I actually need some clarity on thick vs thin stamp.
I’ve searched old threads back to 2015 and a few others that have talked about thin and thick stamp but was unable to find guide on it.
Can someone please provide a zoom in picture or scan on an example of the thick stamp and then a zoom in on a thin stamp.
Observing the stamps on my 1st ed cards, i notice some of them almost have 3d lettering on the word edition. Has anyone else observed this, and then on some the edition word is solid.
Update: I found sufficient information to gain the clarity i needed. Still wouldn’t hurt if someone had some good scans or zoom in of thick vs thin.
On another note, has anyone else noticed 3d letting on some letters for 1st ediiton stamp and then some stamps not having 3d lettering. Can provide pics later to show what i mean.
I’ve got a few of the 3D lettering cards. I think it’s a stamp pressure thing. Can’t say I’m very fond of it tbh.
Ok cool. I wonder if hardcore collectors will create a new sub category. 3d stamp…
What sufficent info did you find?
Left to right: Grey, Thick and Thin stamps:
As for the E_ITION stamping i’m still confused on it. But for some hints look at the “Ghost Stamp” Pikachu card. As that’s basically that E_ITION alignment stamp without the completed 1st EDITION.
Most new collectors are confused by the thin stamp because it looks darker so they assume its the thick one.
Thick = Fat ‘1’ Thin ‘D’
Thin = Thin ‘1’ Fat ‘D’
So there are 4 variations? Normal, Gray, Thick, and Thin. Or is the thick stamp the normal stamp? I’ve also seen different shades of gray on those first edition stamps, so i feel there is also variations within gray stamps.
Right… “Bold” text equals thicker font, but for some reason in this case the “thin” #1 means that it’s the bold stamp. The nomenclature is a little counter intuitive to the community but I suppose it’s too late to change it now 
Just 3 in my opinion.
And I’ve only really seen 1 type of Grey holo stamp. The grey you find on the non-holos is different and varies considerably for a variety of reasons.
Isn’t the theory that the holo gray stamps came from low ink and the non holos came from the ink not being dry and sticking to the backs of the sheets on top of them?
That’s my thought process on the non-holos, yes. The holos I think is more a mixture issue. Either the ink settled or was somehow watered down during the stamping process. Not so much an ink level issue.
Weirder yet is why don’t we see holo style grey stamps on non-holo cards? And why do some shadowed Machamps have grey stamps…
dug through some old threads clarifying thick v thin with appropriate images.
Now you can also identify sugfficient information by reading through this thread 
Irks me a lot when they refer to a stamp as thick because of the boldness of the font. If that was the case it should be called thick 1 logo. Because to me “thick stamp” means the ink is thick when the stamp was laid on technically making the 1 thin because the Stamp is Thick.
I believe this is an example of the ‘3d’ ink - gyazo.com/d5f3c57d9fca02080d0daf7b1cf15cd6 - my recently purchased charmander 
I discussed this once in the early UPCCC days. If you take the non holo 1st edition base cards and zoom in on them you’ll notice they have an e_ition outline underneath the ink. Just looks just like the ghost pikachu’s stamp. If the ink isn’t aligned directly on top you’ll get the effect you see in the link @muddy provided.
We never had confirmation, but I always assumed that the cards would have those marking printed on them to indicate to the Wizards employees that those cards were to be sent to the 1st edition stamp press. It would also make sense that ghost pikachu exists because they were supposed to be 1st edition cards that slipped through the process.
With the way card sheets were produced wouldn’t it be odd for only a single card on the sheet to have the “Ghost stamp”? Unless there were full sheets of Pikachu cards produced, which is entirely possible.
It’s only a theory. Obviously, ghost pikachu exists; if I remember correctly, it comes from a theme deck, and the other cards have the same marking under their stamps. That’s all the evidence we have, if you can come up with a theory as to how it got released it would be just as viable as my theory as long as the evidence doesn’t disprove it.
To help the theory against your counterargument; a single error on a sheet wouldn’t be odd even if it wasn’t a full sheet of pikachu. Almost every error that exist is a single card on an entire sheet, it just has to be overlooked by the inspector to get released. So if Wizards had these marking in their production technique and they forgot to remove them when they were converting over to other releases/product it wouldn’t be a shock if they missed a single card on the sheet.
Makes total sense. My point relates to the printing process I suppose. I assume there is an additional function/ process in place to “stamp” or screen print the E_ITION stamp. So if that part of the process was removed then no cards would be stamped on the sheet. It’s different than other misprints in this respect. If the E_ITION pika was in with 1st edition cards it’d make sense. But as it is not I kinda get the feeling it was on it’s own sheet. If I knew more about how sheets were printed I may speculate differently. I imagine they made tons of extra pikas various promos. E3 ones for instance. So having their own sheet is plausible.
I don’t know where the ghost pikas originated from. I thought I had some as I recalled them from when they were released. But no idea what product they came from. Would love to find out!