I know that PSA only grades errors that are repeatable, but I wanted to reach out to them to gauge their interest and thoughts.
They stated:
A card that was produced and released in a way that the manufacturer did not intend, can only be recognized as an error card if there was a mass production of the error. The manufacturer would need to recognize this mass error. Only then does PSA consider a card an error card. In this instance, it looks like it may be a 1 off error. Unfortunately, PSA cannot recognize this as an error card.
They also mentioned that graders will label cards that have been altered post-production (e.g., acetone, adding ink or color, trimming corners, etc.) as Authentic Altered. In this case, the card was not given an AA grade. This would suggest that the graders believed that the card was altered by the manufacturer and not by the consumer.
Given this feedback, I decided to contact CGC about submitting this card for inspection as an error. I hope that they will agree to review the card and provide an expert opinion.
We’ve seen one off errors graded. I’m seeing excuses that aren’t making sense. To be honest psa doesn’t really know how to handle errors properly yet as they are the new boys in town in regards to errors. Cgc has a lot of experience in this field so I’m sure you’ll fair better there.
Honestly, given the pattern and parallel alignment overall of the wear pattern this seems like a card that got scraped at an angle off of a roller towards the end of the print phase, probably when they are stacking the sheets for cutting and packing.
I do not think this is an error, but instead damage - like others, I am interested to see what they say.
Regardless whether it’s an error or not, I never understood why replicable errors would be sought after.
For example, crimped cards. Very easy to replicate or for people to fake.
Blank backs, double printing, upside down backs, etc are pretty much impossible to fake. Miscuts can be faked but only with uncut sheets and I don’t think miscutting cards from a sheet on purpose would be beneficial if they had one (and apparently square corner cutting is better?).
But something like this Charizard is very much in the realm of being replicable. To me, it shouldn’t hold any premium whatsoever.
The majority of the replies in this thread are talking about how to replicate the effect lol.
Even if it’s not known how to achieve the effect right now, the fact that it is in the realm of possibility is alarming. I would hate to see this card get a premium and then see the market flooded with cards with this “streak error”.
It’s like crimp errors. Even if people can’t crimp a card right now exactly how the factory does, it’s very much in the realm of possibility and applying a premium to these cards only incentivizes fraud.
There is a major difference between a genuine error thoroughly investigated by a company and an attempt at recreation by Timmy in his grandma’s basement. The former should be given a premium and the market should acknowledge that errors not confirmed by a reputable company are inherently risky business.
Edit: Wouldn’t this make the legitimate error more desirable? In a sea of fakes, people will pay a premium for the authentic copy. Look at fashion: the existence of knock-offs hasn’t cheapened name brands or made them any less desirable.
Just because you can mimic an error doesn’t mean you can replicate it. I can leave a card out in the sun, it will look like a missing ink layer. If you were to go check if a layer was missing, you’d still see all of them
I think PFM’s comment sums it up perfectly. The fact that someone can leave a card in the sun and demand a premium is problematic. It looks like an error, even if it is not.
If we consider this streak error Charizard a desirable error then expect a lot of counterfeits to be produced, regardless of their realism.
I understand the sentiment, but I don’t see how that really affects the price or desirability of the original error card. Any smart buyer would reserve their money for verified errors. Wouldn’t counterfeits increase the popularity/attention of the original copy?
The error in this case would not be damage, but missing ink and ink smearing. I understand the point, though. If it looks like damage, it may be less desirable to some collectors.
And we’ve spoken ad nauseam about how ridiculous this is.
edit: and do you remember the winner of the charizard sunfaded auction? iirc they posted it on instagram and said they didn’t know if it was a true error or not.
Out of all the pics, this one you shared brings out the best how it would look in person and demonstrates its a printing error. Looking straight on, it could fool you as a damaged card. I think it’s cool and deserves a premium. Maybe not the prettiest error but I’m sure it has some shine.
I just don’t understand how that is relevant though. If an original error copy of the Japanese Base Set Charizard did come out and the error was legitimized by CGC, would it not reach a high premium? I think it would. Mimicked copies are annoying and cloud reality for those with limited knowledge in the error space, but the person with interest in the actual error would be someone with knowledge.
Sorry, it is no longer in my possession. The card is at CGC to be authenticated and then will be sent to my vault at PWCC. If it is indeed an error, maybe CGC will write a blog about it.
I understand the point, though. If it looks like damage, it may be less desirable to some collectors.
