This is How PSA Can Overthrow CGC Comics and Magazines

[@troytutti5415]

I totally agree awesome video can wait till PSA starts accepting magazine 👍🏻

[@gcxred4kat9]

As somebody that has A LOT of mags to grade with only 5 graded to date, I agree Brad. I'll just throw my 2 cents in though that I know will no doubt be disregarded, but I miss WAAAY back in the day on Ebay pre CGC when we'd do our "own grading" and use POOR, GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT, NR MINT, and MINT to rate mags. I'd personally like to see mags differentiated from cards and comics that way. If I look at a mag cover with the naked eye and don't see a flaw, it seems ridiculous to drop the grade cuz under an electron microscope there's a color break or some such. They're magazines that were handled FFS. If I can't ACTUALLY see anything wrong with the cover and the rest of the mag is fine, a MINT is fine with me. And I agree the labels are butt ugly, but if PSA slabs have UV protection, they're gonna get my business. I'm curious... think I'm right to assume that comic collectors will by and large stick with CGC?

[@sportsmags]

@gcxred4kat9 I think PSA will at least make a dent initially in CGC's market. But I do think it would take a lot of time and positive results for them to truly pull away the majority of CGC's comics customers. Sports magazines will probably gravitate over to CGC very quickly though.

[@matthewyozman5324]

The more I think about this…I agree with your argument Brad. This may be the shake up necessary to the hobby to bring in the next generation of collectors whether it’s comics or magazines. If PSA were to make these changes to the above 9 grading, I would have to say that I would switch over to have the prestige of rocking a PSA 10 as apposed to a CGC 9.8.

[@sportsmags]

@@matthewyozman5324 Same here!

[@Hectekk]

True, thats why PSA is more popular than SGC or Beckett. People overwhelmingly prefer PSA 10's.

[@sportsmags]

@@Hectekk Yes! Beckett vs. PSA is a perfect example.

[@MyMg23]

100 PERCENT AGREED!

[@glennriley3193]

100% agree... just round up for anything above 9.5. The fact that CGC makes 9.8 their defacto "10" will always turn off customers who know there's little discernible difference between 9.8 and perfection, yet I the consumer is being penalized by a phantom flaw that no layman can detect.

[@sportsmags]

@@glennriley3193 Exactly!

[@blakeknower]

I could be wrong but I thought I saw in NEO’s video where he was at PSA’s booth at the National and he showed PSA’s new slab and they will be mimicking CGC grading.

[@blakeknower]

And I agree with you. I commented on another magazine KZbin video exactly what you are saying and that’s how PSA overcome Beckett in cards.

[@sportsmags]

@blakeknower Yes, you are correct. They announced that they will be. But I'm suggesting they change that. They aren't rolling out the grading until January, so there's still time to reconsider.

[@blakeknower]

@@sportsmags great to hear there is a chance

[@Clayton-kf3su]

A lot easier to get a PSA 10 today with the practically indestructible cards of printed. Grading a magazine with dozens of pages, inking, stapling leaves lots of room for dings and creases. PSA 10’s for mags should be very rare. Otherwise it would be a bit questionable.

[@glennriley3193]

Also wonder if PSA will add the large ESPN magazine size to their slab-able options?

[@sportsmags]

@glennriley3193 As of now they have said no. But maybe eventually.

[@jtorres4613]

I am waiting for either company to offer large format slabs. I got a sweet 1950s Jackie Robinson I am waiting to grade.

[@User8vfjhejf]

PSA would have to sell for higher prices than CGC for them to top them. CGC has too much of a foothold in the marketplace to be overthrown

[@sportsmags]

@User8vfjhejf Definitely true. I think based on their success with sports cards, that could eventually happen down the road. I wouldn't get too comfortable if I were CGC.

[@sports-historian]

As another poster mentioned, magazines are more complex to grade than cards -- that's if you want to evaluate all the myriad components of magazines, which I have to say, never really made sense to me. These are my thoughts: Why does the condition of the back cover impact the grade? I get that the CGC holder is clear on both sides so you wind up seeing the back cover, but the subject of the back cover holds no interest or value to the vast majority of collectors (any back-cover collectors out there?). Non-graded mags are often in a sleeve with backer board, so when you look at them you don't see the back cover at all. Just about no one cares about the back cover or will ever look at it, especially when displayed on a wall. Why grade the inner contents? If the magazine is encased, then the inner contents are sealed from view for as long as the grade is valid. So why would the condition of those affect the grade as well? Does anyone really care about the whiteness hue of inside pages that you will never see? If you are going to grade and encase a magazine, the more logical approach would be to just grade the magazine for the condition of the cover, which is really where the collector looks and appreciates the mag anyway. Then you have a much simpler grading process, and a more apt comparison between mag grades and card grades. Or ... just consider that maybe the whole grading and encasing concept for magazines is kind of dumb. I've spoken directly to several major auction houses and the "encasing" of magazines is a big turn-off for them. It makes autographing impossible (and some of them say the only valuable mags are autographed, the rest they have no interest in - graded or not). They don't get why anyone would want to seal a magazine so you can't open it. Are high-value, first-edition books ever encased? I don't think so. So why are magazines closed up like that? It just doesn't really make sense. The most ridiculous circumstance is when an SI issue contains something interesting and collectible on the inside that gets mentioned on the grading label (i.e., the first Isiah Thomas cover that happens to have Michael Jordan's McDonald's All-American pic on the inside, all the noteworthy Faces in the Crowd subjects, James Kehoe's favorite first "amen corner" reference, Tex Maule's Greatest Game Ever story on the 1958 Colts-Giants NFL Championship, the Sidd Finch article, etc.). Lots of key moments in sports history are reflected in the inner contents -- but by sealing up the mag they might as well not even be there.

[@sports-historian]

And one more fun aspect in the absurdity of all of this ... eBay owns PSA. If PSA gives higher grades for magazines, many of them will wind up eBay, which will then take in more money from higher-graded magazines that go for more money. Anyone else see this as a colossal conflict of interest, possibly eventually requiring some govt intervention? Any entity that is supposed to offer a neutral appraisal per se, but stands to benefit financially from that appraisal, is a big no-no.

[@sportsmags]

@sports-historian I totally agree with your comments about only grading the covers. Once encapsulated, I do not care of there is anything wrong with the interior. As for not slabbing at all, I think it's the same as comics. Yes, there are great stories and content on the inside. And if that's the reason you own a particular magazine, don't slab it. But if you own a specific magazine because you view the cover as a collectible, then I think it makes for a beautiful display and is great for slabbing. The nice thing with Sports Illustrated is that every single issue is available to read digitally on the SI archives website.

[@sportsmags]

@@sports-historian I definitely think that's a fair point

[@DRocRSS2012]

PSA will need to improve their presentation. Their comic slabs are not as impressive as CGC Slabs. IMO. They do not present as well.

[@sportsmags]

@@DRocRSS2012 Totally agree!

[@tonyfix8739]

I do think your idea could possibly click with any new card people flexing over, as they are more familiar with it. But the current grading system didn't start with CGC. They were just the first ones to put books in slabs. The grading system goes back to Overstreet, which was the only name in price guides and grading guides at that time, 1970. It's become the bible. If a company tried to roll out a simplified system producing higher numbers, it would lose all credibility in the hobby. Some new grading companies have tried to rise up and give more lax requirements to allow for higher grades, but they end up being mocked as using high grades as nothing but a marketing tool, and their slabs are thought to have false or no real value until they're transferred over to a real grading company's slab. I think it just comes down to complexity. There are only so many flaws on a cards and only so many places they can be found. The numbers of types of flaws and the number of places to check for flaws is just far greater with published collectibles. It's a different system, but many different items use historically different systems. Coins. Stamps. Etc. Overstreet originally set the 10 as the elusive, mythical perfection that no book would ever, ever receive. Obviously, there has been shifts in grading over time, and CGC has definitely taken the reigns with the documented requirements and enforcement of them. But I think grading of publications is already too ingrained to allow for a major change like that. For large dollar books, the grading system is basically an exchange rate. The resistance to arbitrarily changing the exchange rate would be tremendous.

[@sportsmags]

@tonyfix8739 Didn't the Overstreet Guide start with word designations (VG, VF, Ex, etc.) rather than the numbering system? Also, I don't feel that my proposition would be rolling out a simplified system just to produce higher numbers. It would literally just be maintaining the exact same system that they already employ for all their other collectibles, plus an added 9.5 option to account for the additional complexities of comics/magazines. My experience is that collectors show major frustration over the nuances between a 9.2/9.4/9.6/9.8 etc. Give the collectors what they want with a more cut and dry scale that also aligns with all of PSA's other collectibles. It also makes a ton of sense from a business perspective. A Beckett 9.5 was essentially the same standard as what a PSA 10 now is. And while a Beckett 9.5 used to carry a lot of weight, the market seems to have spoken in recent years that they'd rather have a PSA 10. And in turn, Beckett overall has been left in the dust. This scenario would essentially be the same.

[@tonyfix8739]

@@sportsmags The numbers are matched up to the letter system, grade by grade. A 9.8 is by definition an Overstreet NM/MT. Below a 9.0 it would be identical, yes, but all the money is at the top. If a 9.6 was now a PSA 10, would you pay more for a PSA 10 or a CGC 9.8? The credibility is the biggest thing. If a new company came in to grading cards and tried giving PSA 9s the highest grade in their new system, I don't think people would go for it. It's a higher grade in theory, but it's not a higher grade in reality.