The dragonite is the exact same as the Japanese GB dragonite, guess they reused it
Also, I’m really impressed/not impressed by how the artwork between this and the final base set didn’t change. Most of the artwork is the same, with the exception of the CGI backgrounds that were inserted later.
Not sure if it’s exciting or frustrating to see these show up, as others i would at least love to see more proof that these are indeed real and from official source. And if they are real they are kind of bittersweet ones since even though i would love to add grimer and muk in my collection as big historical steps for pokemon tcg but there’s no way i can purchase at least them both. Grimer i could buy if i postpone the cosmos foil fossil muk in distant future but at least now the uncertainty that covers them is a red flag for me, also i’m not sure if i could truly enjoy only one of them when i know other one also exists and it’s out of reach for me. Nevertheless cool to see them all together in a gallery like this, even if the pristine graded copies are kinda cringe ones when thinking how they are made
My boy. Maybe I could proxy him. Interesting that his number is wrong, copied from Tauros. He shares being incorrectly numbered with Charizard, growlithe, and machoke
Such a shame, as I would have been a potential buyer of some of these. I love Sugimori’s watercolor art. These are, in my opinion, permanently tainted by greed and secrecy.
Playtest cards from 1995, likely unsleeved, and shuffled a few times- not even a single corner dent. Even from a trusted source, I’d do some due diligence here.
Look no further than the pristine pinsir to see how rubbish it is that these are being graded rather than just authenticated.
That card is clearly bottom heavy, and not perfectly centered. Is that supposed to be how they are designed? Or did it just happen that they came out this way since they were just prototypes? Did CGC decide this specific centering was the gold standard for the rest of the set and compared all the other cards to this one? If not, how were they referencing centering???