SHOCKING RESULTS 😱 I Sent The SAME Card to FIVE Different Grading Companies

Product(s) Reviewed

The video isn’t about one retail product; it’s an experiment comparing trading-card grading results across multiple grading companies using two specific cards:

1. 1989 Star Rookie Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr (raw, then repeatedly slabbed)
2. 1999 Pokémon Mewtwo Holo (starting PSA 8, then repeatedly slabbed)

The “product” outcome being reviewed is essentially: the grading/encapsulation services and their consistency across companies (TAG, Arena Club, SGC, CGC, PSA, Beckett/BGS).

---

Key Features Highlighted (What Matters About the Grading Services)

TAG (Tag Grading)

• Uses computer vision / automated scanning with a “dig report” and very detailed defect scans.
• Provides transparent, granular grading breakdown, including:
  • centering measurements
  • defect identification
  • localized scan results
• Slabs are fully acrylic and clear, with laser-printed slab info on the slab.
• Offers an optional “pack reveal/grading reveal” experience.
• Uses a more granular scoring system (described as out of 1,000; example shown: 820).
• Can refuse to encapsulate if the card doesn’t fit their “standard size slab.”

Arena Club

• Digital report is less detailed than TAG, but still includes:
  • surface/scratch/blemish localization
  • a subgrade-based style outcome
• Cost noted: ~$15 per card for grading (plus modest shipping/insurance).
• Turnaround noted: ~2–3 weeks (excluding postal delays).

SGC / CGC / PSA

• Traditional numeric grades, but the video emphasizes frequent inconsistency, including:
  • altered/trimming determinations
  • differences in fit/holder eligibility

Beckett (BGS)

• Used as a “full circle” final comparison.
• Final outcome includes “possible tampering / altered” language.

---

Experiment Setup & Method (User Experience / Workflow)

• Tyler (“Teapot”) cracked cards out of slabs and resubmitted them.
• Motivation: commenters suggested resending to different graders to see whether results change.
• He intentionally selected:
  • Griffey with known conflicting past results.
  • Mewtwo starting at PSA 8, expecting it would likely land around 6–8 (10 seemed unlikely).

---

Results / Outcomes (Main Findings)

1) Pokémon Mewtwo Holo (1999)

• Starting point: PSA 8
• Then:
  • TAG: 8 (example score: 820/1000)
  • Arena Club: 7
  • SGC: 8
  • PSA (second time): 7
  • Beckett (BGS final): reported as “Mewtwo PSA 7…” (the key takeaway: it dropped back to 7 after prior 8s)

Notable takeaway: Mewtwo shows range inconsistency (8 → 7 → 8 → 7 → final). The host suspects foil surface “crackle/design effects” may be interpreted as scratches by machine-vision systems.

User experience note: TAG and Arena Club digital reports were praised for transparency, but the host questioned whether AI/computer vision could misclassify natural foil texture as damage.

2) Ken Griffey Jr (1989 Star Rookie)

The Griffey shows the most dramatic inconsistency, including alteration/trimming calls and holder-fit/size disputes.

Reported sequence:

• Initial: BGS 9.5
• CGC: 9
• PSA: 6 (at least once; earlier history mentioned “got a six”)
• SGC: “authentic evidence of trimming” (initially described)
• TAG: could not encapsulate due to being manufacturer oversized (TAG refused encapsulation; submission cost partially refunded)
• Arena Club: 8.5
• SGC (second pass): 9 (host emphasizes it did not repeat the earlier “trim evidence” finding)
• PSA (second time): 8 (host notes PSA went up; later recap implies PSA = 8 in the “full circle” phase)
• Beckett (BGS final): “Authentic altered” / “possible tampering” (label circled; host also reports physical slab damage/warping and sharp edges)

Notable takeaway: The card produces conflicting determinations such as:

• trim evidence / altered evidence
• fit/oversize refusal by TAG
• a wide numeric spread across companies (previously described from ~9.5 down to 6, with later resubmission results still inconsistent)

---

Pros (What the Host Liked)

• Transparency: TAG and Arena Club digital reports provide detailed explanations rather than “guesswork.”
• TAG scanning/report depth: described as the most detailed report seen, including grayscale/defect visualization and centering measurements.
• Consistency on Mewtwo (middle phase): results stayed relatively close (mostly 7–8).
• Arena Club affordability: about $15/card noted.
• TAG encapsulation security/fit: TAG refused encapsulation when it couldn’t fit and refunded fees—host credits them for not forcing an incorrect slab.

---

Cons (Major Criticisms / Pain Points)

• Severe inconsistency across graders and even across resubmissions to the same company.
• “Altered/tampering” determinations can appear even when the host insists nothing was done.
  • Beckett final result for the Griffey included possible tampering / authentic altered.
• Foil texture confusion risk (Mewtwo):
  • host suspects machine vision may misinterpret natural foil crackle/patterns as scratches.
• Process friction:
  • TAG submission flow described as confusing (order ID not immediately visible; had to contact support).
• Slab security vs. usability:
  • host demonstrates cracking slabs; PSA-like slabs described as more difficult to open, while TAG/others sometimes shattered or opened differently.
• Potential safety/quality concern with final BGS slab:
  • host claims the slab was warped and had a sharp edge that could cut a finger.

---

Comparisons Made (Explicit)

• Company-to-company comparisons across:
  • TAG vs Arena Club vs SGC vs PSA vs BGS/Beckett (and mention of CGC earlier)
• Technology comparison (implied):
  • TAG emphasized computer vision/AI-like grading
  • other graders may also use automation (Arena Club noted), but with varying granularity

---

Numerical Grades / Scores Mentioned (Unique)

Mewtwo

• PSA: 8 (start), later 7
• TAG: 8 (820/1000 shown)
• Arena Club: 7
• SGC: 8

Griffey

• BGS: 9.5 (initial)
• CGC: 9
• PSA: 6 (earlier), later implied 8
• SGC: “authentic evidence of trimming”, later 9
• TAG: encapsulation refused (no numeric grade reported due to refusal)
• Arena Club: 8.5
• Beckett/BGS final: “authentic altered” / “possible tampering” (numeric value not explicitly shown in the snippet)

---

Pricing / Turnaround (Service Experience Numbers)

• TAG: $139 (expedited included; also mentions promo)
• Arena Club: roughly $15 per card + shipping label + small insurance; return around 2–3 weeks
• SGC: mentions $75-level expedited submission (approx. “few weeks,” just under ~2 weeks turnaround per statement)
• Beckett/BGS: 5-day service at $150/card

---

Concise Verdict / Recommendation (Based on Video’s Conclusion)

The overall message is a strong warning about grading inconsistency: the same cards can receive widely different numeric grades and even different authenticity/tampering/trimming conclusions depending on the company (and sometimes the resubmission).

Implied recommendation by the host: Treat grading labels as an opinion/service with variability, not objective truth—use them as one input, and rely on your own eye appeal and contextual card knowledge rather than assuming a grade will hold or mean the same thing across companies.

---

Unique Points Mentioned About Grading Consistency & Value

• “No consistency” across companies and repeated submissions is emphasized.
• “Altered/tampering” outcomes may occur even if the submitter didn’t alter the card.
• Machine vision can confuse foil design/crackle as damage.
• TAG may refuse encapsulation for sizing/fit reasons (manufacturer oversized).
• Final BGS result includes possible tampering and the slab is described as physically defective/unsafe (sharp edge/warping).
• The host argues value shouldn’t be tied too heavily to the slab label alone because the underlying card may not have changed.

---

Speaker / Role Contributions

• Tyler Nethercott (“Teapot”): handled the full process—setup, cracking/sending cards, interpreting results, praising TAG/Arena transparency, and delivering the final critique about inconsistency and grade-label-driven value.