Every vintage collector has a grader of choice. Often, that choice is based on important factors like market share, resale value, consistency, cost, customer service, registry, or turnaround time.
But all of those concerns aside, the slab itself is important. Aesthetics matter, but so do size, weight, clarity, safety, and innovation. And perhaps most importantly, if you want your vintage cards to be around for many more generations to enjoy, archival qualities are vital.
So let’s strip away everything else and just ask the question: Who has the best slab for vintage cards? In this article we will evaluate each company’s slab for 5 different criteria:
- Visual appeal
- Form factor
- Clarity / Transparency
- Safety and Innovation
- Archival qualities
So check your bias and let’s get on with the Vintage Slab Wars!
First, let’s meet our contestants:
PSA: The industry’s most recognized grading brand, PSA slabs are known for their clean design and love-it-or-hate-it red label and simple font. PSA has many recent slab innovations that set the bar.
SGC: A Prewar leader, SGC is known for its distinctive black insert and strong vintage appeal. The SGC slab is seen as either a classic, museum-style look for vintage, or conversely as a bit bland and basic.
CGC: A newer player in the sports card world, CGC brings sleek, modern engineering and crystal-clear cases, refined through years in comics and collectibles. The CGCxJSA combo for autographed cards is a solid service.
Beckett: Once the gold standard for high-end cards, Beckett’s thick, weighty slabs and metallic labels project a premium feel. BVG was the vintage division, but will likely be phased out for more consistent BGS branding across all cards.
With the combatants introduced, it’s time to evaluate each slab for various factors to see who comes out on top. While some aspects of comparison are inherently subjective, I will do my best to bring in subjective specs and facts as available on each company’s web site.
Note that while PSA (here), CGC (here), and Beckett (here) all explicitly mention slab quality and safety features, SGC provides no information or sales pitch on any aspect of its slab design,materials, or features.
Visual Appeal
Visual appeal is just inherently subjective–there’s no way around it. If you like SGC’s heavier, more traditional black and white design, then PSA’s slab probably seems flimsy, or maybe CGC looks too modern and sleek.
| PSA | SGC | CGC | Beckett | |
| Pros | A touch larger than CGC, but a minimalist design that does not lean modern or vintage | The “tuxedo” look is polarizing but many think it is the best look for vintage and especially Prewar | A sleek, clean label design puts the focus on the card and allows for detailed card descriptions and excellent readability | The Beckett case allows card edges to be viewed. Squared-off look some view as classic |
| Cons | Some criticize the label as looking a bit like a Walgreens prescription label | The largest slab overall, storage can be a challenge. Cert number is in small print | The sleek design leans a bit modern in terms of aesthetic | Like SGC, large and a bit clunky |
The Winner: I prefer SGC for vintage–especially Prewar. But each collector chooses their own winner in this category.
Form Factor
Form factor seems a bit less subjective. A larger slab just makes storage more bulky and less practical. For SGC and Beckett, case options are a bit limited.
| PSA | SGC | CGC | Beckett | |
| Dimensions | 3.25” x 5.375” | 3.375 ” x 5.43” | 3.15 x 5.3” | 3.625” x 5.5” |
| Pros | Recently made 20% heavier for a more weighty feel in hand | The larger squared off design feels substantial in hand | The sleekest slab of the bunch. Smallest in both directions | Even larger than SGC–if bulk is your thing |
| Cons | Previous complaints of flimsy slabs, resolved in redesign | Too wide for many standard size slab cases | Small form factor might come off as flimsy or cheap to some | Like SGC, too large for some cases. Bulky to store |
Winner: PSA seems the easy choice for champ in this category–a nice combination of smaller size but now a bit heftier and more substantial.
“A 20 percent increase in weight might seem like nothing,” PSA mechanical engineer Travis Tapay said, “but it’s everything. The in-hand quality from the weight alone is significant. You really have to feel it to believe it.”
Clarity / Transparency
A clean, clear slab allows the card to take center stage. It’s a balancing act between cost, quality of materials, and UV.
According to Andy Broome, CGC VP and head grader, “there has to be a balance between adding UV protection and the appearance of the holder. The addition of chemicals to achieve UV protection alters the color of the holder which in turn alters the appearance of the card.”
| PSA | SGC | CGC | Beckett | |
| Pros | New polymer offers added resistance to micro scratches and scuffs | Black insert makes the card “pop” visually | The clearest slab on the market when compared side to side | Pro of inner sleeve is that card appears to float in slab and card edges are visible |
| Cons | The frosted borders sometimes look hazy | SGC plastic sometimes has striations visible at an angle | None | The use of an inner sleeve can detract from clarity |
Winner: CGC wins this one hands down. The clarity of their proprietary plastic is unrivaled–but PSA is close. I know–CGC isn’t a top choice for vintage. But remember, this is a review of slab quality, period.
Safety and Innovation
A good slab should deter counterfeiters, and be difficult or impossible to crack open without severe damage.
| PSA | SGC | CGC | Beckett | |
| Pros | Complex label with fugitive ink, lighthouse label, bar code and QR code, and PSA logo stamped into the case | Holders are relatively tamper-evident | Microprinting, UV ink, holographic foil and a unique certification number and barcode | Ultrasonically welded to be tamper-proof and water-resistant |
| Cons | A few viral videos claim the new slab is easy to crack–which would promote counterfeiting | SGC has missed opportunities to innovate | Same as PSA: there are claims that the CGC slab is easy to crack open | Lack of sophisticated or innovative safety features |
Winner: It’s a 2-way tie between PSA and CGC. Both feature numerous proprietary safety features, making the labels nearly impossible to duplicate in any convincing fashion.
Archival Features
This is a topic I’m surprised isn’t mentioned more often. What’s more important than making sure your favorite vintage cards are safe for the long haul?
| PSA | SGC | CGC | Beckett | |
| Pros | Ultra impermeable to heat, humidity, water, and UV light | Sealed archival inner sleeve when needed for some small, thin, or oddball cards | CGC claims its proprietary plastics and its sleeves are the best “archival materials” | Sealed archival inner sleeve |
| Cons | None–PSA is the first to explicitly market UV resistance. | SGC does not make any claims regarding UV or archival materials | Not much detail provided overall | 2 layers of plastic between you and the card |
Winner: With its recent upgrades, PSA takes this one. It’s hard to believe that it took 30+ years for us to start talking seriously about archival materials. But hopefully this becomes a point of competition across brands.
And the Winner Is: PSA
So, who wins the vintage slab wars? That depends on what you value most. If encapsulation is mostly about aesthetics, then it’s just a matter of personal preference.
But when the objective matters are taken into account, it seems that PSA has an edge on the competition, with CGC not far behind. And note that I say all of this with a personal collection that is 100% SGC.
Of course, there’s more to grading than just the plastic case and fancy label. All of those qualities mentioned earlier–market share, resale value, consistency, cost, customer service, registry, and turnaround time–are part of the bigger picture of which company you trust with your valuable vintage collectibles.
For more in-depth discussion on vintage cards visit us at CardHound Vintage or let us know what your collecting on Mantel.
