“Ben! You got an Illustrator? That’s so cool! You should take an awkward selfie with it and pretend to eat it and stuff.”
“That’s a great idea!”
I’ll be honest. When I was exchanging these words with Ben on Facebook, I was only half certain he’d actually do it. Leave it to this comedian to deliver the photoshoot of our lives. lol.
I love you Ben. 
awesome card and you made me laugh with the gallery of photos! very cool 
^ Your signature picture is way cool! Just had to say it 
thanks! the original image have a little problem with charizard head… ONE HORN?
archives.bulbagarden.net/wiki/File:Charizard_red_stuff.jpg
I edited the picture to make it right
SWEEEEEEET you did an awesome job. Took a super cool pic from some kind of early Pokemon phone card or something, edited out the background, and fixed Charizard’s horns. Colour me impressed!
Where did you get that? Is it actually the non-glossy version that was released at the 1999 Tropical Mega Battle? Or is it the glossy Trainer Magazine version that was mistakenly inserted into a TMB label instead of the trainer magazine label.
Based on this scan it definitely looks glossy to me.
Curious
There’s actually nothing wrong with it. The original illustration of Charizard had just a single horn. This was lateron changed to put more emphasis to the difference between Charizard and Charmeleon. But yeah this was way back, by that time Clefairy was still planned as the mascot for Pokemon.
Sugimori never fails 
Also notice that the early Charizard in your signature had only two toes whereas the modified one has three
oh right! I’ve never see well the base set pack/ deck package.
many thanks for the information! but why the Charizard inside the japanese base set has 2 horn?
Well I would say it is definitely questionable. I mean obviously the Arita artwork was used in all of the base set editions. If you look at it long enough you could get the impression that it’s just one. However this Charizard has three toes so I’m almost positive that it’s supposed to be two horns. Else it would be a mix of two different illustrations… Without guarantee tho
Everyday worries 
A lot of the original Pokemon received substantial editing through the years, but mostly at its initial stages. I mean Clefairy and Clefable are hardly recognizable, while Pikachu has about halved in weight. The initial Pokemon drawings have a great charm to them, even if they look substantially different from their eventual refined selves.
PSA made a boo-boo.
The fine print at the bottom of the card says it’s from the Trainers Magazine.
EDIT: I see that Jason posted a picture at Pokegym of the glossy and non-glossy cards side by side, and they both indicate at the bottom that they are from the Trainers Magazine.
pokegym.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=54819&c=173
Jason, were those your own cards, or images you found elsewhere? The reason I ask is that there is also a thread here at UPCCC purportedly showing a scan of the non-glossy version, and that card definitely has different text at the bottom.
www.elitefourum.com/t/tropical-mega-battle-tmb-bilingual-exeggutor/10730/1
It seems PSA did make a boo-boo, but I’m not surprised. I was hoping PSA would have put non-glossy on the label when I initially got this graded but it didn’t work out exactly like that. Now the next guy at PSA is probably going to make this mistake a few times.
As for the two versions, they actually both read Trainers Magazine Vol.3 and are identical except for the gloss (or lackthereof). So the only way to distinguish the two is to physically examine the card to see if it is glossy. I wish they would have changed the bottom text.
This is my actual card, and it is non-glossy. I got it directly from a participant of the 1999 Tropical Mega Battle in Hawaii. Again, it’s tough to see the lack of gloss from any sort of scan.
It says the same on the TMB version also… Unfourtunately they are identical except for the fact that one version is glossy and the other one is not. I still believe Jason is right here because this one looks quite a bit darker and that’s what suggests that we have a glossy card here …@daelum probably knows what card he sent
for comparison by courtesy of its proud owner I hope 
e: I guess I’m late 
Yeah, I’m pretty sure PSA messed up. I’m going to contact them and have them change it. That 45 day turn-around allows for a lot of memory loss, so I partially thought “Well, PSA knows what they are doing, and I really don’t so maybe it is non-glossy.” but after looking at the color differences, I myself 100% belief it’s glossy.
Thanks everyone for clarifying. I guess that image posted on the UPCCC was of a prototype. (It says the image came from a CD.) I wonder if the prototype itself was ever actually printed, though. Now, that would be interesting!
This may be a good time to reiterate…after PSA records your order has arrived you can call them and put a “shipping hold” on the order. This will give you time to review the designations once they’re completed. Then if there’s a problem, you simply call and it will quickly be corrected and then the order will ship. I’d say only 2 or 3 days is the delay for corrections which beats the hassle, time, and expense of shipping mistakes back:)
Just wanted to shine light again on this old post that shows the now PSA 10 illustrator in a Papa Johns Pizza box 
