This is beyond strange. A few thoughts and questions:
This card is not a holo bleed copy.
Why would PSA now start to recognize this variant?
Why would PSA use “double holo” as a term when that is not how the error results?
Holo bleed exists when portions of the white base layer are either missing, the ink is spread too thin, or the white ink mixture is less opaque than normal. Cards do not have a second holo layer, as suggested by the “double holo” misnomer.
Evidence toward the ink thickness/opaqueness hypothesis:
Some cards have an intermediate amount of holo bleed. If parts of the white base layer were taken out purposefully by design staff (e.g., changing the design of the card itself), there would only be two variants. But we regularly see cards that fall in between that do not “pop” as much as the full holo bleed variants.
Here are examples:
Normal Copy
The cosmos holo pattern is only found in between the rocks on the ocean floor and on the fins of the Magikarp in the background. The rocks block the cosmos pattern from coming through.
The cosmos holo pattern is found in between the rocks on the ocean floor, on the Magikarp bodies and fins, and on top of the rocks. But no holo pattern is visible on the top portion of the card.
Perhaps the submitter wrote a comment to the staff to add this to the label? Labels are researched and printed by a different department than the grading department.
PSA may want to compete with CGC for TCG error marketshare, but I worry that they don’t have the staff to properly oversee it.
My understanding is that when PSA adds a variant to the pop report, the sender simply needs to select it on the form to get that variant label printed out. I don’t believe that the Research & ID department does a thorough enough check and balance to ensure that normal cards are not given the variant label.
We’re also seeing this with normal Fossil holos getting the “Incomplete Holo Error” designation because submitters either purposefully select the variant so that it will sell for more in auction or accidentally select the variant without understanding what it means.
I am against this, mostly because I haven’t finished my set yet and worry the extra attention will make it harder
But also, for some of the cards it’s so hard to tell which is the ‘error’ version, even in person. I don’t know if it’s the grader or research people who identify it (I suspect they just refer to the submission form), but when they regularly mislabel cards anyway I personally have no confidence in trusting the label over my own eyes.
Something else that’s been on my mind lately is if it is definitively the error (both Japanese and European languages have a holo pattern somewhere between the two English variants). It’s also significantly more common in unlimited. Currently I lean towards yes, because Ho-Oh especially looks over the top, and you can see the shape of holo not covered.
@Dyl is saying that the “double holo” is a misnomer because the amount of holo material in the card is the same, there is no “additional holo layer”. And his preferred name is a “holo bleed”.
I think holo bleed is a slightly better term but still a bit misleading. More specifically, a holo bleed happens when the white layer that blocks out which parts of the card should be holo/non-holo is not printed on thick enough. This causes a bit of the holofoil to bleed through the entire card.
I believe these cards were printed under different parameters. The printer was fed different information about how to print the white underlayer. You could argue these are more “variants” than “errors” in the same way blue/green wing charizord is not an “error”.
This is pretty speculative but I think there’s a chance that it has to do with the semi-holo parts of the cards. For example, there are parts of the houndoom that are 100% non holo, such as the head and the text area. There are parts that are 100% holo, like the sky. But there is a gradient between the sky and the clouds that is semi-holo (the white underlayer is not painted on at 100% opacity).
My hypothesis is that these areas of the card that are 1% to 99% holo were rounded up to 100%. In other words, all of the semi-holo regions were printed as 100% holographic. It could be a software mistake when the card layers were being designed, or maybe one of the printers wasn’t capable of printing a spot layer with a gradient?
Anyway I am just not a fan of the “double holo” name just as “fourth print” is not a great name for the UK base set. Since this is the first “double holo” I’ve seen, PSA has a 100% mislabel rate so far.
I totally feel this is the right explanation and I really like your theory.
It could be due to printer limitations or some experimental change, but they’re both variants not ‘errors’, since imho it’s pretty evident the intentional thought behind.
There is no evidence that these were intentional changes, just that different variants exist. Whether the variants were caused by a worker (e.g., changing the design) or a printer (e.g., differences in ink opacity or thickness) and whether the changes were purposeful or accidental is not known.
I submitted my Houndoom through the Sub center in the UK with a comment of ‘double holo error’ on the submission form. I don’t know how much attention PSA pay to actually looking over the card to verify this or they just put on the label what has been requested - which isn’t great.
Here is my actual ‘double holo’ or whatever we want to call it.
