Whether you should crack and resubmit Pokémon cards depends entirely on the card’s value, the current slab’s grade, and market conditions. In most cases, the financial benefit doesn’t justify the risk and costs involved. If you own a card graded in an older, less desirable slab (like PSA 8 or BGS 8.5 from 10+ years ago), resubmitting makes sense only if you believe professional reholdering could unlock significant value—and even then, the gamble rarely pays off. For example, a Base Set Charizard graded PSA 8 by today’s standards might be worth $8,000 to $12,000, but cracking it and resubmitting costs $150 to $500 in fees, plus you risk the card degrading, dropping to a 7 or lower, which would actually decrease its value to $5,000 or less.
The decision becomes more straightforward when you own raw cards or cards in completely obsolete slabs from defunct grading companies. A raw Shadowless Blastoise or a card graded by a service that no longer exists may benefit from professional certification. However, the Pokémon card market has changed significantly—grading standards have become more consistent and sometimes stricter, meaning a card that graded an 8 years ago might grade a 7.5 today. You’re not just paying for resubmission; you’re betting against market trends and grading inflation.
Table of Contents
- When Does Cracking and Resubmitting Make Financial Sense?
- The Hidden Costs and Risks of Resubmission
- Comparing Old Slabs vs. Modern Grading Standards
- The Math: When Potential Gains Outweigh Costs
- Grading Service Selection and Market Perception Issues
- Raw Cards and Shadowless/First Edition Exceptions
- Market Outlook and Future Grading Considerations
- Conclusion
When Does Cracking and Resubmitting Make Financial Sense?
Cracking and resubmitting pencils down to a few specific scenarios. The strongest case exists when you hold cards in PSA slabs from 2000-2010, graded at a time when standards were noticeably looser than today. A PSA 8 Jungle Venusaur from 2003 might genuinely improve to a PSA 8.5 or PSA 9 under current grading standards, especially if the card shows minimal wear that modern graders would rate higher. The second scenario involves raw cards with obvious investment potential—a card you acquired ungraded that appears to be high quality and in a format (like a first edition or shadowless) where the grade significantly impacts value.
The financial math matters. If you own a card worth $5,000 in a PSA 8 slab, a bump to PSA 9 might increase its value to $8,000 or $10,000. Subtract $300 in grading costs and you’re looking at a potential $2,700 to $4,700 gain—assuming you grade up. But if the card drops to PSA 7.5 or worse, that same card could be worth $3,000 to $4,000, resulting in a net loss of $2,000 or more once you account for fees. Companies like cgc have also disrupted the market; cards resubmitted to CGC instead of their original PSA slab sometimes achieve different results due to different grading philosophies, adding another variable.
The Hidden Costs and Risks of Resubmission
The most overlooked cost in cracking and resubmitting is the potential for physical damage during the cracking process itself. Even if you work carefully, the pressure required to separate a card from a PSA or BGS slab can cause edge wear, corner creasing, or surface scratches that wouldn’t exist in the original slab. One misplaced tool can instantly destroy thousands of dollars of value. This is particularly dangerous with vintage cards, where the slab itself might be the only reason the card remains in such good condition. A PSA 9 1995 Base Set Charizard is valuable partly because it’s been protected in a slab for two decades; removing it exposes it to decades of accumulated dust, humidity, and handling risk in the time between cracking and resubmission. Turnaround time adds another hidden cost.
Standard grading submissions take 30 to 90 days depending on the service. During that time, your card sits in a vulnerable state, exposed to environmental factors. Expedited grading costs more—sometimes double or triple the standard fee—but even then, you’re exposing the card to risk for weeks or months. The card could also arrive at the grading facility damaged in transit. Additionally, grading standards fluctuate with market trends. During bull markets, graders may be slightly more generous; during downturns, standards tighten. Submitting during a market correction could result in a lower grade than you’d receive during a bull run, which means you’d get punished both by the grade and by the overall market climate.
Comparing Old Slabs vs. Modern Grading Standards
The quality of old slabs matters enormously for your decision. A card in a PSA slab from 2005-2010 was graded under standards that are now considered somewhat loose, particularly for cards graded as 8s and 9s. Modern graders are often stricter about surface wear, corner imperfections, and centering. A PSA 8 1999 Charizard from a 2007 submission might genuinely be a modern 7.5 or 8 upon resubmission—not an upgrade. BGS slabs from the same era have a different problem: the labels are outdated and collectors increasingly prefer PSA certification.
Some dealers and collectors actively discount BGS-slabbed cards compared to equivalent PSA slabs, creating perverse incentives to crack and resubmit. CGC’s entry into the pokémon grading market in recent years has further complicated the landscape. CGC uses a different grading philosophy and holders that many collectors prefer aesthetically. However, CGC grading standards appear to be as strict or stricter than modern PSA standards. Moving a card from an old PSA slab to a CGC slab might appeal to some buyers, but you’re still taking the same risk of a lower grade, plus you lose the legacy of the original PSA certification. A card certified by PSA decades ago carries historical weight and proof that the card has been graded and protected continuously; that provenance is worth something.
The Math: When Potential Gains Outweigh Costs
Build a simple decision matrix before cracking anything. Identify the card’s current value in its current slab, research comparable raw or resubmitted cards, estimate the likely grade improvement, calculate the cost of resubmission (including expedited shipping if needed), and account for a worst-case scenario where the card grades down one full point. For a PSA 8 card worth $6,000, assume a $350 submission cost. If upgrading to PSA 9 would raise the value to $9,000, your breakeven point is a 9. But if there’s even a 40% chance the card comes back a 7.5 or 8, your expected value is actually negative.
The most successful resubmission candidates are typically lower-tier modern cards in old slabs where the risk is smaller in absolute dollar terms. A PSA 7 Evolutions Charizard from 2016 might be worth $400 to $500, and upgrading to a PSA 8 might raise it to $700 to $900. A $350 resubmission cost is proportionally larger, but the downside—dropping to a PSA 6 or staying at PSA 7—still leaves you with $300 to $400 worth of card. The risk-reward ratio is more favorable. By contrast, resubmitting a $15,000 vintage card carries enormous absolute risk with proportionally smaller upside.
Grading Service Selection and Market Perception Issues
Your choice of grading service matters as much as the decision to resubmit. PSA remains the dominant service for Pokémon cards, and cards in PSA slabs generally command higher prices and more liquidity than BGS, CGC, or other services. If your card is already in a PSA slab from a reputable era (2005+), resubmitting to the same service at least keeps you in the familiar ecosystem. However, if you’re considering a switch to CGC or another service, understand that you’re not just resubmitting—you’re potentially alienating PSA-focused collectors and dealers while trying to appeal to a smaller CGC audience.
There’s a hidden risk in perception shifts. In 2020-2021, CGC aggressively marketed Pokémon grading and attracted significant collector interest, but market conditions changed. As of 2024-2025, PSA remains the clear preference for vintage cards, and CGC slabs have struggled to maintain value parity. If you crack a vintage card from a PSA slab and resubmit to CGC expecting to benefit from CGC’s lower fees or “stricter grading,” you might achieve a higher numeric grade but sell at a discount compared to an equivalent PSA slab. This is a real phenomenon—a CGS 9 can actually be worth less than a PSA 8.5 on the same card, simply due to market preference.
Raw Cards and Shadowless/First Edition Exceptions
Raw cards, particularly vintage ones, represent the clearest argument for professional grading and submission. An unslabbed Shadowless Charizard or first edition Base Set card sitting in a collection has potential value that goes unrealized without certification. In this case, you’re not cracking and resubmitting—you’re grading something for the first time, which is a completely different calculation. A raw first edition Blastoise that appears to be in VG-EX condition could be worth $3,000 to $8,000 if professionally graded, depending on the actual grade.
Submitting it might cost $200 to $400 and could result in a grade anywhere from VG (where it might be worth $1,500) to NM (where it could be worth $15,000+). The advantage of grading a raw card for the first time is that there’s no sunk cost fallacy or attachment to a previous grade. You’re making an objective assessment of whether the card is worth certifying. The risk is that raw cards from old collections sometimes harbor hidden issues—paper loss, moisture damage, or restoration—that become apparent under a grader’s magnifying glass. A card you thought was NM might come back EX or VG-EX, but at least you’ll know definitively what you own, and you can price it accurately.
Market Outlook and Future Grading Considerations
The Pokémon card market will likely continue consolidating around PSA as the primary certification standard, though competition from CGC and increasing awareness of BGS alternatives means the landscape remains fluid. If you’re holding old slabs, the market is signaling that older certifications carry a discount that can’t be recovered through resubmission. The most prudent strategy is to keep cards in their original slabs unless you have a specific, high-confidence reason to believe modern graders will rate them significantly higher. Even then, you’re gambling against both grading randomness and market preferences.
Looking forward, grading services will likely continue refining standards, potentially making historical comparisons even less reliable. A PSA 8 from 2010 and a PSA 8 from 2025 might be genuinely different cards in terms of actual condition. This argues for patience—holding vintage cards in their original slabs preserves the historical record of their original certification, which has become valuable in its own right as collectors appreciate the provenance and timeline of certification. Unless you have strong evidence that a card was undergraded initially, the safest assumption is that modern graders will find equal or fewer flaws, not more.
Conclusion
Cracking and resubmitting Pokémon cards makes financial sense only in narrow circumstances: when you hold cards in demonstrably outdated slabs from loose-grading eras, when you own high-value raw cards worth certifying for the first time, or when the potential upside significantly exceeds resubmission costs and downside risk. For the vast majority of cards in modern slabs—whether PSA, BGS, or CGC—the risk of grade decline and the cost of submission outweigh the potential benefits. The Pokémon card market has matured to the point where older grades are accepted at their face value, complete with any discount that comes with older certification standards.
Before you crack anything, honestly assess whether you’re seeking objective improvement or just hoping to undo a decision made years ago. If you’re considering resubmission because you own a PSA 8 vintage card and think it “should be a 9,” you’re likely engaging in wishful thinking. Instead, research recent comps for that card in that grade, calculate the exact financial impact of a downgrade, and accept that some cards are graded exactly as they should be. The safest move for most collectors is patience: hold your cards in their current slabs, enjoy them as part of your collection, and only consider resubmission if the math genuinely works and you’re prepared to lose money if the gamble fails.
