I didn’t see enough evidence to support the theory. I looked through about 50 different 1st edition cards some thick were lighter some were darker, same with thins. I even had two shadowless chanseys where one was brighter than the other.
My conclusion is there might be two different color variations of the 1st print, but they aren’t separated by the stamps, they affect all three variations.
I just went through my thick/thin/shadowless charizards and your theory didnt hold up, all the thick, thins, and one of the shadowless were the same colour, the only odd one out was one of my shadowless which had very deep colour
good effort on the vid, only critique is that you should have added that thin commons/uncommons do exist
I think in order for a comparison to be useful, we’d really have to focus on comparing particular Thicks and Thins. It’s not necessarily that Thicks are lighter and Thins are darker. Perhaps that’s only true of the Blastoise. Maybe there’s another card in which the Thick version is consistently darker than the Thin version. There’s no way to know except to compare.
I’m guessing that your theory of there being slightly different printings among the “first print run” - leading to some being lighter and some being darker, is probably true. Then some of the shadowless cards were set aside to receive a 1st Edition stamp - and these cards that were set aside included shadowless cards that were printed slightly differently.
This would mean it’s just a coincidence that Tony and I have a lighter Thick Blastoise and a darker Thin Blastoise.
But again, I would definitely like to hear from other people specifically about their Thick/Thin Blastoise cards - I’m very curious now.
Also, assuming that there’s no difference between the cards, what exactly IS the evidence for the Thick cards being printed first, besides the Uncut Thin/Shadowless sheets saying “2nd version”?
I do have to say though that no matter what, intuitively it makes more sense that the Thicks were printed first, based on the fact that from Jungle on, all the 1st edition stamps were thin. It certain seems far more likely that they made one permanent switch in the 1st edition symbol than if they had started with the Thin, then changed to Thick, and then went back to Thick.
Yeah, it really seems that some 1st edition / shadowless cards have deeper or lighter color, but for the most part they’re pretty much the same, and that there’s no particular difference between Thick and Thin versions generally.
I’ll probably take down my video soon and create a more accurate one.
I’m still curious to verify that the Thick cards were actually stamped and/or distributed first.
It was from an old Wizard’s Rep that Rusty had contact with. Here’s the quotes:
“Usually a brand would produce one run of 1st edition with a run of unlimited at the same time. Then only runs of unlimited after that. But we broke the rules. It was based on numbers provided to C**** from the sales staff on what account orders they needed to fill plus an additional percentage of the run.”
In response to a question about the difference in the stamps
“So yes, to your question. That is why the 1st edition symbol looks different from the first run to the rerun of 1st edition cards.”
Like the bulk of my collections, my thick sheet is stored in No Cal. My memory is very good with these though and I’m certain it doesn’t mention the word edition at all. 2nd edition is definitively on both the shadowless and thin sheet.
To be safe though, let me say 95% sure and I will confirm next time I’m up there:)
I had someone make the argument once that since the non holos were thick that maybe the thick holos were done at the same time which could mean the thins were printed first?
Here’s a possibility I’ve always wondered about: maybe the print runs were done concurrently since it’s simply a machine pressure issue. Not impossible.
One certainty: the thicks are, and always have been in shorter supply. Rarer.
This could offer a clue: Does anybody know for sure whether the “gold strip” starters contained thick, thin, or both? Back in the beginning I was the only one who even cared about the thick/thin anomaly but my interest didn’t carry over into the origins so I didn’t pay attention when I opened “gold strips”.
Great conversation fellow members. I wish I could have found this interest and had this discussion many years ago…
It could be a crude oversimplification but I’ve long assumed that thick stamp came first because all future 1st Edition WOTC cards are thin stamp.
Like thick stamp was the first attempt and then they refined it and stuck with it. For my collection I take preference over thin stamp for this reason, as thick stamp doesn’t even feel like the ‘real’ 1st edition to me.
This.
I feel the opposite. For me thick stamps are the true 1st edition cards, so they’re more important to me. Not that I have any 
Ahh, interesting! That definitely confirms that the stamp processes did not happen simultaneously, but rather all of one kind was done first, and then all of the other kind was done later. Although, was he actually able to confirm whether the Thicks or Thins were the original 1st edition run, and which were the later run to fill orders?
This is pretty much the same difference, but on the Thin / Shadowless sheets that can be seen YouTube, it actually says “2nd Version” at the bottom, not “2nd Edition.” Either way, if your Thick sheet doesn’t make any mention of the word “Version” or “Edition” on it, that’s a pretty good clue that it’s actually the first version. And the reason it wouldn’t mention a version at all is because originally there was only meant to be the Thick holos, so there was never meant to be more than one “Version” and thus no need to label which version it was. It would all make sense.
I think logically, we simply have to ignore the fact that all the non-holos are Thick as we try to figure out whether the Thick or Thin holos were stamped first. Because by all rights, the ratio should be exactly the same. All we can say is that clearly, the holos and non-holos were not stamped concurrently, or else their Thick/Thin ratio would be identical. Basically I think this is a dead end when it comes to trying to figure out which were printed first, unless we were ever to receive more information about this.
The machine pressure issue seems like something that could have been a possibility, but I doubt it for this reason - the thick / thin stamps simply don’t look like an accident in any way. If it was an issue of pressure, you would expect there to be all sorts of variety of pressure - some stamps may be very thick, some may be very thin, and then you would expect there to be every level of thickness/thinness in between. But that’s not really the case - the thick / thin stamps are pretty consistent in size, which indicates to me that there was simply a different stamp that was used. I think the only printing issue with regards to stamps are the gray stamp cards (which clearly were either stamped with low ink).
A pressure issue would also go against the information provided by the Wizards of the Coast employee that cullers mentioned - he claimed the reason the stamps look different is because they had a second run of the 1st edition stampings so that they could fulfill orders. And again, if your Thick sheet does not mention “2nd Version” on it, that’s another pretty good indicator that the Thick holos were stamped first.
Hopefully someone else can answer your question about the gold strip starters!
As I said before, I use the same logic. It just makes sense that, since Wizards used the same exact Thin stamp for all future sets, if they had made the switch from Thick to Thin and then just stuck with it. It makes a lot more sense than if they had started with Thin, then went to Thick, and then switched back!
I agree - if the Thicks were the first to be stamped (and originally meant to be the only 1st edition cards) - “Version 1,” in contrast to the Thin/Shadowless uncut sheets that were labeled “Version 2,” then the Thicks take priority for me. Their unique first edition symbols make these cards even more distinguished from future sets. I also like that they match the rest of the base set cards. And frankly, I just find the Thick 1 to be more attractive than the Thin 1, despite the fact that Wizards stuck with the Thin 1 after the base set (as we saw with their Unlimited base set cards, I don’t think that all of Wizard’s modifications were for the better) - although clearly people here have different opinions on that. Add in the fact that the Thicks are something like 2.5-3 times more rare, and I certainly think they are the ones to own.
If I was starting a collection from scratch today, I would definitely go for Thicks, since you can get them for pretty much the same price as the Thins anyway. This is what I’ve been doing. It started with the fact that I had a Thick PSA 10 Charizard. From there I decided to try to collect all the other Thicks to match it, so I’ve been trading out my Thins for Thicks.
@hyruleguardian We know that the stamps that created the thick and thin are exactly the same. The only difference is the pressure, that’s been confirmed by the Wizards Rep.
The reason we know thicks are first, besides the simple logic that’s already been presented, is that Wizards had to create more Holo cards to fulfill orders. They had too many commons/uncommons/rares printed and since we know that 99.9% of the commons/uncommons/rares have thick stamps we know that the second stamp run had to be thin stamps.
The real question is how do the .1% of thin common/uncommon/rares exist.
Ahhhhhh now that really makes everything add up. They had a shortage of holos compared to non-holos that had been stamped with the 1st edition symbol, so they had to make a second run of 1st edition stamping for the holos.
So if the only difference was the pressure of the stamp, I guess all the Thicks were stamped in exactly the same way, and then some time later all the Thins were stamped in exactly the same way. Somehow in between these two runs the pressure of the stamping was altered. The Thicks and the Thins certainly seem very consistent in terms of size.
Yeah, based on all the evidence it really doesn’t seem like much of a question. It seems like this is how it went down:
1 - All the Shadowless cards were printed at the same time. This is the first print run. There would be seven more print runs but none of those would be Shadowless. (Some cards were slightly lighter and some were slightly darker, the print run did not have perfect consistency).
2 - Some of the Shadowless cards were set aside to receive a 1st edition stamping.
3 - The first run of stamping begins. All the non-holos and some of the holos get stamped. (These are the “Thicks”)
4 - Wizards decides that they don’t have enough holos to go along with the non-holo 1st edition cards. So they have a second run of 1st edition stampings for the holo cards. (These are the “Thins.”)
That all seems to check out, right? I know this isn’t anything new but thanks for helping me make sense of it.
As for the very rare Thin non-holo cards… Based on what we seem to know about the Thicks / Thins, perhaps Wizards decided that there were a few non-holo cards that had been printed less than the others, and therefore they had a few more of those stamped with a 1st edition symbol after the initial stamping run?
For example, on the 1st ed. / Shadowless holo sheets I’ve seen on YouTube, the sheets included 38 Machamps, 5 Nidokings, and 4 of everything else. So there were extra Nidokings compared to the other non-Machamp holos. Perhaps in that same way, Wizards determined there were a few non-holo cards that had been short-changed compared to the others, so they made a few sheets of those.
Another theory - Perhaps these cards were the first to be tested with the adjusted pressure for the 1st edition stamps. Since holo cards are more expensive to make, they might have wanted to test it out with some non-holos first. The testing came out just fine so they included those for distribution.
I really have no idea… but I can’t think of another reason why just these small handful of non-holo Thins would exist.