Just wondering… is there any reason PSA does not distinguish between the green and the red with their labels? Seems like an extremely obvious distinction that could have been drawn with no fuss.
On a similar topic… is there any consensus on which variant has fewer copies? I realise that could never be known for certain
1 Like
I’ve seen 96 Carddass graded by psa that are as far back as at least 15x cert era, so I know they have been graded for a long long time. I believe they’ve just done it a certain way for so long that it’s kind of too late to change it now tbh, however this is just me speculating.
As far as color breakdown, I’ve collecting the set hard for 2+ hard years and believe most Pokémon are pretty equal with PSA 10’s in green and red.
However, I’ve noticed more red zards than green zards get PSA 10 and also more green articuno and green Moltres than red of those legendary birds. Overall, I’d say it’s decently equal across the set however.
1 Like
It was already pieced together - there was no puzzle you contributed to. It’s all documented, right here.
The grading companies were made aware of the new information back in 2020, they chose to disregard it at the time.
Look, I’ll believe it when I see it. They’ve had conversations with many of us over the years and haven’t changed them yet. It’s not just per your conversations of whining about an update.
All the grading companies have had the internal problem of when to update the label. The irrefutable evidence has been public knowledge since 2020, and the longer they delay, the more susceptible they become to negligence claims. They have failed to promptly update their systems, which can potentially lead to lawsuits as they are purposefully misrepresenting the items they are “authenticating”.
Seeing that PSA was neglecting to act in good faith by not updating their publicly available information earlier, it raises eyebrows.
6 Likes
This is a bit hyperbolic, no? I don’t think anyone is going to sue PSA (in good faith) for misrepresenting the year that a card was printed. 
The misattribution actually added to the allure of these cards, the misconception solidified the narrative that they were the very first set ever released. As a result, the market placed a premium value on them compared to if the cards were correctly dated to 1997.
For instance, let’s consider the PSA 10 copy of the no-number Charizard. It fetched an astonishing $490k, then dropped to $190k, and eventually fell to $53,000. These fluctuations can largely be attributed to buyers trusting the label and narrative that had gained widespread traction.
From a legal perspective, these losses are significant, and if I were in the shoes of someone affected, legal action would be a viable consideration – this isn’t an exaggeration.
The legal angle becomes even more intriguing when considering PSA’s response. Had they swiftly corrected their mistake upon discovery, they could argue good faith based on the available information. However, their delayed response potentially opens the door to a negligence claim, both prior to and following the emergence of accurate information.
Naturally, various factors come into play in a legal scenario like this. The crux is proving that your purchase was influenced by the false year classification provided by PSA and that this misclassification played a pivotal role in your decision (of course, on top of being able to prove tangible loss). This argument gains strength if you obtained the item from a listing explicitly making such claims, as it emphasizes the authority attributed to them.
I’m sure they will figure it out. But to answer your question, no, I was not being hyperbolic. 
I am aware of the drama surrounding the false “rookie card” attribution of the No Number Topsun cards. However, in my opinion, this has no standing in a court of law.
It would be exceedingly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1) the owner solely purchased the card due to its print year and not due to its condition (i.e., Gem Mint 10) nor attributes (i.e., Charizard, No Number), and that 2) the drop in market price of the card was solely due to information surfacing about its correct print year.
I don’t doubt that collectors have realized substantial losses on this card, but to prove that their loss was solely tied to PSA’s misattribution of the year would be difficult. Some may even say farfetch’d.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, so maybe I’m wrong. 
Very interesting response lol. Regardless, thank you for your input. I’ve always loved the work you do on here and you are one of the posters that originally helped drive my passion.
So from my perspective, when I had conversations with PSA, CGC, BGS, PWCC, Goldin, and Heritage I never once was told that any of these companies were ever “made aware” of any of the incorrect dating with Topsun. Not once.
In fact, every single time, I was told something along the lines of “thanks for sharing this with us, we were completely unaware”
Now am I saying that I’m personally responsible for ANY of these companies making any changes at all in regards to this? Absolutely not!
Am I saying that I 100% nagged most of these companies through multiple outlets until I did get some sort of response ? Yes I am lol
Also, using that link alone has absolutely never worked in getting any response,
it took that link + the addition of other links + physical copies of some of what was posted in that link + what I like to call “the smoking gun” which I don’t believe is posted in that link you shared here
https://web.archive.org/web/20000621110549/http://www.topseika.co.jp/guide.html
That includes month + year.
I 100% lay credit to shizzlemetimbers, yourself, and other posters on here for piecing together most of the hard work.
Now combining all of that in a professional email and also bringing the various physical items to a few of these companies headquarters has 100% made a difference and is what I consider “piecing it all together”
Regardless, I don’t really mind how ever anyone chooses to feel personally towards me or not, my main mission is to try and correct the record! Thanks for your feedback