agree with the posters that mention the variability in value of BGS cards based on their subgrades. High subgrades definitely can increase the value of a card despite the overall grade.

mygotta

Here is an example I am thinking of in terms why PSA seems to be "better" from a collectible viewpoint.

1975 Robin Yount

This seller has one holdered in a BVG graded a 9.5. Most people seems to agree that it is equivalent to a PSA 10. So this seller states in his heading:



<< <i>ROBIN YOUNT RC BVG 9.5 PSA 10 SOLD 4 $25,790 >>



If I had that card, and thought it would be a 10, I would submit it to PSA. Yet, the owner decided to go with BVG for whatever reason. Advertises that it sold for $25,000, but sells it at $2700.

What is wrong with this picture? Either A) The card would not grade a 10 through PSA and therefore took his chances with BVG. The seller is very generous and passing the savings on to you. C) The card would not grade a 10 and therefore took a chance with BVG.

It's a nice looking card, but if in fact a 9.5 is equivalent to a PSA 10, then PSA is the winner by a landslide here when it comes to reselling your cards.

Mapleleaf

When started collecting, I bought some BVG hockey cards from ebay to cross grade to PSA. Turns out they were all sheet cuts and wouldn't cross. Had to dump the cards at less than what I paid for them and they took forever to sell. Now I won't touch a BVG card.

I think the the BCCG thing also hurts Beckett. What's the point of that service if a BCCG 10 can grade between a 7 and a 10?
Fortunately, I never bought any of those.

Dakillo

I'll insert my only qualified remark here since mygotta brought '75 Topps baseball into play. As a '75 mini collector, I know from experience that the naturally short cards (shunned by serious collectors and no longer graded by PSA) are graded by BVG. Matty...I saw your name on this board, I'm sure you can attest to this as well?

ClockworkAngel

<< <i>I'll insert my only qualified remark here since mygotta brought '75 Topps baseball into play. As a '75 mini collector, I know from experience that the naturally short cards (shunned by serious collectors and no longer graded by PSA) are graded by BVG. Matty...I saw your name on this board, I'm sure you can attest to this as well? >>



What do you mean by naturally short cards no longer being graded by PSA?

Dpeck100

MIN SIZE REQ

ClockworkAngel

One other point is that PSA has never crossed over a BGS card in my experience to the same holder. I have sent in numerous BVG 9's asking for a minimum 9 from PSA and I am 0 for 5. I intend on trying it with the Reggie RC which is really gorgeous and incredible centering. It really looks like a 9. I will come back to this thread with my results. But it does seem a bit political as if PSA is saying "we are PSA and our standards are higher" on these crossovers

miwlvrn

<< <i>I'll insert my only qualified remark here since mygotta brought '75 Topps baseball into play. As a '75 mini collector, I know from experience that the naturally short cards (shunned by serious collectors and no longer graded by PSA) are graded by BVG. Matty...I saw your name on this board, I'm sure you can attest to this as well? >>



Interesting. Any idea if BVG will grade 1968 OPC baseball shorties?

MattyC

Several color combinations of minis (red/yellow, green/yellow), were often cut naturally short from the factory. These cards are pulled right from the pack routinely smaller than the other color combos. PSA does not slab these, though they have not been trimmed and may be mint in all other respects, and there has been considerable animated discussion as to whether they should be slabbed with an MC or some other designation. There are naturally occurring examples of these cards that are full-sized, though this is a very rare freak thing. Such examples will always sell for a hefty premium. If you have VCP, look at cards such as Jesus Alou, Jose Cruz, and Mike Schmidt. Mini collectors take great pride in having "full-sized" examples of these routinely short cards. Complicating matters is that in the past PSA would slab short versions of these cards, which you will likely see in VCP scans of the Schmidt for example. Some collectors are fine with having examples of these afflicted color combos in their natural short state, raw or slabbed. Others prefer to hunt for the rare fuller example. That latter type will often spend far more than VCP avg on the full example, since the VCP avg is "depressed" by inclusion of the smaller examples.

Foo3112

One other point is that PSA has never crossed over a BGS card in my experience to the same holder. I have sent in numerous BVG 9's asking for a minimum 9 from PSA and I am 0 for 5. I intend on trying it with the Reggie RC which is really gorgeous and incredible centering. It really looks like a 9. I will come back to this thread with my results. But it does seem a bit political as if PSA is saying "we are PSA and our standards are higher" on these crossovers

I've had success crossing over AND ever getting a higher grade once from a 8.5 to a 9 on the few times Ive sent in after cracking out of BGS so I can say first hand that yes, it happens. Maybe your card isnt a 9?

Dpeck100

BGS was a ghost town and PSA was swamped. Every person at the PSA booth was busy the entire time we were there today. We walked by BGS twice and both times they had very little going on.

In the dealer cases it was PSA, then SGC, and in in a distant third BGS.

olb31

<< <i>BGS was a ghost town and PSA was swamped. Every person at the PSA booth was busy the entire time we were there today. We walked by BGS twice and both times they had very little going on.

In the dealer cases it was PSA, then SGC, and in in a distant third BGS. >>



bgs is more about newer cards, from my experience the national is loaded with older material. this probably has some bearing.

Dpeck100

I would agree. Just pointing out what I saw.