" 1 of a kind" error charizard graded by cgc

[pikachutcg]

Very interesting topic
For anyone that want’s a closer look of this card you can view them by clicking the links above the pictures below

FULL SIZE

FULL SIZE

A regular Base Set 2 Charizard for comparison;

FRONT

BACK

[cullers]

@masterteal

@cullers

It still doesn’t matter. I don’t know why this hard to understand…

That layer is applied to the entire roll. Yes, it might not have been done on site, and the paper came like that, but that process still happened.

My entire premise is the following:
We’ve been told that the card has a different feel to it not as firm and failed the light test.

If that’s true that means the graphite layer is incorrect.

If the graphite layer is incorrect there would be an entire roll of these cards. That have never surfaced.

The alternative is this card is a fake or the accounts of the original testing were false.

This isn’t hard to follow and anyone making the claim that this type of error would occur to a single card isn’t knowledgeable to the process.

A few points to make:

1. Are you sure Pokemon cards were produced in the same way as bicycle cards are in the video? Many times the cardstock for these cards is actually made from multiple rolls of thinner cardstock that are cut to sheet size and then the layers are glued together in a stack. I wasn’t at whatever facility produced Pokemon cards in 2000 to know how they printed them, but if a layer was missing from the stack you could get a single sheet like this.
2. Is it really so hard to believe that a sheet worth of these could have been produced and only one card has surfaced? Don’t underestimate just how many of these cards were printed. For all we know someone has a box with 12 of these waiting to be opened. More likely though is that kids played with them, or they are sitting in an attic/basement/closet somewhere, or they were tossed 20 years ago for being suspected fakes (whether fake or not), or maybe someone in the factory QA team found one after they cut the sheet and they tried to locate the others and missed one/a couple.
3. If someone figured out how to duplicate the ink of original WOTC Pokemon cards, I don’t see why they would be printing a non-holo card that is obviously supposed to be holo. It just doesn’t add up. Would make a lot more sense to print non Holo rares and stick a first edition stamp on them (which I would imagine is child’s play compared to making the card in the first place). Also, why would someone go to the effort of making this card and then only make one? I’m sure if it’s real enough for CGC to grade it’s one of the best fakes ever produced - I’m sure people would pay $$ for these instead of buying the real deal (due to cost). I feel confident someone would be selling these as “proxy custom cards”.

To be clear, I’m not saying it’s real or it’s fake. We may never know for sure. What I’m saying is there are possible ways for this type of error to be legitimate that I don’t think you are considering.

How to make cards that feel like “real” WOTC cards:
boardgamegeek.com/thread/490643/making-cards-youll-never-use-your-old-method-again/page/1
EDIT: and yes, I have made my own cards before for board games I’ve designed.

I’m done. I don’t want to keep talking to people who don’t seem to understand this point. The graphite layer is designed to hold the front and back layers together. If WotC bought the card stock then an entire roll would be that way. Otherwise WotC does the graphite layer themselves. Someone needs to show me an example where they use a non standard graphite layer in their process. Without that graphite layer the two halves aren’t sticking together.

I don’t care the motivation. That’s a dumb argument, especially when there were a ton of fakes back then. You’re looking at it from a current market perspective when back then a regular charizard would have made maybe $50. Pokémon didn’t have big money like it does now. Fakes were to get parents to buy cards and pass off well enough that their child wasn’t disappointed and they would buy more.

[jkanly]

@cullers

@jkanly

There’s no way for me to formulate an opinion having not held the card. But will mention that most facilities offer a range of printing substrates and have a variety of jobs running at once, including those facilities who were actively printing Pokemon in 2001 (the Bicycle video referenced is more of an exception to the broader printing industry in that they print on a few relatively similar types of material). Also, most of the facilities contracted for printing Pokemon utilized pre-cut stacks of paper on a pallet rather the continuous feed as is seen in the Bicycle video. So its not impossible that a few sheets of paper, or even a pallet of paper could get mixed up.

A side note: Let’s not take forgranted how nice it is to have Charlie as our very own representative for Pokemon TCG within the company. I’d take his professional opinion to heart on this over my personal feelings.

It still doesn’t matter. I don’t know why this hard to understand…

That layer is applied to the entire roll. Yes, it might not have been done on site, and the paper came like that, but that process still happened.

My entire premise is the following:
We’ve been told that the card has a different feel to it not as firm and failed the light test.

If that’s true that means the graphite layer is incorrect.

If the graphite layer is incorrect there would be an entire roll of these cards. That have never surfaced.

The alternative is this card is a fake or the accounts of the original testing were false.

This isn’t hard to follow and anyone making the claim that this type of error would occur to a single card isn’t knowledgeable to the process.

@cullers The “entire roll“ argument you insist upon isn’t required when nearly every facility was handling pallets of standardized dimension, delivered material (based on my knowledge of a couple companies in the industry). An entire roll of paper is an order of magnitude greater an error than mixing up a pallet of press stock between print jobs (which require different press stock).

More intriguing to me is how obviously missing foil was not observed by the press operator on a foiled stock print run… BUT… The process is hands-on and sometimes even glaring mistakes happen…

An error like this would have been quickly identified and recalled by Wizards, which I assume may explain why we aren’t discussing a large batch of errors.

In nothing I’m saying do I want to imply a likelihood of its authenticity or otherwise, but just stating some facts about the production process which align some small measure of probability.

[qwachansey]

The high res scan looks like the color print is perfect. I assume the ink was tested at a scale greater than visible to the naked eye. Maybe it was a factory defect or intentional print test with cheaper stock, but I’m personally considering the card an authentic error if it has WOTC ink pattern. Missing a layer IS an error even if previously considered otherwise. If you don’t like it, consider it the same as Match print cards, but calling it fake doesn’t hold up imo.

Another thing to keep in mind – Anyone with the capability to master the ink pattern a decade ago could’ve also created a card stock that passed the light test if they really wanted to. What do you think is harder, replicating ink to a microscopic level, or ordering/copying the same cardstock WOTC used?

[smpratte]

I think people need to understand there is a difference between “Not Authentic” & “Fake”.

The reason why PSA doesn’t touch matchprints, fpo’s, preraichu, etc. is because you can’t prove their Authenticity. That isn’t to say they are fake cards printed in scumbagprattes basement. However they will always be in limbo, because Authenticity should be proven without a doubt. How you value these cards is your choice, but that personal value ≠ how you Authenticate an item.

CGC encasing the card doesn’t provide anymore clarity on the origin or Authenticity. They are grading pretty much anything you throw at them, even inked cards. They simply have a higher risk appetite, not a higher proof of authenticity. The card being encased doesn’t further explain anything about the card besides they decided to encase it.

[qwachansey]

@smpratte

I think people need to understand there is a difference between “Not Authentic” & “Fake”.

The reason why PSA doesn’t touch matchprints, fpo’s, preraichu, etc. is because you can’t prove their Authenticity. That isn’t to say they are fake cards printed in scumbagprattes basement. However they will always be in limbo, because Authenticity should be proven without a doubt. How you value these cards is your choice, but that personal value ≠ how you Authenticate an item.

CGC encasing the card doesn’t provide anymore clarity on the origin or Authenticity. They are grading pretty much anything you throw at them, even inked cards. They simply have a higher risk appetite, not a higher proof of authenticity. The card being encased doesn’t further explain anything about the card besides they decided to encase it.

To me, having a company put research and it’s weight behind something like FPO / match print is important, even it’s solely to classify them as “not fake regardless of questionable origin”. This is because something like a FPO or Match print could conceivably be faked. There was a whole thread on fake Match print possibility.

I guess what I’m trying to express is – if BGS can slab Match prints, they’d ideally be able to reject fake match prints as well. Even if I’m going after what some may consider “non authentic” I’d obviously prefer “authenticity cannot be confirmed” over “authenticity can be confirmed illegitimate as fake.”

So with this Charizard, I’ll take a CGC one of questionable origin, over one that was examined and proven fake due to ink pattern.

I don’t think it’s the same as purposefully inking your cards if all signs point to this card, FPO, Match prints coming from WOTC or WOTC contractors. I have my own concerns over the inked card label that I don’t for this card.

[two]

Again CGC provides a service to guarantee authenticity and grade. They have a higher risk tolerance because they have the confidence, experts, and money backing them. Whether or not seasoned Pokemon collectors agree or disagree with their methods and technology of proving authenticity is another thing altogether.

At the end of the day, CGC is arguably the strongest and most reputable third-party authentication service in the market for all collectibles across the board. I couldn’t think of a better company to dive into this untapped market… where 3rd party sport card companies with little care for the community are currently on top.

Like said, CGC will undoubtedly buyback any card in their holder that is not authentic.

[smpratte]

@two

Again CGC provides a service to guarantee authenticity and grade. They have a higher risk tolerance because they have the confidence, experts, and money backing them. Whether or not seasoned Pokemon collectors agree or disagree with their methods and technology of proving authenticity is another thing altogether.

At the end of the day, CGC is arguably the strongest and most reputable third-party authentication service in the market for all collectibles across the board. I couldn’t think of a better company to dive into this untapped market… where 3rd party sport card companies with little care for the community are currently on top.

Like said, CGC will undoubtedly buyback any card in their holder that is not authentic.

We have more people on this forum that actually held the card in person than cgc. Citing cgc’s policy does nothing to provide clarity on the Authenticity of a card. Whichever company you personally prefer doesn’t either.

The card has an inherent issue that requires an explanation. No one has provided that explanation. These emotional arguments about which company has the best whatever don’t provide any further clarity on Authenticity. I personally don’t care about any of these companies, I just care about the authenticty.

[two]

No disrespect or intent of argument to anyone on this forum. I think healthy discussions are necessary.

[smpratte]

@two

No disrespect or intent of argument to anyone on this forum. I think healthy discussions are necessary.

For sure! I can only speak for myself, but I rarely take anyone’s comments personally. I enjoy the discussion, even if I disagree.

I think my ultimate point is that we have numerous cards that will remain ambiguous. Their origin will never be fully explained. If people want to value cgc’s opinion, more power to you. I am just trying to highlight that personal value is separate from actually authenticating an inherently ambiguous item.

[jkanly]

@smpratte

@two

No disrespect or intent of argument to anyone on this forum. I think healthy discussions are necessary.

For sure! I can only speak for myself, but I rarely take anyone’s comments personally. I enjoy the discussion, even if I disagree.
.

This is what makes this forum great:)

[azulryu]

Honestly, cards like these help push our hobby more. Through conversations like these, people learn more, figure out how to do more research, and become more knowledgeable about the hobby overall. Even if this card turns out to be a fake, I’ve learned a lot about the card creation process and have been going steadily down a rabbit hole regarding uncut Pokemon TCG sheets.

As far as I stand, I think this card may possibly be authentic but will remain on the fence until further evidence. I think it’s only possible for this to be part of a print test considering the issue with the graphite layer (much like the Match Prints) - and if that’s the case, then it SHOULD mean that there are more out there. If other cards come out that match this Charizard, then I’d be comfortable calling it authentic. But until then, or until official word comes out that it’s a fake, then I’ll remain on the fence.

[pokecollectoramy]

@azulryu

Honestly, cards like these help push our hobby more. Through conversations like these, people learn more, figure out how to do more research, and become more knowledgeable about the hobby overall. Even if this card turns out to be a fake, I’ve learned a lot about the card creation process and have been going steadily down a rabbit hole regarding uncut Pokemon TCG sheets.

As far as I stand, I think this card may possibly be authentic but will remain on the fence until further evidence. I think it’s only possible for this to be part of a print test considering the issue with the graphite layer (much like the Match Prints) - and if that’s the case, then it SHOULD mean that there are more out there. If other cards come out that match this Charizard, then I’d be comfortable calling it authentic. But until then, or until official word comes out that it’s a fake, then I’ll remain on the fence.

Didn’t Scott say he knew a seller in the middle east that had quite a few of these non-holo error cards?

[cullers]

@pokecollectoramy

@azulryu

Honestly, cards like these help push our hobby more. Through conversations like these, people learn more, figure out how to do more research, and become more knowledgeable about the hobby overall. Even if this card turns out to be a fake, I’ve learned a lot about the card creation process and have been going steadily down a rabbit hole regarding uncut Pokemon TCG sheets.

As far as I stand, I think this card may possibly be authentic but will remain on the fence until further evidence. I think it’s only possible for this to be part of a print test considering the issue with the graphite layer (much like the Match Prints) - and if that’s the case, then it SHOULD mean that there are more out there. If other cards come out that match this Charizard, then I’d be comfortable calling it authentic. But until then, or until official word comes out that it’s a fake, then I’ll remain on the fence.

Didn’t Scott say he knew a seller in the middle east that had quite a few of these non-holo error cards?

Every last one of them is fake is his point. Fake cards weren’t uncommon.

[mcmimi]

Just a thought what if this card stock was a F.P.O but WOTC messed up and that card stock to get into the real print run?

[cullers]

@mcmimi

Just a thought what if this card stock was a F.O.P but WOTC messed up and that card stock to get into the real print run?

FPO cards have the same graphite layer, the only card that doesn’t have that layer is the matchprint and if you know the process they used to make them it makes sense they don’t have the graphite.

[pokecollectoramy]

@cullers

@pokecollectoramy

Didn’t Scott say he knew a seller in the middle east that had quite a few of these non-holo error cards?

Every last one of them is fake is his point. Fake cards weren’t uncommon.

I saw plenty of fake cards when I was younger…none of them had anywhere near perfect ink and paper though. It seems to make much more sense to call this “unauthenticated” like the prerelease raichu rather than “fake”.

[cullers]

@pokecollectoramy

@cullers

Every last one of them is fake is his point. Fake cards weren’t uncommon.

I saw plenty of fake cards when I was younger…none of them had anywhere near perfect ink and paper though. It seems to make much more sense to call this “unauthenticated” like the prerelease raichu rather than “fake”.

[pokecollectoramy]

@cullers

@pokecollectoramy

I saw plenty of fake cards when I was younger…none of them had anywhere near perfect ink and paper though. It seems to make much more sense to call this “unauthenticated” like the prerelease raichu rather than “fake”.

Look bro, we get it. You’ve been around forever and you know all. I’m sorry and will crawl back into my hole now.

[qwachansey]

I’m glad most people consider this a fake or inauthentic card. I’ll ignore them, trust my own instincts, and purchase one like this if it pops up, and I’ll have less competition from e4 to raise the price.