Does anyone have 1st edition Base set cards, and the pack they were ripped from. Trying to solve a Base set mystery.
I believe there are 2 distinct print runs of 1st edition Base set booster packs. What I call “blue stamp” and “black stamp”.
My hypothesis is that blue stamp are the real first print run, and black stamp are the later second print run. One should contain thick and one thin 1st edition stamps.
It will cost $10k to test this, so much easier if someone has the data already!
I back up the hypothesis with the fact that black triangle error, and no black triangle packs have pure black stamps.
This is one thing that may remain a mystery, but would be cool to see if true. Im finding it difficult to not just see another variation of error pack though, but Ive not seen many of the packs with the black ink missing to give proper feedback (if the pack background is whats making it blue). Let me know what you discover though!
I was thinking the black was layered on the stamp, and the blue underneath was just the pack background without a stamp, so thats my fault for that misunderstanding.
I wasnt aware that the entire stamp was blue. I was just curious how one would figure out how its not just another error where during a print run they accidentally had some blue mixed in somehow. It seems like you would almost need to have a time machine for accuracy to prove it.
Can you help me understand your process of proving it when you have the evidence you need? I need more information myself as I am a glutton for learning new things Im interested in. Im sure others have thoughts too.
That’s the whole point of the post. I don’t want to spend $20k on ripping two heavy packs to determine if the hypothesis is accurate or not.
There is video evidence of some rips but it’s rarely clear enough to determine.
I still haven’t had anyone from WOTC or friends be able to talk about packs. The data doesn’t seem to exist, but I think it is a decent guide. It works well for Japanese packs and finding error/banned/corrected cards.
People chase decks to identify specific cards, but nobody seems to have any data on packs.
The green circle are 1st ed shadowless showing the 3 piles above. A and B have the same card backs. B and C have the same front borders but different backs. These wouldve been printed late 98. The 2 cards in the red circle are “USA 4th print” from the 2 biggest variations of usa print. I dont think its a coincidence they match perfectly.
To put it in perspective, these are how my shadowless compare to first editions with ink pattern. The ones that glow on the back seem to be the most scarce for this card pool. I have about 3-400 more i could check but im not unsleeving my decks and unloading my binder for this until i have my sights set on answering a specific question. For the “C” pile, it appears to be exclusively a Zap theme deck in my collection, likely my brother’s original one.
@packyman looks like the first editions with traps seem to be the ones that have the copyright on the blackplate for trainers and DCE. The trainers with solid stamps(Big D?) have the actual printed text copyright.
A- 2/3 have black plate copyright
B- 1/7 has black plate copyright(its also grey stamp)
C- 3/3 have black plate copyright
based on my shadowless pool, id say the A pile was the more recent stuff, likely the 2nd print run introducing thin stamp foils. Not much to go off of here though with such a small card pool. There could be alot of different printers mixed in with that big pile too, i do see very SLIGHT variation among them but nothing showing them actually being different. My cards are all MP/HP so surface wear could be a factor. definitely don’t think its coincidence 2 of these piles match the 2 biggest printers of 2000…
I know someone who recently opened a 1st Ed Base pack, with a blue stamp, and they pulled a holo. I have followed-up and asked if it’s thin or thick stamp.
My curiosity got the better of me and I had a bit of spare time on my hands…so I watched a few PokeRev 1st Ed Base pack openings. Generally the video quality is good enough to distinguish the variables. It’s quite a mixed bag…
