You asked whether 4th print Charizards are thicker or lighter than Unlimited, and requested an extremely extensive, plainly formatted article in a simple, easy-to-understand style. The most likely interpretation of your question is that you want a detailed comparison between “4th print” Charizard cards (a term collectors sometimes use for a particular printing run/variant) and “Unlimited” Charizard cards from the Base Set era, specifically focusing on physical thickness (card stock weight) and relative lightness (perceived weight, thinness, or phrasing meaning “rarer” or “lighter” color/printing). I will treat “thicker or lighter” primarily as physical card thickness/stock and also cover related meanings collectors use (print darkness, rarity, and value). If you meant something else by “4th print” (for example a specific reprint year or a later set), tell me which specific printing and I will adjust.
Direct answer (one sentence)
There is no widely accepted, authoritative evidence that a so-called “4th print” Charizard uses consistently thicker or lighter card stock than the Unlimited Base Set Charizard; differences reported by collectors are typically small, variable between print runs, and documented mainly as print/ink or error variations rather than measured card-thickness differences[2][3].
Essential context and supporting details
Definitions and why this question is tricky
– “Unlimited” refers to the Unlimited print run of the original Pokémon Base Set (cards printed after the initial First Edition and the short-lived Shadowless run), identifiable by the absence of a First Edition stamp and by certain print and border characteristics[3].
– “4th print” is not a universally standardized industry term: some collectors use it informally to mean a later reprint or a particular sheet/run within a set; others may use “4th print” to describe regional reprints or later print runs of popular cards. Because there is no single formal printing labeled “4th print” by Nintendo/The Pokémon Company for Base Set Charizard, statements about its physical characteristics are harder to generalize[3].
– Card “thickness” (stock) can be measured in microns or points, but historically Pokémon cards were manufactured in batches with small manufacturing tolerances; small variations between print runs, factories, or batches are normal and often smaller than one can reliably detect without precise measuring tools[3].
What collectors and references say about variations (print, errors, and perceived thickness)
– Collector references like Bulbapedia document many print errors and visual variants between First Edition, Shadowless, and Unlimited runs (examples include ink dots, tape obstruction errors, corrected energy symbols, and inverted backs), and they note that some errors were specific to Unlimited prints or specific uncorrected runs rather than to a discrete “4th print” stock difference[2].
– Guides for identifying original cards emphasize comparing font, logo placement, print dots, and card thickness against verified examples; they recommend magnification and, when uncertain, third-party grading/authentication (PSA/Beckett) rather than relying on unaided visual comparison for stock thickness or authenticity[3].
– Price-tracking and sales sites (e.g., PriceCharting) show wide valuation differences driven mostly by edition (1st/Shadowless/Unlimited), rarity, holo status, and grading, not by a reliably documented thickness difference between later prints and Unlimited[1]. High-value sales and grading reports generally note condition, centering, edge wear and surface and not a consistent thicker/thinner stock for particular “4th print” labels[1].
Evidence for and against a measurable thickness difference
– For measurable differences: manufacturing processes can and do change slightly between print runs and factories, producing minor differences in card stock thickness and feel; therefore it is plausible that some later reprints feel slightly different to collectors[3].
– Against measurable differences: authoritative documentation from manufacturers with precise measurements for each run is not publicly available for Base Set printings; community documentation focuses on visual printing errors and variant markings (which affect desirability), not consistent card-stock thickness claims[2][3]. In practice, perceived thickness differences reported in forums are often due to wear, surface coating differences, or individual sensory perception rather than a documented standardized stock change.
How to test thickness or “lightness” yourself (simple, reproducible methods)
– Use a digital caliper to measure thickness in millimeters at the same location on several cards of each suspected print type; repeat measurements and average them to reduce noise from corners and wear. If you lack a caliper, use a feel-comparison method by stacking known Unlimited cards and the cards you call “4th print” and comparing stacks[3].
– Weigh cards on a precision digital scale (0.01 g resolution) to detect small mass differences between individual cards; ensure cards are similarly conditioned (no sleeves, same humidity and temperature) because moisture can change mass.
– Inspect printing and borders under a loupe or macro photo: differences in ink density, border thickness, and backing alignment can explain perceived “lightness” (faded ink) rather than actual card thickness[2][3].
– For authentication or definitive answers, submit representative examples to a professional grading/authentication service (PSA, BGS, Beckett) and request any manufacturing notes or tags; graders sometimes note variant identifiers that help place a card in a particular print run[3].
Common misplaced assumptions and pitfalls
– Mistaking visual ink/lightness for card stock thickness: a card that looks “lighter” (paler inks, washed colors) often comes from different ink batches or fading and not from being physically thinner. Bulbapedia documents color/ink errors and dots as common distinguishing marks on Unlimited prints[2].
– Equating rarity/value with thickness: the collectible value of Charizard cards is dominated by edition (1st Edition > Shadowless > Unlimited) and grading, not by small stock thickness differences[1][3].
– Relying on anecdotal forum claims: collectors’ subjective feel (“this one seems thicker”) is useful as a starting point but not definitive without measurement or grading; community consensus emphasizes measurement, photographic comparison, and third-party grading for firm conclusions[3].
What authoritative sources exist and what they say
– Bulbapedia (community-driven but highly referenced) catalogs print errors and notes that certain errors are associated with Unlimited prints rather than first editions, illustrating that differences across printings are mainly visual/printing issues rather than documented stock-thickness changes[2].
– Collector guidance articles and seller/buyers guides recommend comparing font, logo placement, and card thickness against verified examples and using magnification or professional grading when in doubt; they do not provide manufacturer-issued thickness specifications for different Base Set runs[3].
– Market databases (PriceCharting and major auction results) show price and grading trends and note that condition and edition drive value; they do not treat a “4th print” thickness as a standard grading or identification criterion[1].
Practical conclusions for collectors (simple advice)
– If your goal is authentication/value: focus on edition markers (First Edition stamp, shadowless characteristics), holographic status, centering, surface, edges, and professional grading rather than on attempting to
