Didn't really appreciate how clear it seems until I previewed the scans on this page. I did read some other threads on this topic and performed the light test, but not the bend test. The light tests were not as convincing as these scans are, but it was clear that my Legends commons were a bit more translucent. Another clue was how the Nether Void fit into a perfect size sleeve (super tight). Another trick I used, being an engineering type, was to measure the thickness of the card with a pair of calipers; it did measure out slightly thicker overall across a number of test points.
Comments welcome. Am I hallucinating or have I caught a fake here?
I would love to be convinced that the card is real--that would save any number of headaches. I'm not convinced that wear patterns alone are conclusive, though, since there have been reports of high-quality counterfeit Legends dating back as far as 1998. I will say in support of your inspection, however, that the various tests I performed (light tests reported here in other threads, card stock thickness measurements, "Magic" black border inspection, etc.) all had results that required my interpretation rather than being 100% convincing one way or the other. An expert eye may have reached a more confident conclusion--I was teaching myself about all these issues tonight.
The thing I'm having most trouble getting past is the printing of "Magic: The Gathering" on the back of the card. On the one hand, the detail in "Magic" is quite good, favoring the "real" argument. On the other hand, "The Gathering" is much whiter and grainier than Evil Eye (my scans have actually sharpened both cards somewhat relative to reality), which seems like it's either consistent with the overall darker printing of the Nether Void...or not. I was hoping that I would have some Legends commons on hand that looked more like this Nether Void, but I don't (I have about 80 to choose from, maybe 10 of which are black spells).
As for the authenticity of Evil-Eye, it's from a box of cards I've had for a while, and I'm using it as an assumed good card for reference.
Try posting those in Market Street . Those guys tend to be the experts - but beware they tend to be overly picky. They might result in a false negative.
To my eye the Nether Void seems real, altough the darker inks seems a bit oversaturated, but it can also be from the scanner. Most modern scanners will automatically optimize the color depth depending on the scanned object. SO it might be much better to have both cards in the same scan, as that would remove one variable. It could be a great fake, as most good legends cards were included in the dark beta -fakes.
One trick on checking the size of the card is to overlay it with a white bordered card. If it's larger than regular, putting a card in front of it should leave some black border showing (and against white borders it shows nicely) and if it's smaller, having a card behind it should show some border. Naturally if the card has played corners or edges, those can puff out a bit, but then the damage to the card will show pretty clearly.
If you have a magnifying glass or jeweler's loupe, check out the rules text, expansion symbol, and number in the mana cost. You can tell on the Evil Eye and other real cards that these are very crisp, solid black, and have clean edges. If the text on the Nether Void is fuzzy, it is fake. I can't tell from the scan. Default User's suggestion of scanning both cards at the same time is a good idea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm what the fox says.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Didn't really appreciate how clear it seems until I previewed the scans on this page. I did read some other threads on this topic and performed the light test, but not the bend test. The light tests were not as convincing as these scans are, but it was clear that my Legends commons were a bit more translucent. Another clue was how the Nether Void fit into a perfect size sleeve (super tight). Another trick I used, being an engineering type, was to measure the thickness of the card with a pair of calipers; it did measure out slightly thicker overall across a number of test points.
Comments welcome. Am I hallucinating or have I caught a fake here?
Thanks,
Peter G.
Ditto Evil Eye, on the offchance that you care.
The thing I'm having most trouble getting past is the printing of "Magic: The Gathering" on the back of the card. On the one hand, the detail in "Magic" is quite good, favoring the "real" argument. On the other hand, "The Gathering" is much whiter and grainier than Evil Eye (my scans have actually sharpened both cards somewhat relative to reality), which seems like it's either consistent with the overall darker printing of the Nether Void...or not. I was hoping that I would have some Legends commons on hand that looked more like this Nether Void, but I don't (I have about 80 to choose from, maybe 10 of which are black spells).
As for the authenticity of Evil-Eye, it's from a box of cards I've had for a while, and I'm using it as an assumed good card for reference.
Thanks,
Peter G.
Still, they are the best around.
At the end of this thread there's a nice backside comparison of real, suspected and fake card.
One trick on checking the size of the card is to overlay it with a white bordered card. If it's larger than regular, putting a card in front of it should leave some black border showing (and against white borders it shows nicely) and if it's smaller, having a card behind it should show some border. Naturally if the card has played corners or edges, those can puff out a bit, but then the damage to the card will show pretty clearly.
Set to default