BGS gaining on PSA?
whaleteeth
Posts: 54
Beckett has found a great niche with Key rookies ie: Jordan, Griffey, & Jeter. I love the subgrades and the holders are way nicer to look at! Thoughts
That being said, idk if I've ever seen a nice vintage say Mantle in a bgs holder with subgrades... do they exist?? And if they did...watch out PSA!
That being said, idk if I've ever seen a nice vintage say Mantle in a bgs holder with subgrades... do they exist?? And if they did...watch out PSA!
A really big fan of Dan Aykroyd
0
Comments
BGS has always been the leader in modern shiny stuff. Don't see that changing any time soon, at least not until some of the shiny cards include rookies that make the Hall of Fame and added to registry sets.
BGS: 90,689
PSA: 598,243
These figures show a 13% share for BGS and an 87% share for PSA. Probably a few percent off as many BGS cards use PSA in the title. Very much inline with reported market share though.
BGS is not gaining that is for certain.
<< <i>A quick search of EBAY for BGS and PSA.
BGS: 90,689
PSA: 598,243
These figures show a 13% share for BGS and an 87% share for PSA. Probably a few percent off as many BGS cards use PSA in the title. Very much inline with reported market share though.
BGS is not gaining that is for certain. >>
I see one problem. If you look up BGS, you will also need to look up BVG. A PSA search will come up with vintage and modern cards. BGS only modern Beckett.
So, I feel the evidence is not complete.
Dave
Some of these have BGS and PSA in the title too.
So BGS picks up perhaps 1% market share from this search. Assuming none of these have either BGS or PSA in it they gain 1.1%.
<< <i>Okay add 7,628 with the BVG search.
Some of these have BGS and PSA in the title too.
So BGS picks up perhaps 1% market share from this search. Assuming none of these have either BGS or PSA in it they gain 1.1%. >>
You rarely see a BVG card that isn't listed with BGS in the title.
<< <i>
<< <i>Okay add 7,628 with the BVG search.
Some of these have BGS and PSA in the title too.
So BGS picks up perhaps 1% market share from this search. Assuming none of these have either BGS or PSA in it they gain 1.1%. >>
You rarely see a BVG card that isn't listed with BGS in the title. >>
I am sure you are right. I left a few percent margin of error in my statement and with a 1.1% share of the listings it is within that. The data I originally posted is a very real reflection of the market.
Commissions
Check out my Facebook page
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
<< <i>You also need to remove dna from the psa search. >>
Search: "PSA -DNA" = 438,510
Worst case scenario, BGS + BVG = 98,317
Respective Market Share: PSA 82%, Beckett 18%
<< <i>I really don't concern myself with market share or superiority of product as much as I do with realized prices for like and similar products. Aside from the current Chrome market, BGS lags in that department compared to PSA and SGC with regard to vintage. I have no doubt that supporters and detractors can provide a few examples that deviate from the norm to present a contrary view, but I'm pretty comfortable with my assessment. >>
Market share and realized price are highly correlated.
Justin
Retired - Eddie Mathews Master Registry Set (96.36%) Rank 1
I don't really concern myself with how many cards from which company are for sale on eBay, I just prefer bgs/bvg.
There are nice gem mint graded psa cards and ugly gem mint psa cards, there are nice gem mint bgs cards and ugly gem mint bgs cards.
One aspect I do really like about psa is they're a publicly traded company which seems like there is more faith in the company to the general public.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
If you reduce it to all cards produced after 1999, I see that PSA and BGS fairly evenly split the market.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Regardless of market share, the real measuring stick lies in realized prices. PSA dominates this with few exceptions of course. BGS near impossible 10 grade might be one
<< <i>so what is SGC's % of the market??? >>
Less then 5% at this point.
<< <i>Beckett has found a great niche with Key rookies ie: Jordan, Griffey, & Jeter. I love the subgrades and the holders are way nicer to look at! Thoughts
That being said, idk if I've ever seen a nice vintage say Mantle in a bgs holder with subgrades... do they exist?? And if they did...watch out PSA! >>
BVG graded cards used to have the subgrades. The problem with the sungrades was that they would only assign a card a grade of .5 above the lowest subgrade. I had a 1956 Mantle that had a subgrade of 4 for the centering and a 4.5 overall grade. I cracked and resubmitted it to PSA and it came back as a PSA 7. I don't remember what the other subgrades were.
James
BVG Graded with Subgrades
<< <i>
<< <i>Beckett has found a great niche with Key rookies ie: Jordan, Griffey, & Jeter. I love the subgrades and the holders are way nicer to look at! Thoughts
That being said, idk if I've ever seen a nice vintage say Mantle in a bgs holder with subgrades... do they exist?? And if they did...watch out PSA! >>
BVG graded cards used to have the subgrades. The problem with the sungrades was that they would only assign a card a grade of .5 above the lowest subgrade. I had a 1956 Mantle that had a subgrade of 4 for the centering and a 4.5 overall grade. I cracked and resubmitted it to PSA and it came back as a PSA 7. I don't remember what the other subgrades were.
James
BVG Graded with Subgrades >>
Beckett's reasoning for doing away with BVG subgrades was that the subgrades were "distracting from the overall appeal of the card" or some such nonsense. They should have kept them.
I think subgrades are a valuable aspect of grading that PSA has managed to get away with not using. And that's a shame.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
1. The idea to make GEM-MINT = 9.5 is still one of the single dumbest marketing ideas I have ever run across. I teach at business schools so I have seen many. Bo Derek is a 9.5, only Aphrodite is a 10.
2. A recent direct comparison of 2 Miggy auctions that just ended side by side at PWCC:
2000 Miggy auto BGS 9.5 = 2749.00
2000 Miggy auto PSA 10 = 4550.00
For all we know the cards are exactly the same condition. You would be completely foolish to not send your best cards to PSA first IMO.
Subgrades = extra information. Sometimes that's bad for sellers and good for buyers.
However PSA allegedly assigns grades based on the card's worst attribute. Beckett does some minor rounding with the final grade.
So, technically, a card with "9" corners would only get a PSA 9. At least, that's what we're all lead to believe.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
2000 Cabrera Auto BGS 9.5 w/9.5 corners = 2801.00 (probstein)
2000 Cabrera Auto PSA 10 (same time) = 3850.00 (probstein)
If you research further, you'll see that these prices are dramatically lower than 1 month ago (these prices are all over the place but the two comparisons are very close in time) when Miggy still had a chance at the triple crown. So I was buying at a substantial discount recently - however, the price differential has been pretty consistent between PSA 10 and BGS 9.5.
If PSA had the foresight to improve the "presentation" of their encasement when Beckett came out, I believe they would have squashed Beckett even in new cards. But, hindsight is always 20/20.
<< <i>Good point Digicat, let me find a BGS 9.5 with 9.5 corners
2000 Cabrera Auto BGS 9.5 w/9.5 corners = 2801.00 (probstein)
2000 Cabrera Auto PSA 10 (same time) = 3850.00 (probstein)
If you research further, you'll see that these prices are dramatically lower than 1 month ago (these prices are all over the place but the two comparisons are very close in time) when Miggy still had a chance at the triple crown. So I was buying at a substantial discount recently - however, the price differential has been pretty consistent between PSA 10 and BGS 9.5.
If PSA had the foresight to improve the "presentation" of their encasement when Beckett came out, I believe they would have squashed Beckett even in new cards. But, hindsight is always 20/20. >>
Again, your BGS example has a 9 subgrade (surface).
Here's an example with all 9.5s or higher for subs:
2000 Cabrera Auto BGS 9.5, no subs <9.5 - $4300 (probstein), Sep 10, 2013
2000 Cabrera Auto, PSA 10 - $4350 (wcsports1), Sept 8, 2013
I agree, PSA's slab is completely inferior to Beckett's. Beckett is tamper proof while PSA's is "tamper evident", meaning that you still need to be on your guard for "frosty slabs," "craigslist fakes" and the like.
PSA reputation with a tamper-proof slab like Beckett's, plus subgrades to take all the guess-work when looking for cards that have mysteriously low grades. It's a fantasy, but it really shouldn't have to be.
Edit to add, there's a lot of volatility on this Cabrera card! Even in the last week.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
I am with you in that I wish PSA would improve the encasement AND provide subgrades. I have seen more PSA 10s with questionable centering the past year than I can remember. Maybe it is because I am looking at more 10s but I have seen 10s with noticeable diamond cuts - I guess if PSA went to the trouble that BGS does, they would have to substantially increase their asking price...I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, but that is for another thread
<< <i>Thanks, I learn something new everyday! If what you show me is correct, then it is possible that the only legit BGS 10 (9.5) requires minimum 9.5 across all 4 dimensions. This is quite a tall order no? I must assume that some of these might grade a 10 from PSA on a good day. I am not anti-BGS, but it just seems that overall you'll get a better price on PSA as a seller.
I am with you in that I wish PSA would improve the encasement AND provide subgrades. I have seen more PSA 10s with questionable centering the past year than I can remember. Maybe it is because I am looking at more 10s but I have seen 10s with noticeable diamond cuts - I guess if PSA went to the trouble that BGS does, they would have to substantially increase their asking price...I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, but that is for another thread >>
I doubt at this point they will include subgrades, it will only appears as that they are copying BGS. A diamond cut should never make it into a 10 holder!!
It does appear that the sub grades have an influence on the price that is significant. You can see a huge range in price for BGS graded 1986 Fleer Michael Jordan's. One observation I have is that there are only 2 PSA 10's in this run and 21 BGS 9.5's with this search criteria.
Griffey BGS Gem Mint
Griffey PSA Gem Mint
Once again you will find more BGS Gem Mint listings on EBAY.
Derek Jeter BGS 9. 5
The Derek Jeter PSA 10 search yields no examples and at first glance 119 for BGS. I am sure there are examples of his other cards in this number that increases it but the point is clear.
In each of these examples there is a significantly larger supply of BGS cards for sale and in all three cases lower average selling prices.
EDIT: BTW IMO the whole idea of BGS giving 10s on sub-grades is ridiculous no? Can they really accurately determine the difference between a 9.5 Gem-mint surface and a 10.0 GEM-Gem-mint surface? It is just a social construction at that point. The evidence seems to indicate that the market gives no value to this because as long as there is ONE 9 in the sub-grade then the other three sub-grades don't matter much.