I don't notice anything that screams fake. The color variations are reasonable for cards of that age (both from varying prints and/or differential sunlight exposure), and the resolution and focus of the photos is too low to see anything meaningful in the side photo or in regards to dithering.
I don't notice anything that screams fake. The color variations are reasonable for cards of that age (both from varying prints and/or differential sunlight exposure), and the resolution and focus of the photos is too low to see anything meaningful in the side photo or in regards to dithering.
The main thing which has me questioning the authenticity is a visible diagonal print pattern in the black border. Doesn't show up well on scans, most visible on upper left corner of back. The thickness threw me off too, it's 30% thinner than every other card I have from that time.
I wish I had a better scanner and camera.
The main thing which has me questioning the authenticity is a visible diagonal print pattern in the black border. Doesn't show up well on scans, most visible on upper left corner of back. The thickness threw me off too, it's 30% thinner than every other card I have from that time.
I wish I had a better scanner and camera.
Yeah, I can't make out the diagonals you are talking about in the photos...looking under a loupe, magnifying glass, or high res scanned may give you a better idea. Noticable thickness differences are not abnormal in older cards, but you should perform a light test to check (see how much and the pattern of light that shows through the back with a bright light to each card front). Magic cards do grow thicker over their lifetime exposure to humidity...so a card that was opened from a sealed pack several years later or was in tight casing/sleeving for years can be noticeably thinner. This was actually a issue towards the end of Magic's first decade. Players complained because newer cards seemed a bit thinner than their older ones and they thought wotc was moving to cheaper quality stock; but it was found to be due to this issue. Regardless of thickness however, the light tests should look similar.
Yeah, I can't make out the diagonals you are talking about in the photos...looking under a loupe, magnifying glass, or high res scanned may give you a better idea. Noticable thickness differences are not abnormal in older cards, but you should perform a light test to check (see how much and the pattern of light that shows through the back with a bright light to each card front). Magic cards do grow thicker over their lifetime exposure to humidity...so a card that was opened from a sealed pack several years later or was in tight casing/sleeving for years can be noticeably thinner. This was actually a issue towards the end of Magic's first decade. Players complained because newer cards seemed a bit thinner than their older ones and they thought wotc was moving to cheaper quality stock; but it was found to be due to this issue. Regardless of thickness however, the light tests should look similar.
That's something I did not know. The light that comes through is the same intensity and shows the same pattern. I do use a loupe (that's how I got the side shot with my crappy camera phone).
I suppose if the print was missing some dots of a color it could cause the border pattern to show.
Guess I'll accept it as authentic and mark the differences as one of the old print run quality issues.
Of special note with Mirage, it's probably the set with the biggest variance from print run to print run, as the cards were printed by different printers in different countries depending upon whether they were first or subsequent batches.
The cards look *very* different under a thorough investigation, especially red cards.
Not a fake. The font is identical, which is usually something that is at least in question for actual fakes. The main problems seem to be with coloration, which can be due to problems/differences in the printing process as well as conditions of the card. The border difference you see when stood on end? I believe that is just because card B is in better condition than card A. When cards get played, the first thing that gets beat up are the edges, which can have an effect of blunting on the ends, making the newer cards appear thinner. It doesn't seem like something that would have an effect, but you ARE scrutinizing the cards to quite a degree.
Edit: About the lines, on the border, I think you're seeing something that isn't there, as none of us have been able to identify it. Worst case scenario, you trade it off, because 98% of people would not question this card being real.
Magic cards do grow thicker over their lifetime exposure to humidity...so a card that was opened from a sealed pack several years later or was in tight casing/sleeving for years can be noticeably thinner. This was actually a issue towards the end of Magic's first decade. Players complained because newer cards seemed a bit thinner than their older ones and they thought wotc was moving to cheaper quality stock; but it was found to be due to this issue. Regardless of thickness however, the light tests should look similar.
If the old card was cracked from a booster fairly recently, this effect will be very noticeable. A few years ago I got a deal on a sealed booster box of Mirage and used it for 2-person Winchester drafts with my friends. All the cards felt weird as hell because of how dried-out they were compared to every other card I own of that age.
Of special note with Mirage, it's probably the set with the biggest variance from print run to print run, as the cards were printed by different printers in different countries depending upon whether they were first or subsequent batches.
I've also noticed some print runs are even cut differently, with corners that are more squared off than the average card.
The pigment on the front is off by a couple hues in certain spots, the ink pattern is not the same, and there is a small alignment discrepancy in the flavor text.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
I grade cards as my profession. Those cards are not fake. Mirage cards, as noted, have high variance from one to the other, and people often think a certain Lion's Eye Diamond is fake because of that.
I think your threshold is a little high, as cards less than $15 but > $5 are getting counterfeited if I recall right.
Quote from _Strker »
Quote from Morphling »
Why would anyone bother faking a $15 card?
To receive less scrutiny.
If someone is trying to lower the amount of scrutiny, aka 'RISK', why would they choose a card that requires 10x the amount of interaction with prospective buyers? You chose a card that's not gonna get scrutinized... Great. Now you just have to find 10x more buyers to break even. Seriously?
It makes no sense to me. Help me understand.
This is why you DO see high dollar cards getting counterfeited over and over. It doesn't seem worth the additional risk to go after low-dollar stuff.
Because everyone criticizes high dollar cards these days to the point that real cards are regularly called fake. Such as at the top of this thread. You fake a mox and everyone scrutinizes it and you get called out right away. But if you fake cheaper cards, nobody looks that close and there are 10 times as many buyers, most of whom have no idea of how to actually detect counterfeits. Exactly as was said, all the same reasons that cash counterfeiters do $5 bills instead of $100 bills.
There is a second reason that hasn't been brought up. Because there are counterfeiters that have no idea of what they are doing. Some aren't even targeting money cards, they are reproducing everything and selling it as sealed product. I have handled some lovely counterfeit basic land and 5-cent commons.
I have personally handled probably close to 1000 fake cards over the past 20 years. Most of the P9 was low quality, made at Kinkos or on a home computer. Most of the really high quality stuff was standard legal when it was printed. What these Chinese guys are doing hasn't been done since the "dark beta" of 1994.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Collection:
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete
It's the same reason people counterfeit $5 bills instead of $50 or $100 bills, really. Everyone's on high alert when things are expensive, but when things aren't, you can aggregate a lot of small profits through low-value fakes slipping through the cracks more easily than trying to go for fewer, riskier fakes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BTW, should we get a subforum or official thread to post these fake vs real questions? I see them pop up fairly regularly.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
The main thing which has me questioning the authenticity is a visible diagonal print pattern in the black border. Doesn't show up well on scans, most visible on upper left corner of back. The thickness threw me off too, it's 30% thinner than every other card I have from that time.
I wish I had a better scanner and camera.
To receive less scrutiny.
Yeah, I can't make out the diagonals you are talking about in the photos...looking under a loupe, magnifying glass, or high res scanned may give you a better idea. Noticable thickness differences are not abnormal in older cards, but you should perform a light test to check (see how much and the pattern of light that shows through the back with a bright light to each card front). Magic cards do grow thicker over their lifetime exposure to humidity...so a card that was opened from a sealed pack several years later or was in tight casing/sleeving for years can be noticeably thinner. This was actually a issue towards the end of Magic's first decade. Players complained because newer cards seemed a bit thinner than their older ones and they thought wotc was moving to cheaper quality stock; but it was found to be due to this issue. Regardless of thickness however, the light tests should look similar.
That's something I did not know. The light that comes through is the same intensity and shows the same pattern. I do use a loupe (that's how I got the side shot with my crappy camera phone).
I suppose if the print was missing some dots of a color it could cause the border pattern to show.
Guess I'll accept it as authentic and mark the differences as one of the old print run quality issues.
Thanks for your help.
The cards look *very* different under a thorough investigation, especially red cards.
Edit: About the lines, on the border, I think you're seeing something that isn't there, as none of us have been able to identify it. Worst case scenario, you trade it off, because 98% of people would not question this card being real.
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
The pigment on the front is off by a couple hues in certain spots, the ink pattern is not the same, and there is a small alignment discrepancy in the flavor text.
I wrote this, which should help. http://blog.cardkingdom.com/?p=77
I think your threshold is a little high, as cards less than $15 but > $5 are getting counterfeited if I recall right.
If someone is trying to lower the amount of scrutiny, aka 'RISK', why would they choose a card that requires 10x the amount of interaction with prospective buyers? You chose a card that's not gonna get scrutinized... Great. Now you just have to find 10x more buyers to break even. Seriously?
It makes no sense to me. Help me understand.
This is why you DO see high dollar cards getting counterfeited over and over. It doesn't seem worth the additional risk to go after low-dollar stuff.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
There is a second reason that hasn't been brought up. Because there are counterfeiters that have no idea of what they are doing. Some aren't even targeting money cards, they are reproducing everything and selling it as sealed product. I have handled some lovely counterfeit basic land and 5-cent commons.
I have personally handled probably close to 1000 fake cards over the past 20 years. Most of the P9 was low quality, made at Kinkos or on a home computer. Most of the really high quality stuff was standard legal when it was printed. What these Chinese guys are doing hasn't been done since the "dark beta" of 1994.
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete
It's the same reason people counterfeit $5 bills instead of $50 or $100 bills, really. Everyone's on high alert when things are expensive, but when things aren't, you can aggregate a lot of small profits through low-value fakes slipping through the cracks more easily than trying to go for fewer, riskier fakes.