Would you guys say that the 4th Print Base Set is more valuable than Base Set Unlimited? I know the 4th Print holos are definitely more sought after, but what about commons/uncommons? Is there really a difference in value there?
sure thereâs a value difference with the commons and uncommons, but the % increase is relative to their value
I think I understand what youâre saying. If not, please correct me if Iâm wrong.
Are you essentially saying that cards like the three starters and Pikachu will see a greater percentage increase in 4th Print rather than cards such as Rattata, Weedle, etc.?
Technically yes, but what I think he means is letâs say you have a 1999-2000 kakuna, the price of a unlimited kakuna is very low so the price of the 1999-2000 will be quite low as well. I couldnât imagine one selling for higher than a two dollars.
The best selling price those cards have is probably in a complete set
2 Likes
if a $1 card sees a 100% price increase its now worth $2, if a $1500 card sees the same increase its now worth $3000
1 Like
Appreciate it, guys. Thank you!
1 Like
Faddish card values are unreliable. Latter print run values donât keep up once the novelty wears off.
What would you say is âfaddishâ about them? They have an easy to spot, quantifiable difference from the regular unlimited print. Sure, I know theyâll never reach anywhere near the shadowless variant value as their scarcity (or difference) is nowhere near the same, but assuming PSA starts recognizing the variant someday I think they would be a solid niche card. If that unearths loads of them and the pop shoots up high then yeah sure they wouldnât be anything crazy like double the unlimited price, but I think a certain % would be warranted. PSA really should recognize it some day there is no reason they arenât currently as it is more easy of a difference to explain and show to someone who knows nothing about Pokemon than âshadowlessâ.
I mean when you have collectors out there collecting different e-reader codes on energy cards and other crazy tiny variants I donât know why you would so easily write off a legitimate variant of THE original set 99% of us who never got a sniff of 1st edition ever collected.
3 Likes
I think it should be worth at least a small premium. intuitively between a 4th print and regular unlimited i would pick 4th print. why?
Because it has what finance calls an âembedded optionâ. The price of 4th print will never go below unlimited (thatâs my presumption based on its relative scarcity vs unlimited), but has the potential to be recognized and go above unlimited e.g. all psa needs to do is recognize this variant on its label and prices will certainly move
whether the premium should be 1% or 5% or 10% i canât say with certainty, its a pricing of risk and probabilities. But there should be a premium.
but iâll also recognize that the premium should be minor, the same way this variant is visually minor relative to the regular version. OC commands a bigger premium because itâs visually more obvious. Shadowless commands a bigger premium because itâs visually very obvious too (among other things).
2 Likes
I like that. Never heard the term.
Relating back to a conversation there was recently on the forum with regards to a PSA case that was signed. Some were saying that the graded card was now worth less. With the signature being reversible (just wash it off the case) that was a completely incorrect and nonsensical conclusion some were coming to. The signature was merely an âembedded optionâ that could easily be removed if desired. Having it in no way could hurt the value only serve to increase the value to some collectors.
I do need to counter your point a bit when it comes to 4th print though. I agree in that it should deserve a slight premium, however it isnât as strong of an âembedded optionâ situation. Anybody could take a signed case and wash it to perfectly substitute for an unsigned card. However not anyone would accept a 1999-2000 4th print in place of a 1999 copyright. People are really picky about things matching and I have accidentally shipped a 1999-2000 card in place of a 1999 before. When they noticed it I mentioned they could hang on to it if they wanted as it was typically worth more, but they still opted to swap as they wanted a 100% matching set. To some though you are right they would see it as a direct replacement and therefore at least to some people it would have that âembedded optionâ to serve as the variant or as a replacement to the 1999 date.
2 Likes
If it wasnât for my inside influence, as well as the series changing artwork later, the shadowless never would have been designated as shadowlessâŚjust unlimited. That was a favor to me.
Any subsequent reprints doesnât figure to have legs once the novelty wears off. At least it wonât hold Unl print values because it just never does. 1st >Shadowless>Unl>All later reprints.
Will PSA ever designate later reprints as such? Itâll take some doing by just the right person who can present it in such a way as to convince PSA that itâs to their advantage, and with no additional hassle, to make that change. Not impossible, just very difficult.
As an aside, I was doing my regular stock research and I noticed last week Collectors Universe had a big dip. I followed that up yesterday looking into their stock price and I realized the market cap on PSAâs parent company is around $125 million. Granted they lost half of their stock value in the last month. It blows my mind how small of a number that is compared to WOTCâs parent company/Nintendo/other companies in this field. Itâs actually also crazy to think PSA grades hundreds of millions of dollars of collectibles each year and their market cap is relatively small. What Iâm getting to is that it would not be that hard for a major collector to buy a significant stake in the company or just buy the company outright. All of the little changes we are requesting would be much easier to make if one of us owned company.
On another note, it may not be a bad time to buy PSA stock since they cannot keep up with demand and the price was just cut in half.
1 Like
@garyis2000 I follow what you say with most things and agree with a lot of them too, but I guess with 4th print and with signed cases I just canât follow your logic.
Iâm just not sure how you can claim that long run they will be worth less than their unlimited counterparts when PSA treats them and labels them in an identical fashion. For 90%+ people this will serve as a direct replacement and for some small fraction of people they will see them as 4th print and recognize them as a variant for the differences that they have in a 1999-2000 copyright date. These people will pay a premium in most cases as they recognized the increased rarity and scarcity. I admitted above though that some people donât see them as a direct replacement and would pay less, but I just think this pool of people will be so small that it wonât have any measurable effect due to the fact that according to PSA they are identically labeled.
I mean if you said that long term they will be worth the same as 1999 copyright I could at least follow the line of thinking while disagreeing. I mean there is no doubt they are fetching a premium today and I just canât see that ever changing.
@gemmintpokemon they halved their dividend and the investors werenât a big fan. They are taking a big hit in coin submissions apparently. Greater than the increase they have seen in card submissions.
2 Likes
That moment when a set is so niche people donât realize the term is incorrect. The actual 4th print was unlimited, as well as the 5th, 6th, 7th⌠âBase 2000â would be a more accurate term.
Gary is highlighting is the market reality. Do most serious collectors know about Base 2000, perhaps. Does most of the market, no. Will most of the market care for the subtle difference as much as Shadowless, no.
People have known about Base 2000 for a long time, and prices are still figuring themselves out. Somewhat reminiscent of No Rarity, except Base 2000 has more subtle psychical differences.
Does this mean it is garbage, no. Does this mean it canât grow, no. But the main 3 Base sets are: 1st Ed, Shadowless, Unlimited. Those 3 have tons of information and inertia from the jump. That information is why we know the actual 4th print was Unlimited. The term â4th printâ represents the general ignorance of this release. There simply isnât the information available, and certainly the inertia for Base 2000.
4 Likes
Maybe not âlessâ then. I was only thinking if I needed a lass for my set, Iâd pass over one without the symbol. Most people probably wouldnât care or even notice.
1 Like
Good observation. Cutting the dividend would be the appropriate action for a growing company. Dividends siphon cash.
Although the adjustment would change the type of investor the company would attract. I donât know enough about their coin business to understand the impact
1 Like
4th Print is a very hard set to define, I agree⌠Cards look much similar to the 1999 copyright variant, and while there are some cards with easy visible differences, Vulpix and Charizard for instance, the majority can be only recognizable by the 1999-2000 copyright date, this of course will either make them more valuable to collectors chasing the set or either will fetch the same value as the 1999 counterpart, never less, because as @gottaketchumall said, 90% of people chasing the set wonât even notice/care about the difference. If someone wants to keep the 1999 copyright consistent throughout their set, there are plenty of 1999 cards available.
I also agree with @smpratte stated on the designation of the set, â4th Printâ is wrong, more correct would be â8th Printâ⌠However, I think PSA already did a great job by labelling the boosters packs as âUKâ⌠I believe the next step would be the cards, and we have been further away from that than what we are right now. I canât understand why labelling No Rarities as a different set, for example, since the major difference is the lack of the rarity symbol, when the major difference in 2000 Base Set is also one thing - the number â2000â. I also know that some cards got corrections from No Rarities to the Normal Japanese Base, but the same is true for the Unlimited to 2000 Base. So a guide to the 1999-2000 Set with differences and all the info available would do the trick in making PSA acknowledge the cards.
When it comes to value, the 1999-2000 Base, should definitely be worth more than the regular and more widely available 1999 base⌠Right now, and as of many of you said, it is unknown to the majority of the standard collectors and itâs place in the market is yet to define. However, what will happen when 1st Ed Base and Shadowless dry up? When people start going for the Unlimited Base purely because the other options are none in the market or are just to expensive?
I feel that collectors will became more aware of the difference and try to pursue a more harder and limited set, within the Unlimited Base, either for the hunt or just because it is harder to achieve and it is more flashy to show off⌠When that happens, market will respond with a increase in prices, and only then we can define how much more they are worth than the 1999 Base Set.
One thing is certain, the set (Holos) is scarce and it is extremely limited, as of now:
Base Set 1999 PSA POP Report - 19628 Holo Cards graded (I subtracted the number bellow)
Base Set 1999-2000 Stylus Pop Count - 190 Holo Cards that appeared on the market
[EDIT]
P.S - I know that @gemmintpokemon has maybe more than 190 and @garyis2000 maybe even more than that, but still nothing comparable to the Unlimited 1999 Base Pop 
2 Likes
@styluspt great point with PSA already recognizing the no rarity set in Japanese as well as the 1999-2000 packs. There is no reason at all PSA arenât recognizing the 1999-2000 cards already given that they are recognizing these two variants listed above. PSA literally has only a handful of columns in their submission form and âyearâ is one of them. 1999-2000 is clearly distinctly different from 1999.
I feel like it is only a matter of time. Once realized, I think the set will then see its full potential when it comes to value. I know every time I submit any 1999-2000 cards I make the note and request for the â1999-2000â designation. Havenât been successful yet, but I donât think it is not a question of if, but when.
@gottaketchumall It will be interesting to see the full potential if PSA recognizes the distinction. With no rarity cards, they have been stagnant since their PSA distinction. In fact most holos are less now than a few years back. But I think Base 2000 will act differently as more people are after English sets.
2 Likes