Turning thousands of dollars in collectible cards into a grading experiment creates an unusually expensive way to ask a simple question: will different companies consistently assign the same condition to the same card? Ludwig sends roughly two dozen cards through CGC, TAG, and PSA, cracking the slabs between submissions and comparing the resulting grades, while several cards had already been graded by PSA before the experiment began. The repeated submissions produce everything from perfect agreement to dramatic discrepancies, and the financial consequences make each reveal entertaining. They also expose the experiment's central complication: because the cards are physically removed from slabs and handled between grades, a changed score cannot automatically be attributed to the grading company.
The methodology is messy from the beginning, although the video is reasonably open about that. Viewers originally spent about $9,000 buying cards through eBay, but the account was banned for suspicious activity before every purchase arrived, forcing the team to obtain replacements in person. The raw cards were not recorded before their first submission to CGC, and one Charizard was rejected by all three services after apparent paint was discovered over wear on its corners. More importantly, every successful card has to survive multiple rounds of slab removal, shipping, handling, and resubmission. Ludwig acknowledges this problem early when a Mega Charizard falls from its previous PSA 9 to a CGC 7, TAG 6, and eventually PSA 8, correctly recognizing that human error during the experiment may have affected the card itself.
That limitation becomes undeniable with the Portgas D. Ace card. CGC initially gives it a pristine 10, but the editor later admits that the card appears to have received a tiny corner ding while its slab was being cracked. TAG subsequently gives the damaged card a 9, turning what Ludwig describes as a card potentially worth several thousand dollars into a much less valuable example. It is one of the video's most useful moments because it demonstrates why regrading cannot be treated as a laboratory test unless the physical condition of the card remains unchanged. The accident also reinforces a practical warning that emerges throughout the experiment: cracking a valuable slab in pursuit of another grade introduces real downside before another grader even examines the card.
Where the video becomes most compelling is in the cards that appear to challenge consistency without an obvious intervening accident. A Shaymin receives an 8 from its original PSA submission, CGC, and TAG before returning as a PSA 7. A Mega Lopunny moves from PSA 8 to CGC 9, TAG 8, and then PSA 9. The Van Gogh Pikachu begins as a PSA 8, receives a CGC 9 and TAG 9, and comes back from PSA as a 9, increasing its stated value substantially simply because the same company assigns a different number the second time. Other cards show strong agreement: Giratina receives three 9s, Koga's Beedrill receives three 8s, and Tyranitar returns to the same PSA 6 it had before the experiment. Taken together, the results show both agreement and disagreement rather than a single universal pattern.
TAG receives the strongest endorsement largely because its grading is accompanied by detailed condition information. Ludwig repeatedly examines its reports showing centering, corners, edges, surface defects, and specific problem areas, sometimes discovering blemishes he says are difficult or impossible to see with his own eyes. That transparency gives him a basis for understanding why an Erika's Hospitality receives a 6.5 from TAG even though PSA later assigns a 9, or why another card is penalized for surface and edge damage. His conclusion that TAG is therefore the best grader is still a personal judgment based on this sample, but the video makes a persuasive case that explaining a grade can inspire more confidence than presenting the collector with a number alone.
The weakest analysis arrives when frustration turns individual results into broader theories about PSA. Ludwig repeatedly describes its grades as random and eventually speculates that PSA may restrict 10s to control graded populations, particularly after an Umbreon receives 10s from CGC and TAG but a 9 from PSA. Later, a relatively low-population One Piece Yamato receives a PSA 10, which he interprets as possible support for the theory. Nothing in the experiment establishes that PSA intentionally manages grades based on population, however, and agreement between two graders does not prove that a third grade is incorrect. Similar caution applies to claims that PSA overlooks surface problems, spends more effort on older or more valuable cards, or effectively holds a monopoly over grading. These are interpretations prompted by the results, not conclusions demonstrated by the experiment.
Financial stakes make those discrepancies feel enormous because relatively small grading changes can correspond with dramatically different recent sale prices. An Umbreon is described as falling from roughly $460 in a 10 to around $150 in a 9, an older Umbreon loses hundreds of dollars when its original PSA 8 becomes a PSA 7, and Team Rocket's Mewtwo receives a PSA 7 after being purchased as an 8.5. Conversely, the Van Gogh Pikachu benefits from its upgrade, while the final Base Set 2 Charizard moves from its original PSA 6 to a PSA 7. The pricing discussion effectively demonstrates why collectors care so intensely about grading consistency, but the stated values are snapshots drawn from recent sales or available listings rather than guaranteed liquidation prices. The experiment also spends roughly $6,000 on grading alone, making profitability essentially impossible regardless of favorable regrades.
As entertainment, the repeated reveal structure works because every PSA slab becomes a miniature verdict after CGC and TAG have established expectations. Ludwig's increasing disbelief, the editor's commentary, the pristine-10 accident, TAG's detailed reports, and the enormous jumps between hypothetical values keep a potentially repetitive spreadsheet comparison lively. By the end, Ludwig favors TAG for transparency and presentation, sees CGC as potentially attractive for high grades, and condemns PSA's inconsistency while acknowledging that PSA grades often carry strong market value. The sample is too small and the procedure too uncontrolled to establish which company is objectively most accurate, but it succeeds at demonstrating something more modest and arguably more useful: collectors should not assume that a grade is an immutable measurement of a card's condition.
Pros
- Sending the same group of cards through CGC, TAG, and PSA creates direct comparisons that reveal both substantial agreement and surprisingly large grading differences.
- Cards previously graded by PSA provide particularly interesting tests of whether the same company reproduces its own earlier assessment.
- TAG's detailed condition reports allow viewers to inspect centering, surfaces, edges, and corners rather than relying entirely on unexplained numerical grades.
- The video openly acknowledges major methodological problems, including replacement purchases, missing initial documentation, slab-cracking risks, and the accidental damage to the pristine-10 Ace.
- Specific examples such as the Shaymin, Mega Lopunny, Van Gogh Pikachu, Giratina, Beedrill, and Umbreon demonstrate that the results are more complicated than simply declaring one company consistently stricter.
- Connecting grade changes with stated market values effectively illustrates why even a one-point disagreement matters so much to collectors.
Cons
- Cracking, handling, shipping, and resubmitting cards means their physical condition may change between graders, preventing the experiment from cleanly isolating grading consistency.
- The lack of complete documentation of the raw cards before the first CGC submission makes it harder to independently compare their condition throughout the process.
- The sample is too limited and uncontrolled to support broad conclusions about the overall accuracy of CGC, TAG, or PSA.
- The theory that PSA deliberately restricts 10s for population control is speculative and is not established by the grading results shown.
- Claims that PSA overlooks surface defects, treats older cards more carefully, or assigns effectively random grades go beyond what the available comparisons can demonstrate.
- Market values are treated as dramatic gains and losses even though recent sales, listings, grading costs, and actual resale outcomes are not equivalent measures of realized value.
The experiment is most convincing not as proof that one grading company is right and another is wrong, but as a costly demonstration that collectible-card grades can vary enough to have major financial consequences while still appearing authoritative. TAG's transparent reports emerge as the most informative feature, PSA's differing repeat grades raise legitimate questions about reproducibility, and the accidental damage to a pristine card provides an important warning about regrading itself. Ludwig's stronger accusations about PSA outrun the evidence, but the combination of real cards, repeated submissions, visible condition analysis, and painful value swings makes this an entertaining and genuinely thought-provoking examination of how much trust collectors place in a number on a slab.
