Thick, thin and grey stamp Base Set

[acebren]

@justinator

I threw together a high-quality image over the past 30 minutes to display my understanding of this wonderful phenomenon (haha)

This is what I thought was accurate, but the more I read this thread the more I feel like I’m mistaken and “Thick” vs “Thin” refers to the “Bold” or “not Bold” of the 1.

forgive me for being so lost right now

the ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ are not referring to the amount of ink on the stamp, but the size of the ‘1’

[justinator]

That makes sense then. Thank you

[xuzu]

The names are confusing, it should refer to the ink as that’s what stands out when you look at them.

[azulryu]

@cullers I think it’s a good assumption to say that there are more thick stamps available and everything. But in terms of thick stamps being produced first before thin, what was the confirmation for that? I’m asking because I don’t know. And has it been confirmed before that thick stamps are the type of printing that’s meant to be common-place?

@smpratte

@azulryu

I’ve been wondering about this for a very long time. But has there been any resource information to show if there have been any production differences? For example, was the first print of 1st Ed. Base sets Thick Stamps, and then the 2nd run happened to be Thin Stamps?

Or was it mixed and production timing had no say in the matter for thick, thin, OR gray?

Because if it’s the latter, I don’t think we can call these true variations. There’s nothing to signify that it was done on purpose or that it was produced in a manner that would signify the time of production. Errors/variants by accident? Sure, maybe. But I think in order for them to be recognized as Variants, there has to be some order or purpose to their existence.

Base set 2 is a variant of base set 1. Galaxy holo versus Star holo. You know what I mean?

Initially some people believed there were two different stamps. I asserted that the difference in appearance was likely due to ink pressure. It was confirmed by an ex WOTC employee that they indeed only used one stamp. The difference in ink pressure is currently the accepted reason for the variation in appearance.

I like this discussion because it’s bringing up relevant information about the legitimacy of this kind of thing. So it’s a variant, simple by the pressure. Nothing seems to be uniform then. I think it’s safe to say that rarity is Gray, then Thin, then Thick, but it sounds like it’s speculation based off of observance. Which can definitely imply things. Something about the thick/thin/gray variant rubs me the wrong way as it SEEMS more like an error, a misprint. As if THICK is meant to be uniform, but there’s not consistency in the printing process, but I also find it interesting that it only seems to come up for the base set. Has it shown up for other sets?

As for my implying that it’s not a true variant. I guess I’m running off my own personal idea of a variant. I collect errors and misprints and I enjoy that. But to me, variant means something specific. It implies that a card was printed with purpose and that purpose was showcased properly on the card. This could mean the holo pattern was different, this could mean it was 1st Edition or Unlimited. This could mean non-holo or non-holo. This could mean that there was a different set release and so the dates or codes are different on the bottom of the card.

A stamp that is meant to be uniform but simply isn’t due to pressure difference sounds more like a misprint or error. That’s not a variant to me by MY definition. Even if there’s so much of that error being commonplace.

But everyone is free to operate off their own definition. I just like the idea of having a consistent definition for the sake of my own collection. Because by that definition, every misprint/error that I own in my collection is a variant.

[smpratte]

@azulryu

@cullers I think it’s a good assumption to say that there are more thick stamps available and everything. But in terms of thick stamps being produced first before thin, what was the confirmation for that? I’m asking because I don’t know. And has it been confirmed before that thick stamps are the type of printing that’s meant to be common-place?

@smpratte

Initially some people believed there were two different stamps. I asserted that the difference in appearance was likely due to ink pressure. It was confirmed by an ex WOTC employee that they indeed only used one stamp. The difference in ink pressure is currently the accepted reason for the variation in appearance.

I like this discussion because it’s bringing up relevant information about the legitimacy of this kind of thing. So it’s a variant, simple by the pressure. Nothing seems to be uniform then. I think it’s safe to say that rarity is Gray, then Thin, then Thick, but it sounds like it’s speculation based off of observance. Which can definitely imply things. Something about the thick/thin/gray variant rubs me the wrong way as it SEEMS more like an error, a misprint. As if THICK is meant to be uniform, but there’s not consistency in the printing process, but I also find it interesting that it only seems to come up for the base set. Has it shown up for other sets?

As for my implying that it’s not a true variant. I guess I’m running off my own personal idea of a variant. I collect errors and misprints and I enjoy that. But to me, variant means something specific. It implies that a card was printed with purpose and that purpose was showcased properly on the card. This could mean the holo pattern was different, this could mean it was 1st Edition or Unlimited. This could mean non-holo or non-holo. This could mean that there was a different set release and so the dates or codes are different on the bottom of the card.

A stamp that is meant to be uniform but simply isn’t due to pressure difference sounds more like a misprint or error. That’s not a variant to me by MY definition. Even if there’s so much of that error being commonplace.

But everyone is free to operate off their own definition. I just like the idea of having a consistent definition for the sake of my own collection. Because by that definition, every misprint/error that I own in my collection is a variant.

You are raising a valid point Devin! In fact, there are still collectors who do not acknowledge “thick/thin/grey” as an actual distinction. I used to share some of that sentiment, but then realized it is a collectors term that does have quantifiable/legitimate reasons.

The entire situation boils down to observation. There was a critical discussion on it years ago, which ultimately led to an ex WOTC employee confirming only one stamp. The most reasonable explanation is that the base set was the first set for WOTC. You can correctly judge that they were developing a standard for pokemon, as the base set is full of the most errors and different card templates.

The distinction between “thick/thin/grey” is ultimately an educated guess. However, there are quantifiable differences in quantity, for example, there have been a handful of “thin” uncommon and common cards confirmed. The numbers are absurdly low, which can be correctly stated. However, in relation to what Gary mentioned, he is only sharing his experience in pull rates. I would echo his experience knowing how the cards were printed. Also, one could deduce that the thick was used first, and the thin used later as the thin was the standard that followed. This of course is not documentation or some sort of definitive source, then again, we don’t have that for majority of sets.

[missingno]

@justinator

I threw together a high-quality image over the past 30 minutes to display my understanding of this wonderful phenomenon (haha)

Attachment Deleted

This is what I thought was accurate, but the more I read this thread the more I feel like I’m mistaken and “Thick” vs “Thin” refers to the “Bold” or “not Bold” of the 1.

forgive me for being so lost right now

This is what im going by, makes more sense.

[e2d2]

@missingno

@justinator

I threw together a high-quality image over the past 30 minutes to display my understanding of this wonderful phenomenon (haha)

Attachment Deleted

This is what I thought was accurate, but the more I read this thread the more I feel like I’m mistaken and “Thick” vs “Thin” refers to the “Bold” or “not Bold” of the 1.

forgive me for being so lost right now

This is what im going by, makes more sense.

When reading about this topic, I add “one” after the words thick and thin to keep it straight.

So I’ll read it like: thick (one) stamp vs. thin (one) stamp, and it’s been less confusing

[patriotsfan117]

@e2d2

@missingno

This is what im going by, makes more sense.

When reading about this topic, I add “one” after the words thick and thin to keep it straight.

So I’ll read it like: thick (one) stamp vs. thin (one) stamp, and it’s been less confusing

The way I see it is this: When looking for printer ink at a store, would you ask them for “thin” ink or “thick” ink? I was a bit confused at first too, but it wouldn’t make sense to ask for thick or thin ink haha. So it makes it easier to remember that this refers to the number 1 in the stamp.

[pokemonsyndicate]

When I first started buying 1st ed base set, I was very paranoid and managed to nab out a few people who were selling fake 1st ed stamp pokemoon holo’s, and I reported them and went nuts at them through messages. The times man…

I Managed to notice and I was damn pretty sure that there is 2 types of 1st ed Thick stamp… If I can dig up my photobz of my observations, then I could show you the things… It is probably just dew to the way the photo was taken that I noticed this though… Im going to get 2 photos of base set 1st ed thick off ebay and see if I can show you all my ancient findings.

Edit: I can’t find charizard authorities old photob of His nido king and a couple of other holos he had in his store for many moons…
But he has a machamp and a Magneton and The machamp is thick, but the magneton 1 is much thicker… MUHAHAHAHAH 2 TYPES OF THICKNESS CONFIRMED! Unless one photo is just wider than the other. Me and old rusty had a conversation about this along time ago when I was buying lots of shit from him… Those were the mc Daynens… What do you think of my findings @garyis2000

HOLD ON A SECOND THE MACHAMP IS THIN I THINK… iLL GO FIND ANOTHER THICK ONE LOL…

Edit2: LOOK THE 1 IS WAY DIFFERENT ON THE GYARADOS AND LESS THICK/ MORE RETARDED THEN THE 1 ON THE MAGNETON… ILLUMINATI CONDIRMED! I Have had too much crack in my time, and I hope you can all learn from this and take this knowledge I have bestowed upon you for the good of yourselves and your sanity. I swear the stub part of the one is different to the magnemites bottom part and the top part of the 1 is much thicker on the magnemite than the gyarados.

[justinator]

@patriotsfan117

The way I see it is this: When looking for printer ink at a store, would you ask them for “thin” ink or “thick” ink? I was a bit confused at first too, but it wouldn’t make sense to ask for thick or thin ink haha. So it makes it easier to remember that this refers to the number 1 in the stamp.

I get what you’re saying but that wouldn’t work for me as I was referring to the thickness of the stamp itself (ie harder press, more ink) not the thickness of the ink

[missingno]

The “thick” 1 stamp, looks better in that case.

[cullers]

@azulryu

@cullers I think it’s a good assumption to say that there are more thick stamps available and everything. But in terms of thick stamps being produced first before thin, what was the confirmation for that? I’m asking because I don’t know. And has it been confirmed before that thick stamps are the type of printing that’s meant to be common-place?

@smpratte

Initially some people believed there were two different stamps. I asserted that the difference in appearance was likely due to ink pressure. It was confirmed by an ex WOTC employee that they indeed only used one stamp. The difference in ink pressure is currently the accepted reason for the variation in appearance.

I like this discussion because it’s bringing up relevant information about the legitimacy of this kind of thing. So it’s a variant, simple by the pressure. Nothing seems to be uniform then. I think it’s safe to say that rarity is Gray, then Thin, then Thick, but it sounds like it’s speculation based off of observance. Which can definitely imply things. Something about the thick/thin/gray variant rubs me the wrong way as it SEEMS more like an error, a misprint. As if THICK is meant to be uniform, but there’s not consistency in the printing process, but I also find it interesting that it only seems to come up for the base set. Has it shown up for other sets?

As for my implying that it’s not a true variant. I guess I’m running off my own personal idea of a variant. I collect errors and misprints and I enjoy that. But to me, variant means something specific. It implies that a card was printed with purpose and that purpose was showcased properly on the card. This could mean the holo pattern was different, this could mean it was 1st Edition or Unlimited. This could mean non-holo or non-holo. This could mean that there was a different set release and so the dates or codes are different on the bottom of the card.

A stamp that is meant to be uniform but simply isn’t due to pressure difference sounds more like a misprint or error. That’s not a variant to me by MY definition. Even if there’s so much of that error being commonplace.

But everyone is free to operate off their own definition. I just like the idea of having a consistent definition for the sake of my own collection. Because by that definition, every misprint/error that I own in my collection is a variant.

I never said there were more of one variant vs the other, I wouldn’t know that.

There isn’t confirmation for which one was first that I can recall. An educated guess is the best I have. The Wizards cards after Base Set, as well as shadowed Machamps never had a Thick stamp. It would make sense that Wizards would have changed the pressure used as a final tweaking process and never looked back.

To me having two different print runs is everything in collecting. It’s the same with 1999-2000 cards vs regular unlimited, it’s a small change but that’s all that’s needed. If there was a way to tell the difference between the second-seventh print I guarantee you people would have 8 (10, read the next paragraph to understand) different base set cards. It’s pretty much in the collector job description.

If you want to get technical, shadowless, 1st edition thin, and 1st edition thick stamps were all the first print run. Which means there’s no print run but a stamp run that creates the difference. The first stamped cards (thick), the second stamped cards (thin), then the Shadowless.

[azulryu]

@cullers Sorry, that first sentence was a little bit more of a reply to something that Gary had said. I shouldn’t have started it out that way. Haha.

And that’s a unique and legitimate way to recognize these as variants. So the distinction is in the print run. I can see that as one way of possibly legitimizing the collection of both thick and thin. Though that still stands to question grey stamps, but I’m guessing that’s possibly why you didn’t mention it.

@smpratte

@azulryu

@cullers I think it’s a good assumption to say that there are more thick stamps available and everything. But in terms of thick stamps being produced first before thin, what was the confirmation for that? I’m asking because I don’t know. And has it been confirmed before that thick stamps are the type of printing that’s meant to be common-place?

I like this discussion because it’s bringing up relevant information about the legitimacy of this kind of thing. So it’s a variant, simple by the pressure. Nothing seems to be uniform then. I think it’s safe to say that rarity is Gray, then Thin, then Thick, but it sounds like it’s speculation based off of observance. Which can definitely imply things. Something about the thick/thin/gray variant rubs me the wrong way as it SEEMS more like an error, a misprint. As if THICK is meant to be uniform, but there’s not consistency in the printing process, but I also find it interesting that it only seems to come up for the base set. Has it shown up for other sets?

As for my implying that it’s not a true variant. I guess I’m running off my own personal idea of a variant. I collect errors and misprints and I enjoy that. But to me, variant means something specific. It implies that a card was printed with purpose and that purpose was showcased properly on the card. This could mean the holo pattern was different, this could mean it was 1st Edition or Unlimited. This could mean non-holo or non-holo. This could mean that there was a different set release and so the dates or codes are different on the bottom of the card.

A stamp that is meant to be uniform but simply isn’t due to pressure difference sounds more like a misprint or error. That’s not a variant to me by MY definition. Even if there’s so much of that error being commonplace.

But everyone is free to operate off their own definition. I just like the idea of having a consistent definition for the sake of my own collection. Because by that definition, every misprint/error that I own in my collection is a variant.

You are raising a valid point Devin! In fact, there are still collectors who do not acknowledge “thick/thin/grey” as an actual distinction. I used to share some of that sentiment, but then realized it is a collectors term that does have quantifiable/legitimate reasons.

The entire situation boils down to observation. There was a critical discussion on it years ago, which ultimately led to an ex WOTC employee confirming only one stamp. The most reasonable explanation is that the base set was the first set for WOTC. You can correctly judge that they were developing a standard for pokemon, as the base set is full of the most errors and different card templates.

The distinction between “thick/thin/grey” is ultimately an educated guess. However, there are quantifiable differences in quantity, for example, there have been a handful of “thin” uncommon and common cards confirmed. The numbers are absurdly low, which can be correctly stated. However, in relation to what Gary mentioned, he is only sharing his experience in pull rates. I would echo his experience knowing how the cards were printed. Also, one could deduce that the thick was used first, and the thin used later as the thin was the standard that followed. This of course is not documentation or some sort of definitive source, then again, we don’t have that for majority of sets.

Well said. And thank you for clarifying some of those details for me, they make a lot of sense. I guess the variations still don’t stand as true variants to me, but like I said, other’s have the right to their own definitions and their own collections. I’m far from as advanced in the collector’s world as some of you guys are. And that being said, I’m obviously going to still collect these. This was a lot of useful information and though I guess I stand on the opposite side of this discussion, I will admit that the term does have quantifiable and legitimate reasons to be called a variant. Just not by my preference. And that’s perfectly fine!

[01hawkowner]

Acebren i’d rather keep them for now. Question for everyone. So it looks like I have a thin 1, thick 1, and grey stamp. Is that correct? It sounds like the thin 1’s are rarer thick 1’s. I have like 6 thin 1 holos then including charizard. If the thick 1’s came first shouldn’t they be rarer? It seems like the thin 1 was standard after the base set and they stopped using the thick 1 or worked out the printer/ink issues etc. Let me know if the anyone needs a closer up picture. Couldn’t get the best on my phone.

[shizzlemetimbers]

@01hawkowner

Acebren i’d rather keep them for now. Question for everyone. So it looks like I have a thin 1, thick 1, and grey stamp. Is that correct? It sounds like the thin 1’s are rarer thick 1’s. I have like 6 thin 1 holos then including charizard. If the thick 1’s came first shouldn’t they be rarer? It seems like the thin 1 was standard after the base set and they stopped using the thick 1 or worked out the printer/ink issues etc. Let me know if the anyone needs a closer up picture. Couldn’t get the best on my phone.

Yes your picture shows thick, thin and grey from left to right.
The distinction of rarity between thick and thin is negligible, but thick stamps are more valuable on the secondary market. Possibly to do with collectors wanting a cohesive thick stamp all throughout the base set from common, uncommon, trainer, holo etc.

[KingPokemon]

@01hawkowner

Acebren i’d rather keep them for now. Question for everyone. So it looks like I have a thin 1, thick 1, and grey stamp. Is that correct? It sounds like the thin 1’s are rarer thick 1’s. I have like 6 thin 1 holos then including charizard. If the thick 1’s came first shouldn’t they be rarer? It seems like the thin 1 was standard after the base set and they stopped using the thick 1 or worked out the printer/ink issues etc. Let me know if the anyone needs a closer up picture. Couldn’t get the best on my phone.
Attachment Deleted

The thick stamps are in much shorter supply.

[acebren]

@01hawkowner

Acebren i’d rather keep them for now. Question for everyone. So it looks like I have a thin 1, thick 1, and grey stamp. Is that correct? It sounds like the thin 1’s are rarer thick 1’s. I have like 6 thin 1 holos then including charizard. If the thick 1’s came first shouldn’t they be rarer? It seems like the thin 1 was standard after the base set and they stopped using the thick 1 or worked out the printer/ink issues etc. Let me know if the anyone needs a closer up picture. Couldn’t get the best on my phone.

some beautiful cards you got there… why not make a collection thread to show off what you’ve got?