TL;DR at the bottom. 
Since it isnât a Pikachu or Seviper, I personally couldnât care less on a personal level. But seeing all opinions and arguments thus far Iâm personally 50/50 about the authenticity of this Charizard card.
Although I must admit Iâm always more in the mind-set of âwhat ifâ in general with these kind of cards. It was similar with the Funskool cards for example, which has always been rumored as a real TCG release in India in the past. Given their look, it would indeed seem obvious they are fake, but given the stories Iâve heard from multiple sources I wasnât sure. Only after hearing all arguments and seeing all different evidences from both sides, I am now also convinced they are indeed bootlegs. Hasbro was licensed to create PokĂ©mon products in India under their brand-name Funskool, but this didnât include cards. I always had my doubts (I always was like âwhat ifâ), but the main turnover for me was the regular âeâ instead of âĂ©â in the word âPokĂ©monâ on the cards themselves.
Although those cards are more obvious bootlegs that this Charizard of course, the discussions were rather similar. The experts had their opinion ready and were convinced they were fake, but other people with a more open mind (âwhat ifâ) were reading and collecting all kind of sources and information, and only after that came to their conclusions.
Another similar example that also caused a lot of discussions and controversy was the âPrototoiseâ (Blastoise with MTG back). Back in 2016 when Iâve first heard about that card and saw it, I quickly just deemed it fake like everyone else and that was it (here a relevant thread from back then). I was only collecting for halve a year at the time, so when everyone states itâs fake and seeing what it looks like, I was convinced it was fake as well back then.
Last year the discussion came back again, this time with a lot more arguments and evidence, including an uncut MTG sheet containing a Blastoise (with black borders instead of yellow, but it was still there on the uncut sheet). At that point I was 50/50 again (and I still am), although Iâm currently more in the group believing it might actually be a real prototype. Not that it really matters, because this card still wonât sell within the PokĂ©mon community for anywhere near what people within the MTG community are willing to pay for it; the communities simply have a different history and therefore different believes in general. (Here the relevant thread from last year; here a relevant post on the PokĂ©mon Misprint FB from coincidentally last week - which also has a lot of comments from MTG expert Travis King; and here a relevant post on the MTG misprint group).
Anyway, letâs not open that jar again. Not until we have that video of Travis King at least. Iâm just mentioning it because we again had two clear sides: one group stating ânoâ, and the more open-minded people stating âwhat ifâ and listening to all arguments and trying to find evidences toward either side themselves (like I did here).
In my Pikachu checklist Iâve personally split all cards into four categories:
-
Official releases. As its name suggests, these are all officially released cards, which are also documented as such and can be verified. These are marked as light green in my checklist if I have them in my possession; yellow (with lowercase âoâ in column G) if they are incoming; and white if theyâre still missing in my collection. (Iâm still missing 20-25 officially released Pikachu cards to 100% complete my collection.)
-
Unofficial releases. This includes sample prints (like the Matchprint, FPO, Japanese sample prints, etc.); cards never intended for public release (Ishihara & Pikachu GX tag team for example); errors of any kind (miscut, off-centered, square cut, ink drops/stripes, crimped, the Inverted WB promo, WB promo without stamp, holo bleeds, color misprints, etc. etc.); 1st edition stamp differences; autographed cards; sun-discolored cards; unofficial stamped cards (LPPCollecting for Pikachu, but the Collectors Charizard would also be an example); the Solid Golden Base Set Pikachu; etc. These are marked as swamp green if I have them in my possession; yellow (with uppercase âOâ in column G) if they are incoming; and grey if theyâre still missing in my collection. (Iâm still missing 40-50 unofficial Pikachu cards that I want to 100% complete my collection.)
-
Altered cards. This is mostly my collection of painted Base Set Pikachu cards, but also includes some one-off stamped cards. These are marked light blue if I have them in my possession; and yellow (with uppercase âOâ in column G) if they are incoming.
-
(Fake cards.) I donât collect or buy them, but I do have some, which are all at the very bottom of the list (also in swamp green).
If there would have been a Pikachu which was released officially in holofoil, but had an error like this with missing holofoil and inner graphite layer where everything else checks out (the Rosetta pattern and colors in this case), it would for me personally be in the unofficial releases section. But Iâll probably also add the following text in white: ânon-Holo - missing graphite layer (most likely fake)â, which I also did for one other card that I am pretty sure is fake, but for which Iâm still not 100% sure about given the information about the card.
Anyway, whether itâs a misprint or was printed as fake on purpose using the same printers as WotC isnât really important to be completely honest. If CGC is convinced everything about the card is real, except for the missing graphite and holofoil layers, I would personally put it in the same category as a misprint in my collection. It was never meant to be released like this, thatâs a fact. But if the colors and Rosetta pattern are the same, itâs also not a 100% and obvious booleg.
Fact is CGC has decided to grade it. Whether that was a good or bad decision on their part is another discussion entirely of course. (I personally think it wasnât a very good decision at this point in time, since they still have to gain reputation and trust. I also donât really like that theyâve graded the ink-altered card⊠Although I am happy they are willing to grade a lot more cards than the two existing grading companies - especially PSA, so I hope CGC will be able to fix some bumps on the way and become one of the big three grading companies.)
Anyway, I personally see two main issues here:
- Itâs a Charizard, so everyone is losing their shitâŠ
- Everyone has different opinions and views about this card, but 90% of those arenât willing to listen to the arguments of the other. Thatâs just human nature of some sort tbh, and Iâve seen it many times in discussions before (here, on FB, on reddit, on YT, etc. - especially online tbh).
Besides, assuming CGCâs methods are correct and the card is in fact printed with the same printers WotC used, but with missing holofoil and graphite layer, what does it matter at this point? They graded it, thatâs a fact. Everyone can have their own opinions and views and decide for themselves whether they deem this card an error or the most convincing fake ever. I personally think itâs an odd coincidence not one but two layers are missing (holofoil AND graphite), but since itâs a Charizard I personally donât care less either way, despite being in the âwhat ifâ mindset.
TL;DR: But please continue the discussions, since that is what this forum is all about of course. What Iâm mainly trying to say: donât waste time and effort convincing the ones with an opposite opinion after you already gave very convincing facts, since it probably wonât convince them anyway⊠¯\_đ_/ÂŻ This applies to either side of the coin.
Greetz,
Quuador