Machamp def looks thick to me, i own a +15 copy and i have no idea what sheet they were on unless there were thick and thin versions of the later shadowless sheets. Hes one of the coolest cards because he really shows how they “evolved”. Took a little while but i tracked down a thick stamp with -15
Hmm yeah… on second look, you all could be right, could be a thinner but still thick stamp. Def. agree Machamp is very interesting then because of all the variations over time.
This would align with the theory that there were different printers/facilities. As printer queues became filled or prices became competitive elsewhere, WoTC may have entertained a variety of printer contracts as demand fluctuated.
This is very interesting, but it’s possible that each of these orders were put in around the same date (3-6 months beforehand) and only differ on print out time due to how queue latency worked (e.g., first-in-first-out).
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that thick stamps are the first stamps based on the dates of a few sheets that we have collated. They may have been printed first in this specific instance, but it remains possible that all runs were ordered at the same time (or intended to be printed at the same time) to meet expected demand and different printers/facilities got to it at different rates.
Is it possible to remove the 1st ed stamp? If the thin stamps are just stamped shadowless cards they won’t have the printed “E ITION” as discussed before. Maybe some thin stamps can be sacrificed for science.
It would be hilarious if the first stamp “fakes” was produced by WOTC themselves
Interesting that your Base Set 2 holo is -15, mine is +15 and here are other Gyarados results:
-Base Set 2000: +15
-Legendary: +15
-Legendary Reverse: +15
-Base Set Spanish: +15
-Base Set Deutch: +15
-Base Set French: +15
-Base Set German: +15
-Base Set Italian: +15 (1st) -15 (unl Cosmos, thought to be from booster pack as a Galaxy variant exist, but maybe it’s the other way around)
-Base Set Chinese: +15
-Base Set Korean: +15
-Base Set Portuguese: +15
If you can remove the stamp without damaging the card then the stamp is fake👍, they are still ink
Could be, but with the evidence it looks more like they under printed the foils and put stamps on normal later print shadowless to cover a screw up. Looks pretty clear but i plan to keep looking for more. Theres alot in shadowless i havent found.
The patterns get to a point where they start to fall apart, ive only been looking at base through fossil. Havent tried much starting to make sense of anything after just yet, only looked a bit to see that certain printing attributes continue.
Theres an argument that what ive been looking out is unreliable but for the period im looking at it seems pretty consistent and predictable.
Something I’ve been wondering for a while is:
Why can’t real stamps be removed/cleaned off while fake stamps can (if both are ink)? Is there a layer over the stamp for real 1st ed cards that protects the stamp?
If one could show that thin stamp cards lack the printed “E ITION” underneath, that would be good evidence that those are just stamped shadowless versions. But I guess separating the stamp from the (potential) “E ITION” is more or less impossible
Another way to tell without destroying a card might be to check 3D stamps?
If anyone has 3D thin stamps, wouldn’t that point to the misaligned ‘e ition’ being present below the stamp top layer?
I could be wrong, but I think all 3D stamps are thick stamps. I always assumed thin stamps used more ink/pressed harder and thus never created the 3D effect, but maybe the printed layer is not even there
Fake stamp electrode i sadly acquired. You can see the ink rubs right off. I believe they coat the cards so good chance they do that after applying stamps
I always assumed it was down to the amount of ink too, but you’re right, it could be that there’s just nothing underneath.
If any thin stamp 3D copies exist, I’m sure someone here on the forum has one!
Yeah it has to be some coating right? I know fake stamps are quite easy to remove but never understood why real stamps are much more “protected”
Yeah exactly, and if they exist that would disprove the theory that regular shadowless cards were used for thin stamps.
But maybe the reason the thin stamps was pressed harder/used more ink was because the printed layer was missing and WOTC kind of overcompensated with the stamp instead
Ampm pokemon did a video on printing and talks about the ink and clearcoat on cards
My assumption to this is because fake stamps are applied onto a clear coat varnish of an already finished product whereas real stamps are applied before the final protective layer is applied
it’s the same reason why severe edge wear is found on the rear of vintage cards much more commonly than on the fronts. The front is protected
you could take a pack fresh 1st ed card, place it in a binder for 20 years, and then pull it out to find that the front is still psa10 quality while the back suffers severe edgewear from the pressure/torque applied to the card over the years
WOTC cheaped out on the rear of the cards to save time and money. hence why japanese vintage cards tend to hold up so much better over time
Ok, I had some free time haha and the Shadowless Machamp question kept bothering me. Namely, what is the pattern for Shadowless Machamp and what variations are there?
TLDR, I think there 3:
- “Smaller” D Thick stamp and -15 back (i.e., the D is skinnier and may appear a bit smaller compared to the other letters in “EDITION”). Only ones w/ -15 backs!:
- “Normal” D Thick stamp and +15 back (i.e., the D is the same size and thickness as the other letters in “EDITION”):
- Thin stamp w/ +15 back (no variations in the thickness of the D, these are good ol’ thin stamps):
This comes from looking at a bunch of sold shadowless Machamps on Fanatics Collect (lol) which will often have enough resolution to determine +/- 15 backs:
“Smaller” D Thick stamp and -15 back:
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 10 GEM MINT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 7.5 NRMT+ on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 8 NM-MT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 BGS 9.5 GEM MINT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 10 GEM MINT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 5 EX on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 6.5 EXMT+ on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 6.5 EXMT+ on Fanatics Collect
“Normal” D Thick stamp and +15 back (these also tend to have less thick "1"s, probably due to pressure differences as others previously determined):
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 8 NM-MT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 10 GEM MINT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 5 EX on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 9 MINT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 9 MINT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 8 NM-MT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 8 NM-MT on Fanatics Collect
Thin stamp and +15 back:
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 6.5 EXMT+ on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 8 NM-MT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 6.5 EXMT+ on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 8.5 NM-MT+ on Fanatics Collect
- Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 PSA 9 MINT on Fanatics Collect
- 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Holo Machamp #8 CGC 8.5 NM-MT+ on Fanatics Collect
Sometimes it’s a bit of a judgement call on what is thick vs thin (but I feel like it still ends up usually being pretty clear), but I haven’t found a case that doesn’t fall into these 3 buckets so far.
Ok, now, bear with me…, but I think the potentially even more interesting conclusion here (to me) is that thick stamp shadowless holos should potentially always exhibit a “smaller/skinnier” D stamp (in addition to having -15 backs) (just like the shadowless Machamps we’ve seen above w/ -15 backs). Given that they all were likely stamped and cut from the same sheet. The non-Machamp thick stamp shadowless holos I’ve seen so far (from Fanatics or otherwise) all support this hypothesis.
For non-holo shadowless cards, it looks like there are both smaller and normal-size "D"s in the stamps (although it’s sometimes difficult to tell because of the frequent misaligned “3D effect”). For example:
- “Smaller” D Thick stamp Starmie: 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Starmie #64 PSA 8 NM-MT on Fanatics Collect
- “Normal” D Thick stamp Poliwhirl: 1999 Pokemon Base Set Shadowless 1st Edition Poliwhirl #38 PSA 9 MINT on Fanatics Collect
So some non-holo shadowless thick stamps seem to match up with the “Normal D Thick stamp and +15 back” shadowless Machamps. This makes sense! They all have +15 backs so Shadowless Machamps printed with +15 backs should share similar looking stamps with at least some of the non-holo shadowless cards given their shared printer(s).
Putting my speculation hat on, in addition to adding more datapoints supporting the +/-15 theory and categorizing shadowless machamps, this shows to me that non-holo thick stamps probably have some slight noticeable variations by printer. I think at least for the +15 back shadowless printer(s), stamp pressure may have been dialed-in in phases (or on diff. machines) given all the slight stamp thickness variations we see in how thin or thick the “D” is. And by the time more shadowless machamps were called for… it looks like they were all made with “thick stamps” of the variety with “Normal” Ds. And then after that (Or maybe before??), the switch was made to thin stamps…
If you made it through that - thanks haha. Would be interested in counterexamples or support to any of the above!
My understanding is the angle of the magenta is determined by the “printer” that casts the printing plates. Still not a professional on those completely. Updates to the printers would have been a reson that the angles would occasionally change. I have seen alot of machamps and hard to tell whats what. I have one with a far left stamp and ive only seen similar on a neo magneton. Ive also seen “4th print” machamps with a -15 back. Should have one in a week, if not ill be disputing a refund with ebay.