Supercollecting every base card for a current player; would you want all BGS 9.5 or PSA 10 ?

The Collector · Jan 7, 2015

Thought of a fun and relatively cheap project to work on in the off season, say you want to supercollect a modern era player (less than 4-5years in the majors) - would BGS 9.5's or PSA 10's be more desirable? I realize this may be a Ford vs Chevy type of question, just curious on opinions...

ThoseBackPages · Jan 7, 2015

Need more information.

"Popular" player?
Selling down the line?
Self subbing?
Care about Subs?
Care about having filps that do not match when laid side by side?

Yanks2151 · Jan 7, 2015

Kind of on the same path but I have close to 80 PSA 10 O'neill base cards but my biggest dislike is the amount of room they take up and the fact that there is not a good way to display them.

moxacaine · Jan 7, 2015

current player so im going BGS

Hawk8 · Jan 7, 2015

NY Tony · Jan 7, 2015

2004 or more recent base cards - BGS
Anything prior psa probably would be best
But it's all about personal preference

jonebone · Jan 7, 2015

If it's a current player, BGS. I collect Ripken so I go PSA only.

Brewer Andy · Jan 7, 2015

NY Tony said:
2004 or more recent base cards - BGS
Anything prior psa probably would be best
But it's all about personal preference

I have this theory that some day PSA fans are going to want PSA graded cards of current players and it might not be horrible to grade a "modern" card here and there through PSA just to see what happens in a few years. Wouldn't bet the bank on it but there'll be a market and certainly fewer available than BGS. Then again I prefer not to support much of anything with the name Beckett on it so I'm biased

ThoseBackPages · Jan 7, 2015

its a fact that modern cards in PSA form are pretty much more difficult to purchase than their BGS counterpart. Adds to the hunt

JoshHamilton · Jan 7, 2015

Aesthetically, BGS by a mile

smapdi · Jan 8, 2015

Disagree. The BGS flips are messy with all the subgrade data, and they've kept changing the format over the years. The slabs are a pain to store, being 3x thicker than a PSA slab, and the corners are sharp. I don't like the plastic sleeve they put the card in. They have more issues with dust and plastic slivers being sealed in with the card, in my experience. And "9.5" just doesn't sound as good a "10." Furthermore, the subgrades I think detract from enjoyment of the card. I'd obsess over having all 9.5 or better subs. That's something that's always bothered me. How can a card be "Gem Mint" if the centering, the most obvious facet of card quality, can be less than gem mint? With PSA 10s, you get a nice round number, and there's no "but it could be just a microscopic bit better" aspect.

WCTYSON · Jan 8, 2015

JoshHamilton said:
Aesthetically, BGS by a mile

Agreed, not even close.

smapdi said:
Disagree. The BGS flips are messy with all the subgrade data, and they've kept changing the format over the years. The slabs are a pain to store, being 3x thicker than a PSA slab, and the corners are sharp. I don't like the plastic sleeve they put the card in. They have more issues with dust and plastic slivers being sealed in with the card, in my experience. And "9.5" just doesn't sound as good a "10." Furthermore, the subgrades I think detract from enjoyment of the card. I'd obsess over having all 9.5 or better subs. That's something that's always bothered me. How can a card be "Gem Mint" if the centering, the most obvious facet of card quality, can be less than gem mint? With PSA 10s, you get a nice round number, and there's no "but it could be just a microscopic bit better" aspect.

PSA slabs look cheap and are easier to tamper. I agree that the thinner slab is easier to store, but I prefer the extra security for my cards. I also prefer the criteria from BGS, with the sub-grade system.

vwnut13 · Jan 8, 2015

Grading is bull****.

WCTYSON · Jan 8, 2015

vwnut13 said:
Grading is bull****.

Very well thought out, thanks.

Jaypers · Jan 8, 2015

Until the recent advent of the BGS black labels, I probably would have said PSA.

The Collector · Jan 8, 2015

Looks like a close race. I found a lot more of my guy in PSA 10 than BGS 9.5, so that might tip the scale for me personally as it will be easier to jump start the project.

Jaypers said:
Until the recent advent of the BGS black labels, I probably would have said PSA.

Ah yes the elusive black label. Reminds me I need to send in a gold label BGS 10 to be re-branded.

allstars · Jan 8, 2015

Why would you want modern base cards graded? They're not worth the price of the grading fees!

WCTYSON · Jan 8, 2015

The Collector said:
Ah yes the elusive black label. Reminds me I need to send in a gold label BGS 10 to be re-branded.

Just a reminder, it is for all (4) 10 sub grades only.

ThoseBackPages · Jan 8, 2015

as has been mentioned, as long as you get your BGS 9.5s without any 9 subs, you're golden!

6961D845-7D74-47B4-9959-CC6B168DE96C-11111-00001396CFA0800D_zpse9ae0b22.jpg

ASTROBURN · Jan 8, 2015

I collect Bagwell, so its been PSA for my PC.

1991%20Leaf%20Gold%20Rookies%20BC14%20GEM%20MT%2010.jpg

1991%20Score%20Rookie%20Traded%2096T%20GEM%20MT%2010.jpg

1991%20Stadium%20Club%20338%20GEM%20MT%2010.jpg

1991%20Ultra%20Update%2079%20GEM%20MT%2010.jpg

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Supercollecting every base card for a current player; would you want all BGS 9.5 or PSA 10 ?

Base Card SuperCollection, BGS or PSA?

All cards BGS 9.5

All cards PSA 10

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in