In relation to the 1st edition base set holos. What would you rather: A PSA 9 thick stamp or a PSA 9 thin stamp but in better condition?
For anyone unaware I believe the thick to thin stamp ratio at print for the holos was 25:75 so the thick stamps are three times as rare. However, a strong psa 9 is rarer in itself.
A longer term goal is im trying to get all of the holos in thick stamps and this is the dilemma I find myself in for a few of them. Im actually considering just keeping both. I mean logic says to me that I should much rather have a 1st edition rather than an unlimited so this is another example of something being rarer. But its also hard to give up a card in better condition (I value having strong 9s in my collection). Maybe it’s because the market doesn’t hold a big distinction between the two stamps… for now. I personally think that as time goes on this added rarity will become more of a factor. Will this breed a subset of elitist thick stamp collectors that pity their thin stamp brethren haha? Or will it become just another point of different? Anyway, would be interesting to hear thoughts from both sides.
Do people care that much about thick/thin stamps? I’ve never cared and have I think only one seller I bought from even bothered noting it as thick or thin. So I’d definitely prefer condition
Most people don’t care, but some do. I’m one of the ones who cared.
I specifically set out to collect a thick stamp set for several reasons.
The thick stamp holos were printed before the thin stamp holos (making them the first version of the first edition cards)
Thick stamp holos are 3x are rare as thin stamps holos (rarer = better)
The thick stamp holos match the non-holos in the set (consistency = better)
Thick stamps are unique to the base set, all subsequent WOTC 1st edition sets are solely thin stamps (distinguishing feature = better)
I personally think thick stamps look better than thin stamps (although I know people have different opinions on this)
I just like consistency in general, so even if I couldn’t collect all thick stamps, I’d rather just collect all thin stamps than a mixed set. Call it OCD, but I don’t like inconsistency when it comes to collectibles.
When you consider the fact that a mere stamp makes 1st edition cards multiple times more valuable than Shadowless cards, is it really so crazy to think that the earlier and rarer version of a stamp should make thick stamps worth more than thin stamps?
But here’s the thing, since thin stamps are 3x more common than thick stamps, obviously owners of the thin stamps don’t want to say anything that would make their cards less valuable. But this is just one person’s opinion. It took me much longer to collect a set that was 100% thick stamps, but I’m happy that I did.
And OP, to answer your question… that’s totally subjective. If we’re talking a very strong 9 thin vs a very weak 9 thick, even I’d probably go for the thin stamp. But it just depends on how big of a difference we’re talking about. In terms of market value, “strong 9s” vs “weak 9s” and thick stamps vs thin stamps only makes a marginal difference. Most people are just paying for the PSA 9 label and not really thinking about anything else.
Thanks for your detailed response. I seem to agree with everything you’re saying. I was trying to find the post from someone a few weeks ago that said that thick is preferred but the owners of thin stamps wouldn’t want to admit it and here you are ha. Going through the effort of putting together a psa 9 set, it just opens another kettle of fish going for the thick stamps. Yeh there is only a marginal difference in today’s market… but what about in the future? Will condition or stamp variety be valued more i wonder. Years ago would people be having this same conversation about shadowless vs unlimited?
At the end of the day I can’t decide what I would prefer irrelevant of what the market says is more important ha. I’m torn whether I want to put together the best condition psa 9 set, or thick stamp. I was going for thick but then this sifuation came up. The cards in question, Clefairy, Hitmonchan and Blastoise, are all moderate to significantly in better condition in the thin stamp (all in the parameter of a 9 obv).
I have never seen a confirmation of the 25:75 ratio and the thick stamp being first from memory wasn’t it just Gary saying it seemed like he didn’t pull as many thick stamps back in the (g)olden days?
I was only going off what I’ve read on the forum before so no confirmation. They seem to be rarer than the thin stamps at least.
Interesting that WOTC went:
Thick Stamp holos and thick stamp non holos.
Then changed holos to thin stamps but left the non holos as thick.
Then changed everything to thin stamps in the later sets.
Multiple people have said this over the years, but the easiest way to figure this out is to just look at eBay listings. Obviously the ratio can vary at any given time, but if you look at the 1st edition cards that are for sale at any given moment you’ll generally see than something like 25-30% of them are thick stamps and 70-75% of them are thin stamps.
All of the non-holos (which of course are all thick stamps) and all of the thick stamp holos were stamped around the same time. This happened first. It’s possible that all of the non-holos were stamped before the holos but that’s not clear.
The thin stamp holos were all stamped at a later time, probably after WOTC realized they needed more 1st edition holos. WOTC decided they preferred the look of the thin stamp so they kept that going for future sets.
The difference between the thick stamp and the thin stamp is in the pressure with which the stamps were applied (the thin stamps were applied with more pressure compared to the thick stamps).
I wasn’t always convinced of this until years later when I put on my Hercule Poirot hat on. I received the very first shipments and all the holos were thin stamps. The thick stamps dribbled out later. This is born out by my earliest PSA card results. The lower serial numbered cards were thin. I can also confirm that my pilot study uncut sheet had thin stamps. Now does that all confirm the “chicken or egg” theory? Not 100% but I’m convinced.
You seem to be arguing that the thin stamps came first? Just want to make sure I’m getting what you’re saying straight, as I thought you and others have said thick stamps came first before.
Also, it wouldn’t really make logical sense that the thin stamp came first, given that all future stamps were thin stamps (it’s much more logical that thick stamps came first and then after WOTC made the switch to thin stamp they decided to keep it that way for future sets).
It seems strange to me that WOTC would have gone from thin to thick and back to thin again, but I suppose it’s possible. Even though I still believe that thick stamps likely came first, In light of your info I can no longer say that thick stamps definitely came first since. Overall, it seems like it’s fair to say that it’s a mystery that will never truly be resolved.
Wow that’s really eye opening. I thought the common understanding was that thick stamp came first. Maybe WOTC applied less pressure to the stamp through a print run but it wasn’t necessarily the first. Very interesting nonetheless.