"Thick" and "Thin" cards?

[Qwachansey]

I have noticed that some 1st Edition cards of value can be labeled as "thick" or "think" to refer to the width of the card border. Does this make a change in pricing? Is one worth more than the other? Thanks!

[PokePop]

I've only seen one seller talk about this.
I don't see it as important to anyone else but him.

Big collectors on the site, correct me if I'm wrong.

[smpratte]

Agreed. I can not really support the thick and thin first edition stamps. I have not heard of this, even from ex wotc employees. The seller is a great seller but they are worth the same, and the distinction has only been made by that seller.

[waynegg]

There's no difference in price. Furthermore, I wouldn't put too much stock in the claim that the so called "thin" version is any rarer than the "thick" version. A better description would be Bold Type Set vs. Normal Type Set as it has nothing to do with the width of the card's yellow border. It is referring to the 1st Edition stamp.

That being said, every 1st edition Base card I own has the normal type set and came from various sources. Since I started the set this way, I would obviously like to complete it in the same manner so all the cards have the same look. If I had the choice of paying $35 for a bold type set Clefairy and $40 for the normal type set, I would spend the extra $5.

[DJGigabyte]

Gotta agree with Scott and Wayne here, there shouldn't really be any price difference between a "thick" or "thin" stamp.
However like Wayne I would probably spend a small extra amount to get my full set as one or the other.

[Qwachansey]

So... which is typical, thick or thin?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

This is the item I am wondering about.

Thanks!

[waynegg]

Originally Posted by Qwachansey

So... which is typical, thick or thin?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

This is the item I am wondering about.

Thanks!

There is no real, concrete way of answering that, but with all the other sets each was about equal in distribution. Base set wasn't the only set with that variation, and I would suspect that Base set had similar counts of both types.