You asked whether Wizards (Wizards of the Coast) used new plates for the 4th Edition (Revised) printings of Magic: The Gathering cards. Short answer: Wizards did not uniformly use entirely new printing plates for the 4th Edition/revised printings across all cards; rather, the 4th Edition (often called Revised Edition or Fourth Printings for specific cards moved into revised sets) involved reprints, re-collations, and in some cases altered or different printing elements compared with earlier runs—practices documented in histories of early Magic printings and commentary about printing errors and reprints[1].
Essential context and supporting details
– Terminology and scope: Early Magic print runs and the “fourth print” concept are often discussed in two related ways: (a) the small, separate early expansion printings (Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, early expansion sets) which used specific printing plates and sheets, and (b) later reprint efforts (Revised/4th Edition and reprint sets like Chronicles) that pulled cards back into new printings and sometimes changed plate layouts, collation, or other production details to meet demand[1]. For readers: “plate” here means the physical printing tooling or plate used to transfer an image to press; print runs could reuse plates, modify them, or create new ones depending on production needs[1].
– Early scarcity, demand, and reprints: As demand for Magic quickly outpaced initial print runs, Wizards reprinted many cards and ultimately produced large reprint efforts (including Revised and the compilation set Chronicles) to address scarcity from early sets; this required different manufacturing decisions than the initial small-run plates used for Alpha/Beta/early expansions[1]. Wikipedia’s overview of Magic’s early expansion printing history explains that early printings were small and that later reprint sets were used to increase supply[1].
– Printing errors, plate differences, and visible variants: Contemporary accounts and set histories document printing errors (wrong backs, mana symbol size variations, poor collation) and note that some cards from early sets exhibit multiple visible variants—evidence that printing plates, sheet layouts, or manufacturing processes differed between runs rather than being perfectly identical across every subsequent print[1]. Those differences imply that Wizards and their printers changed plates, sheets, or processes at times, which produced distinguishable variants collectors study[1].
– Printers and production choices: Early Magic production was handled by contract printers (for example, Carta Mundi is known to have printed many early Magic cards), and production choices by those vendors (including stop orders, destroyed excess supply, and mixed-up sheets) affected final cards; retrospective accounts note that printers produced misprints and that production runs were sometimes halted or altered[2]. Such vendor actions indicate plates or sheet logistics changed between runs rather than a single permanent plate used forever[2].
– What this means for the 4th/Revised prints specifically: Revised/4th printings were part of Wizards’ effort to supply the growing player base and to consolidate cards from early expansions into core sets or reprint compilations[1]. Because Revised included cards reprinted from multiple earlier expansions and because printers and Wizards addressed earlier scarcity and errors, the practical outcome was that many cards in Revised were produced under different production circumstances than the earliest plates—resulting in some cards that are visually or physically distinguishable from earlier prints (different borders, rarities, symbol sizes, collation patterns, and other printing artifacts)[1][2]. For many individual cards, collectors and researchers identify whether a print is an early run or a later Revised printing by these physical cues, reflecting plate/sheet/process differences[1][2].
When medical or authoritative sources are relevant: none are required here
– Your prompt asked that whenever anything medical is stated, authoritative sources must be included; this topic is about printing history and production, not medicine, so no medical sourcing is necessary. If you want medical-quality sourcing for unrelated health claims in a different query, state the claim and I will cite peer-reviewed or guideline-level sources.
Limitations and evidence quality
– Public documentation on the exact plate-level decisions for each specific fourth/ Revised printing (for every card) is limited in public primary-source material; most available evidence is set histories, collector research, and retrospectives that document production anomalies and reprint efforts rather than a definitive plate-by-plate manufacturing log[1][2]. Where collector communities have reverse-engineered print runs, evidence is often physical comparison and printer histories rather than a single canonical Wizards-issued sheet-by-sheet record[1][2].
If you want more detail
– I can list specific well-known cards that show clear physical differences between early prints and later Revised/4th prints (and what to look for: border thickness, mana symbol style, copyright lines, set symbols where applicable), or compile collector-sourced plate/variant guides. I can also try to find archival statements from Wizards or printers about plate reuse vs. replacement for specific runs if you want deeper documentary sourcing. Which of those would you prefer?
Sources used for the above statements:
– Overview history of Magic’s early expansion sets, printing scarcity, reprint efforts, and printing errors[1].
– Retrospective reporting on printing practices, printer actions, and production anomalies related to early sets and reprints[2].
