Do any PSA 10’s exist of the first released Pokemon TCG Cards? 1996 Glossy Ivy Pikachu & Glossy Jigglypuff (PSA 10 Population Report = ALL Mislabels?)

[maxmaxcity]

The first ever Pokémon TCG cards released to the public were the 1996 Glossy Ivy Pikachu and glossy Jigglypuff. These 2 cards were released in Corocoro magazine on October 15, 1996 and predate the release of Japanese base set/no rarity by 5 days. (October 20, 1996).

An interesting tidbit about the Pikachu is that the 1996 glossy Ivy Pikachu is actually an “error card” as “Ken Sugimori” was mistakenly listed as the illustrator instead of the correct illustrator for these cards, “Keiji Kinebuchi.”

These cards are also extremely challenging to grade — the reason being is that they are on glossy card stock and also had to be “peeled” out from an appendix inside the corocoro comic, making many cards damaged upon peeling. These 2 promo cards are almost always notoriously off-centered.

These same 2 cards (Ivy PIkachu and Jigglypuff) were reprinted as non-glossy cards 2 months later as part of a promo with “Asobikata Magazine Vol 1” and the “Ken Sugimori” error was fixed on the Ivy Pikachu — making the 1996 Ivy glossy Pikachu easily distinguishable from the non-glossy version.

The Jigglypuff however is much more challenging to distinguish between glossy vs. non-glossy.

For both of these promo cards, the non-glossy versions are roughly 10x-100x easier to grade as well because of non-glossy card stock, better centering, and no common edge damage from peeling from the corocoro comic.

My question to E4 and the Pokémon community: Do any PSA 10’s actually exist of the first ever released Pokemon TCG cards?

Upon further investigation I have found that every single PSA 10 card graded of these 2 cards (that I’ve been able to find photos existing online) are mislabeled. More below.

Here are 3 mislabels of the Ivy glossy Pikachu. These are clearly mislabels as you can see “Keiji Kinebuchi” is listed as the illustrator on these 3 cards. The first printing of this card had “Ken Sugimori” incorrectly printed as the illustrator, so this is an easy mislabel to spot.

The Jigglypuff is much more challenging to identify (Glossy vs. Non-glossy) unless you are holding these cards in your hand and able to see glossy vs. non glossy, However, there are some noticeable difference that you can still get clues of identifying glossy vs. non-glossy with the jigglypuffs.

I created a guide for PSA to be able to differentiate.

(Above) True glossy Jigglypuff card vs. a non-glossy mislabeled PSA 10. It is much easier to see when they are right next to one another.

What do you all think? Are there any true PSA 10’s out there or is every single PSA 10 on the population report a “mislabel”?

[mthursty]

You might be interested in this article.

Japanese Ivy Pikachu Reprinted CoroCoro Variant

[image] Keiji Kinebuchi****A handful of new CoroCoro variants were discovered 2 years ago and with the enormous kindness and help of @subf and @nine I wanted to add some more data on them to help distinguish the incredibly rare reprint of the CoroCoro version from the others. Here is @nine original post on them www.elitefourum.com/t/corocoro-japanese-promo-reprinted-edition/21760/1 [image] Even though there are 18 individual (8 sealed sets) reprints of the Coros im only going to focus on Ivy…

A glossy Variant of the Keiji Kinebuchi does exist. However, this does not mean these graded copies are not misgraded.

[maxmaxcity]

Thanks so much for sharing the article.

A “glossy variant” of the “Keiji Kinebuchi” illustrator on this card does exist, but it is my understanding that this particular variant is from 1998.

[pfm]

You found 3 Pikachu mislabels but the pop is 2? Is it an old screenshot?

If 3/2 Pikachu are mislabeled and at least 1/5 Jigglypuff are mislabeled then I’d wager they all are

[Dyl]

@maxmaxcity

Here are 3 mislabels of the Ivy glossy Pikachu. These are clearly mislabels as you can see “Ken Sugimori” listed as the illustrator.

I’m a bit confused by what you mean here. The artist listed on these three is not Sugimori. Are you saying that they are mislabeled because they are not glossy?

[maxmaxcity]

My mistake, just updated the original post under that screenshot with this text! Thank you!

Here are 3 mislabels of the Ivy glossy Pikachu. These are clearly mislabels as you can see “Keiji Kinebuchi” is listed as the illustrator on these 3 cards. The first printing of this card had “Ken Sugimori” incorrectly printed as the illustrator, so this is an easy mislabel to spot.

[maxmaxcity]

It looks like PSA has corrected the pop report/labeling on at least one of the three mislabels then! Thank you!

[gemmintpokemon]

I’ve gone through 2 copies and learned the hard way. PWCC started correctly labeling them in auction titles, although the PSA labels are incorrect. I believe all the recent ones were submitted by one person (a banned e4 member).

It was difficult for PSA to distinguish Japanese variants for early certs. You’ll see label issues and label varieties for the same card. These are different spec numbers rolling up to the same card now. PSA has done a lot to fix this, however the pre-existing mislabels are out there until corrected.

It’s also my understanding that Ed @ebirdman102 completed the first PSA 10 CoroCoro set before selling it. He’d be the only one to know if that Pika was correct.

PSA will deactivate certs so 3 out of 2 pictures may not mean all 3 cards are active, especially if it’s been called out to PSA already, i.e. you may not even have the right 2 cards.

[maxmaxcity]

Thanks so much for the response gem mint! I will have to reach out to Ed then to try and solve this mystery! I saw on the PSA set registry that there is still nobody with a registered PSA 10 on this card of the collectors who register their cards on there. (Not most collectors but perhaps a big collector who would have this card would).

The pop count was 3 for a while but became 2 recently when cert #62599234 became inactivated.

Cert number #26639080 is still active as “glossy Ivy Pikachu” on PSA’s cert lookup, so it appears that slab is still mislabeled and would account for 1 of the remaining 2, which would mean that the true pop would have to be 1 or 0.

The cert number #22825754 seems to have been corrected to “non-glossy” on PSA’s cert lookup as well, so it would be assumed that it either was also corrected on PSA’s pop report when this was corrected, and the true pop may be 1 or PSA never fixed the original pop report, and it could be 0 just from an error like this.

I do wonder if PSA has the internal data to be able to tell what the cert numbers are that are accounted for on this pop report to be able to truly know the real answer, or at least get a better understanding…

If it does exist, it seems no photo of it has ever surfaced online, and I would assume it would be an old cert (2x era or further back in time).