All your errors are belong to us!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The error is that the attack should say that you do the damage to that (chosen) Pokemon. Instead, it just says deal damage. But to what? (exactly)
 
I can't get a pic of it, but today I found a Murkrow from UD that in the bar below the picture with the info about the Pokemon, every number was printed 1 off (like 197 instead of 198, and 7" instead of 6"), but was then printed over.
 
Apologies if this is in the wrong spot, but I have a question about a card I received and it may be an error, so I thought I'd ask here.

Recently the collector side of me has been waxing nostalgic about older Pokémon cards, specifically from the sets I was collecting before I quit, back in the day (no idea what happened to those old cards). I ended up buying a bunch of older commons and uncommons from Troll and Toad and they came in today.

As I was sorting through them, I happened to notice something odd about one of the cards, a base set Magikarp (hush, Magikarp is one of my favourite pokémon). The text for the HP is a darker red, very fine, and off to the side more than usual. The card background itself is also a fainter blue. Error or a fake?

I scanned it and uploaded it, so people can see for themselves. You can see the scan here.

EDIT: Upon further investigation, it seems like the card is shadowless. Having never seen a shadowless card before, I wouldn't have known. Can someone more familiar with shadowless cards confirm if this is really the case? Much appreciated. <3
 
It's a shadowless. 1st edition base set cards are aways shadowless save Machamp, while a number of unlimited runs are shadowless as well. You can tell by the gold borders on the picture not having a shadow, hence the name.
 
Yeah, I was aware of the lack of shadows, what I didn't know about was the fainter coloured background or the HP text being so much different.
 
I'm not sure about the fainter coloured background characteristic, but it is something you see on a lot of 1st edition base sets. The HP font is definitely a lot thinner than the regular unlimited print runs. So most likely shadowless = 1. unshadowed borders, 2. different HP font, 3. faint background.
 
Sorry, Artemis, but I think your card is more so fake than being an error. As you pointed out not only is the HP font different and the artwork is fainter, but look at the bottom of the card, where they copyrights are. The copyrights on your card are (C) 1995, 96, 98, 99. The copyrights on an official Magikarp card are (C) 1995, 96, 98. I doubt TPCi (or whoever was in control of the TCG back then) would make a mistake in the copyrights. Plus, font errors are usually because the card is fake, not because the card is an error (the only exception to this rule are some of the Reverse Holo Platinum cards).
 
Yeah, that looks exactly like it. I know it's harder to tell in my scan version because my scanner at home is so shitty (as opposed to the awesome one I have at work). Seem like my card is a shadowless. Hurray for fun surprises. :3 I hadn't even noticed the copyright thing, but it's the same in both.
 
Gliscor said:
Sorry, Artemis, but I think your card is more so fake than being an error. As you pointed out not only is the HP font different and the artwork is fainter, but look at the bottom of the card, where they copyrights are. The copyrights on your card are (C) 1995, 96, 98, 99. The copyrights on an official Magikarp card are (C) 1995, 96, 98. I doubt TPCi (or whoever was in control of the TCG back then) would make a mistake in the copyrights. Plus, font errors are usually because the card is fake, not because the card is an error (the only exception to this rule are some of the Reverse Holo Platinum cards).
Click to expand...

Well like what omahanime has said, the copyright is correct. In addition, its kind of strange that counterfeiters would make a mistake on the copyrights as well, let alone actually add a year to it. Most of the counterfeits I've seen just include ridiculous 10000 damage attacks and unofficial artwork on the cards if not blatant plagiarism. I don't know the story on the copyright, but Occam's razor would suggest that it was wotc's mistake.
 
Oh, that's strange then. The one I found on Pokebeach didn't have the 99 (unless I accidentally looked at a scan that had a shadow).
 
I didn't read through the thread all the way so I wasn't sure if it was brought up

but I have a "d edition" symbol butterfree from the jungle set and I also have a rare holo Scyther from jungle without the jungle symbol.
 
@OchoCinccino: Those are sweet cards! There's a full set of Jungle holos without the symbol. WOTC quickly caught this error and fixed it, but it's still fun to try and collect all of the holos without the symbols. I only have 4 or 5 I think. lol

Does anyone know it a corrected 1st Edition Butterfree was ever printed?
 
Spoink! said:
I have an Aipom from Triumphant, and its attacks are misprinted. Here it is:



In addition, if anyone knows the price that an error collector would pay for this, please tell me.
Click to expand...

I haz dat, and I already posted here about it.
:ninja

~SS
 
Shiny Shinx said:
Spoink! said:
I have an Aipom from Triumphant, and its attacks are misprinted. Here it is:



In addition, if anyone knows the price that an error collector would pay for this, please tell me.
Click to expand...

I haz dat, and I already posted here about it.
:ninja

~SS
Click to expand...

Why am I the only one not to have one of those? =(
Also my friend has an error reverse holo Scrafty and the color of the Scrafty is lighter than normal but he said if I can get him a normal RH Scrafty he will trade the error to me. =)
 
screw-up no.1:I have a Dialga that(Platinum)that's a colorless type rather than a steel type.
screw-up no.2:a Phanpy I have from Call of legends has its name spelt wrong in its pokebody.It got spelt "Phnphy".
 
More of a question. Is Machamp (Base Set) the only 1st Edition to have a shadow? I've heard conflicting answers.
 
yes, thats because its the only first card to be a "first edition promo" in base starter set, which was later reprinted.

all other first edition base set cards are by deffinition shadowless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top