Getting PSA to Recognize/Label Sets/Errors

The point of this thread is to compile a list of known errors, sets, or cards that PSA does not currently recognize or have in the set registry and share experiences with trying to get them to do so. I’ll update this post with more errors and sets as we go. Please chime in if I need to add or correct something as I only know so much. I’m also open to ideas for how I can better structure this. For now I just want to get started and list a couple items with rough draft descriptions.

1999 POKEMON UK (4th Print, UK Base Set, 1999-2000)-Can be obtained from “Made in the UK” Base Set Boosters
-1999-2000 copyright date in the bottom right of each card
-Lighter color tone similar to other language variants besides English
-Mostly distributed in Europe

This is a big one that keeps getting brought up for good reason. I believe the correct labeling should follow suit with the many languages of Base Set such as Chinese, Korean, Dutch, Spanish, etc. With those they label them “1999 POKEMON [insert language here]”
I do think it would be cool to have the label say 1999-2000 or 4th Print but realistically that will probably be a harder task since many of the other languages are 1999-2000 dated and 4th Print is essentially a made up term.

[Pictures to be posted here]
-Can be obtained from 1st Edition Jungle booster packs
-Missing blotch of ink above the 1st Edition symbol that looks like a scratch
-Only on some of the 1st Edition holo Pinsir cards from the Jungle set

-The 1st Edition non holo variant with the Base Set art on it


-Only on the Shadowless version
-Missing “80” damage


Good job elf…

1 Like

Since PSA distinguishes the packs for 1999-2000 Base Set but not the cards, it seems to me they will not distinguish the cards anytime soon, they would have come across a lot more 1999-2000 cards than packs. Not sure the reason why as there is very solid documentation.

A big one for me that most people may not agree with is the 1st ed Base Set grey stamps. In an ideal world I would like these cards to have a designation but understand that it most likely will never happen. But it does provide a relatively common enough variation to the premier English set

I believe the fossil 3rd Print or 1999-2000 also does not have a designation.

1 Like

On the go so doing this in the most bootleg way possible but i can definitely help with this and didn’t want to forget to come back later.

Yes, that’s a link to audio of me talking.

1 Like

Such a nice clear recording.

But isn’t the problem with they not grading alternate prints (non holo promo’s) because they use the wrong info source?

I didn’t want to reply to this thread earlier, but what info sources does PSA use? If it’s just Bulbapedia, Serebii and Pokellector I understand they do not recognize the variants. Bulbapedia has a nice load of information but for the 4th Print/Australian print of Base, Jungle, Fossil it’s really just one line of text. No image proof, and not enough reference material (like other websites, comparable cards) and then it’s just easier to slap on 1999 Base Set, because that’s what it is.

IF the above websites are the only sources they use, I really don’t know how often PSA lurks eFour or reaches out to people like Rusty, Gary, Scott and the other high profilers, isn’t it up to us than to first; make sure Bulbapedia is kept up to date and has enough cross-reference material on there? Which is a problem, because it’s a Wiki and those are free to be edited by anyone and have really poor (sorry Wiki fans) text formatting.

I can understand PSA will not recognize the Pinsir error as a different label, because it’s a Pinsir with a print defect that happens to appear more often and just on Pinsir. But not recognizing a non-holo variant just due to it not being properly labelled on all the common websites is maybe due to us (the hobby) not providing the right info.

Also, will people start sending in cards to PSA to let them recase them with 4th Print labels once it’s all cleared?

Well, they aren’t just looking at Bulbapedia because I’ve written for Bulbapedia and they’ve still rejected some of my cards.

I’m going by the PSA booth in Chicago this weekend if we can formalize this by Friday. The Set Registry dinner is tonight in Chicago, so I assume most of their team will be at the booth.

A few that stick out (some are pushing it):

  • No Damage Ninetales
  • Neo Rev Holo Bleed errors (at least the main 6)
  • Corrected Blaine’s Charizard
  • 1st ed/shadowless Dragonair with missing text over “number”
  • Thick vs Thin Base Holos
  • The Corrected Rocket’s Minefield - It’s a Gym Challenge card (place damage counters vs 2 damage counters)
  • Jungle Meowth with the Print Defect “circle” on the border. I have 6 TCA has 3 or 4.
  • Heart Clefairy
  • Cigar Hitmonlee
  • Corrected Fossil Zapdos on unl print run

These are only WOTC and most of what I know relates to the holofoils.



Only mentioned what hasn’t already been mentioned.

because if you leave grey stamperbz out, i will be inclined to make things happen with violence.
1 Like

I had been trying to get them to recognize the Ninetales missing damage error for some time without success. I sent them plenty of documentation including three copies to grade as well and the final response I got was “PSA does not recognize this error/variety/misprint on label . . . [and] cannot add something to a set that PSA does not designate.” This seemed like such an easy/obvious one too. Maybe someone speaking with someone from PSA in person would have better luck :blush:

I don’t think the neo rev cards really deserve designation but the rest all do imo. You could also include the smear haunter as well?

Edit: thick/thin I’m also not so sure of.

Makes no sense. They contradict themselves here because they DO recognize errors on the labels such as Fight Symbol Diglett or No Stage Blastoise.
And with a 10 pulling 6500 and the card being listed in the July SMR price guide, surely it’s the right move to label it.

1 Like

There’s a lot in here I know nothing about so I’ll need to go through it again when I really have the time to look each card up individually. Thanks for the contribution though. I will be updating the list with your mentions eventually.

I think at least for the 6 Neo Rev cards the holo pattern is noticeably different. There’s holofoil on Ho-oh’s wings, Misdreavus’ eyes, actual holofoil on Crobat, lol. PSA designates differences for Cosmos and Cracked Ice variants which is the closest step to aligning the differences. I think with any unlabeled or error card consistency is key. A card with 25+ copies and a true price premium should be in the discussion for a unique label.

I agree with Haunter Smear.

Thick/Thin is stretching it, but there’s still a difference. Set’s on the registry even designate between the two. I believe this is a long shot and will likely only be separated by collectors.

Is this new on
Note: Please keep in mind that, in some cases, PSA started recognizing certain varieties within specific sets long after the company began grading the issue. As a result, some of the population data may not reflect accurate numbers since there may have been significant amounts of cards graded before PSA began noting the variety on the PSA label and in the PSA database. As more and more hobbyists re-holder their previously-graded cards to reflect the new information, the more accurate the data will become.

I’ve never seen it before, could it indicate something?


PSA Pokemon is maturing :wink:

I noticed that too but wasn’t sure when it was put up. People say PSA doesn’t add new labels for certain cards because there has been too many already encapsulated but Pokemon is still in it’s infancy if you ask me and that note on the site sounds promising. Over time I think these unique cards will earn their place in collections and registries alike. Variants, errors, and unique cards keep collecting interesting and they add different levels of rarity to a card that might be fairly common otherwise.

Any updates on this?