Hi all, early last year I've pulled the trigger on a really good deal for a Revised Volcanic Island, NM condition, from a LGS semi-regular. Was happy with the purchase until one friend of mine looked at the card and mentioned it looks "off", wrt font and borders.
At first I dismissed his comments, but I would like an objective opinion from experts. I'm attaching a 1200dpi scan of the card. Blacks look sharp to me, the font seems fine and the rosette pattern is there. It honestly seems genuine to me! For the interested, I paid 160 EUR for it (it's indeed in NM condition). What's your take?
Thanks in advance, any help is very appreciated.
Edit: I've read this article about how close Revised DL counterfeits are to the real thing, I'm now worried having spent money on a fake, although I don't have access to a 100% genuine Volcanic to compare them.
Edit: added high res scan of back card top. Genuine land on the left, Volcanic on the right. I didn't pay too much attention to the back so far but the two of them look very different under the scanner.
The front seems legit, as there are none of the usual issues that fakes have. The scan bit of mushes the background brownish rosette pattern, but on a lance the card looks to be real.
If your friend had issues with the backside not 'fitting the front' maybe you could scan the backside also, so we get a better idea of the issue.
Rosette looks good and that's something that's almost impossible to fake correctly, and nothing else really stands out to me about this Volc. You can always light test it and throw a UV light on it as well, but I think this one is good. Backside scan might be nice if you have one though and want extra assurance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: TES
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
Thanks folks, this is very appreciated. @Ebonclaw, @Default User, I'm attaching a back card scan; it's a genuine land on the left, and the Volcanic on the right: the forum won't let me upload a high quality JPG but I think it conveys the point. I know that Revised went through lots of different printing issues, but this looks scary at this point.
The back indeed has some glaring issues, which are not common for ravised backs, but...
Before going further there's one question; does the real land really has those greenish areas on it or is this just a artefact from the scanner software, and is the back of the Volc rich black (has tiny dots of other colors mixed in among the black) or is that also from the scan.
I suspect that at least the greenish areas on the land borders come from the scanner trying to represent glare or some other glitch in the data and if it has decided that the land edges are solid black while they actually are lighter than the black borders on Volc, the scanner will show the darker tones as rich black.
I won't go further into how the optimization softwares can cause scares, but please check the real card and compare it to the scan, as this would not be the first time people get scared of scanner issues. But if the card really has rich black borders and very 'fat' TM mark there's another check you can make on the backside. The green dot in the logo has few pixels of magenta (or pink) in there, which do miss from lot of fakes.
The rosette pattern on the back of the Volc is bit peculiar, but lot of those variations happen if one or two colors are misplaced by a pixel or two and Revised had lot of issues with the back print quality. Again the quality of the Volc back is atrocious and the color separations seem to be badly off if that is the natural color scheme of the card. Also the different structures on the inner beveled edge are completely off and the definition betwen letters in 'the Gathering'. I would instantly flag a card like that as suspect and try to find if some colors were off-shifted and if not, deem it as most likely fake.
Yeah, the backside is much more telling- if that's not a scanner issue. There's a difference in the rosettes here, and the "TM" on the left and the right. The right looks sharp, proper. The left looks atrocious. The coloring and rosette differential in "The Gathering" is very apparent.
Check what Default User suggested, particularly the magenta flecks in the green mana dot. The scan on the left appears artifacted slightly from the scan- I see some areas that are pretty obviously digital glitches, and the right scan seems like it's more accurate, but lightened more from the scan, so it's very possible that you're dealing with a scan issue, a printing issue of a legit card, or some combination of the two.
Go get a loupe. If you're going to be dealing with duals and such, you should have one anyway. They're like $5-$10. Just go buy one. Check the green mana dots for magenta flecks (they should be present on both). Do a light test, both see-through and UV. The differences your friend mentioned are non-issues, we're looking at things on a much closer level here, and these are only concerns at all because your scanner may not be showing us what the card really looks like on that level. If the loupe reveals the magenta flecks on both cards, and similar coloring and rosettes, and it passes the other two tests, then you almost certainly have a real card, though again, color variations may be present. I should also note that the minor wear seems consistent with a real card- while wear is possible to fake, it's not typically done so on such a minor, subtle level, it tends to be much more obvious and extensive to the point of making the card look "MP" or "SP."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: TES
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
Hey, thanks everybody for the great feedback. Unfortunately, the differences in the back aren't due to the scanner: the image I've attached is pretty faithful to reality. That card has lived in a sleeve until I brought it out for the scan, and from that moment I already knew that something was way off with it.
When I'm back home I'll try the light test. For sure I'm getting a loupe, and just today I received a UV lamp; as you suggest, it's best to have these tools at hand while dealing with duals.
I think the card was sold to me in a sleeve, so... It's possible that the seller was in good faith. I'll try to get in touch with him to explain the issue, but after a year I'm not even sure how to approach him.
What scaries me most is that from the front alone it looks fine! So, does this mean that counterfeiters only have to improve their backs? ...Or, possibly worse... Did I get one with a poor back which makes its fake nature evident, and there are many others out there where the backs are totally resembling the right thing?
I don't know guys. I'm angry that I wasted money on a fake, angry that I just might be better not buying cards from the Revised era or such, angry that WotC doesn't take a real stand against counterfeiters. Am I letting this get too personal, or do you have similar feelings about this?
There are several red flags if you know what to look for. You don't even have to analyze it under a microscope.
The words on the front face for the name, type, and artist are too white. They should appear grayish and contain rosettes. Cards were not printed with white words until 4th edition. This is the easiest and most obvious thing to spot.
You can see the rosette pattern in the black border of the front face clearly. It should be solid black barring printing errors, which were more common then.
The blue mana symbol has an incorrect dot pattern. It should be dithered (dots are in a grid).
On the back, the M of TM is much too bold and too sharp. It should be thin and jagged like the one on the left.
The text "The Gathering" has the wrong dot pattern, they should be dithered (dots should appear in a grid and blue dots get smaller near the top of the letters like the left picture). Also, there should be red highlighting around the letters.
Some of these could be caused by a print error but it isn't worth the risk IMO. If you want to buy dual lands, get a loupe, buy a couple cheap revised cards in every color, and study them. Review the text placement on dual lands (I have seen one on this site that had the text placement of Unlimited for name/type/artist but the rules text of Revised, very subtle but also just wrong).
There are several red flags if you know what to look for. You don't even have to analyze it under a microscope.
The words on the front face for the name, type, and artist are too white. They should appear grayish and contain rosettes. Cards were not printed with white words until 4th edition. This is the easiest and most obvious thing to spot.
You can see the rosette pattern in the black border of the front face clearly. It should be solid black barring printing errors, which were more common then.
The blue mana symbol has an incorrect dot pattern. It should be dithered (dots are in a grid).
On the back, the M of TM is much too bold and too sharp. It should be thin and jagged like the one on the left.
The text "The Gathering" has the wrong dot pattern, they should be dithered (dots should appear in a grid and blue dots get smaller near the top of the letters like the left picture). Also, there should be red highlighting around the letters.
Some of these could be caused by a print error but it isn't worth the risk IMO. If you want to buy dual lands, get a loupe, buy a couple cheap revised cards in every color, and study them. Review the text placement on dual lands (I have seen one on this site that had the text placement of Unlimited for name/type/artist but the rules text of Revised, very subtle but also just wrong).
So much this- I'm still learning ways to spot various counterfeits and I never stop learning, Striker has pointed out some really strong issues.
I think the most telling thing is that crystal clear white text. Look at the scans attached to the other post I looked at- http://imgur.com/a/tCAxo and compare the text in particular. While these pictures were not the greatest in the world to work with, when compared to scans of these duals and what they're supposed to look like, you can see a world of difference.
Here's the thing on counterfeits. If you know what to look for, and don't mind taking the time to look for it, I don't think there's any counterfeit on the market that can pass the various tests and a high detail inspection with a loupe and such. This is a "good" counterfeit, and Striker nails a lot of them, particularly the white text and the black border bearing the rosette. Doing research and learning makes us all better at spotting fakes, and makes counterfeiter's jobs harder. If enough people know what to look for, passing off fakes becomes much, much riskier, and that's our best defense. If Coach and Louis Vuitton and Microsoft can't stop the Chinese from making bootleg products, what makes you think Wizards can? However, it's waaaaaay harder to counterfeit a Magic card than it is software or a purse, and people buying $200 Magic cards are going to put them to much closer inspection than someone looking to buy a discount purse.
I don't think counterfeits will ever get to the point that someone who knows what to look for won't be able to pick one out every time, but the real issue is that no one's putting cards under microscopes at events. Some do look good enough to pass during normal play, especially in a sleeve. They might fail under a loupe or something else, but they have to be suspected to begin with. In my mind, this can be remedied pretty easily by having some or all of a T8 at a major event undergo deck authenticity checks.
While counterfeiters have gotten good enough they can be tough to spot without a loupe, most are simply not on that level. Variations in texture, stock, gross errors, bad corner cuts, and more make up the majority of counterfeits. The more valuable the card, the more scrutiny it undergoes, and I think it's more likely that counterfeiters would choose to focus on the $20 and $50 modern/standard staples less likely to undergo inspection. Even so, some people do try their hand at getting ahold of duals for resale to unsuspecting people. The moral of the story is:
If you are pursuing duals, buying from major vendors is your safest option.
If you are buying from individuals, vet the potential purchase and inspect the card before you buy.
Don't buy a card you can't see. If you do, pay via paypal or do so in such a way you have some recourse.
If you know what to look for, it's unlikely you'll get swindled again. Some fakes are good, but they're not THAT good, and unless you can time travel to the facility that actually made them, and bring the proper paper and ink with you, I don't think it will ever be THAT good. If they ever do get to be THAT good, it won't matter anymore because at that point it's no longer a counterfeit, it's an unauthorized printing. Learn your lesson, but don't let it discourage you from building and playing the deck you want to build and play. It sucks this was kind of an expensive lesson to learn, but it could be worse, you coulda bought a fake mox off ebay or something.
On the green mana dot: So I've looked at various cards under a loupe before, and noticed that the green mana dot tends to contain magenta flecks, specifically in the part of the mana dot that's whiter to make it look a little three dimensional (the top right 30% or so). I looked at several cards a while back and noticed it on all of them. However, due to different manufacturers and printers, I can't guarantee its presence on every single one. Not having these flecks doesn't mean the card isn't real, but bearing them I think pushes me more into the "authentic" line of thinking. A normal loupe should be more than enough to spot it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: TES
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
yeah, they're usually a little more prominent. Since NPH, though, I think quality control has gone downhill- I see a lot of miscolored/badly inked cards, way more than I used to and this may impact the visibility. Check some of your other cards from various eras and you should fine better examples, though the lighting may have cause those pics to wash them out a little bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: TES
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
At first I dismissed his comments, but I would like an objective opinion from experts. I'm attaching a 1200dpi scan of the card. Blacks look sharp to me, the font seems fine and the rosette pattern is there. It honestly seems genuine to me! For the interested, I paid 160 EUR for it (it's indeed in NM condition). What's your take?
Thanks in advance, any help is very appreciated.
Edit: I've read this article about how close Revised DL counterfeits are to the real thing, I'm now worried having spent money on a fake, although I don't have access to a 100% genuine Volcanic to compare them.
https://medium.com/@CharlesFey_39733/fakes-f945adf79f23#.ghn73bel5
Again, objective opinions appreciated.
Edit: added high res scan of back card top. Genuine land on the left, Volcanic on the right. I didn't pay too much attention to the back so far but the two of them look very different under the scanner.
If your friend had issues with the backside not 'fitting the front' maybe you could scan the backside also, so we get a better idea of the issue.
Set to default
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
The back indeed has some glaring issues, which are not common for ravised backs, but...
Before going further there's one question; does the real land really has those greenish areas on it or is this just a artefact from the scanner software, and is the back of the Volc rich black (has tiny dots of other colors mixed in among the black) or is that also from the scan.
I suspect that at least the greenish areas on the land borders come from the scanner trying to represent glare or some other glitch in the data and if it has decided that the land edges are solid black while they actually are lighter than the black borders on Volc, the scanner will show the darker tones as rich black.
I won't go further into how the optimization softwares can cause scares, but please check the real card and compare it to the scan, as this would not be the first time people get scared of scanner issues. But if the card really has rich black borders and very 'fat' TM mark there's another check you can make on the backside. The green dot in the logo has few pixels of magenta (or pink) in there, which do miss from lot of fakes.
The rosette pattern on the back of the Volc is bit peculiar, but lot of those variations happen if one or two colors are misplaced by a pixel or two and Revised had lot of issues with the back print quality. Again the quality of the Volc back is atrocious and the color separations seem to be badly off if that is the natural color scheme of the card. Also the different structures on the inner beveled edge are completely off and the definition betwen letters in 'the Gathering'. I would instantly flag a card like that as suspect and try to find if some colors were off-shifted and if not, deem it as most likely fake.
Set to default
Check what Default User suggested, particularly the magenta flecks in the green mana dot. The scan on the left appears artifacted slightly from the scan- I see some areas that are pretty obviously digital glitches, and the right scan seems like it's more accurate, but lightened more from the scan, so it's very possible that you're dealing with a scan issue, a printing issue of a legit card, or some combination of the two.
Go get a loupe. If you're going to be dealing with duals and such, you should have one anyway. They're like $5-$10. Just go buy one. Check the green mana dots for magenta flecks (they should be present on both). Do a light test, both see-through and UV. The differences your friend mentioned are non-issues, we're looking at things on a much closer level here, and these are only concerns at all because your scanner may not be showing us what the card really looks like on that level. If the loupe reveals the magenta flecks on both cards, and similar coloring and rosettes, and it passes the other two tests, then you almost certainly have a real card, though again, color variations may be present. I should also note that the minor wear seems consistent with a real card- while wear is possible to fake, it's not typically done so on such a minor, subtle level, it tends to be much more obvious and extensive to the point of making the card look "MP" or "SP."
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
When I'm back home I'll try the light test. For sure I'm getting a loupe, and just today I received a UV lamp; as you suggest, it's best to have these tools at hand while dealing with duals.
I think the card was sold to me in a sleeve, so... It's possible that the seller was in good faith. I'll try to get in touch with him to explain the issue, but after a year I'm not even sure how to approach him.
What scaries me most is that from the front alone it looks fine! So, does this mean that counterfeiters only have to improve their backs? ...Or, possibly worse... Did I get one with a poor back which makes its fake nature evident, and there are many others out there where the backs are totally resembling the right thing?
I don't know guys. I'm angry that I wasted money on a fake, angry that I just might be better not buying cards from the Revised era or such, angry that WotC doesn't take a real stand against counterfeiters. Am I letting this get too personal, or do you have similar feelings about this?
Some of these could be caused by a print error but it isn't worth the risk IMO. If you want to buy dual lands, get a loupe, buy a couple cheap revised cards in every color, and study them. Review the text placement on dual lands (I have seen one on this site that had the text placement of Unlimited for name/type/artist but the rules text of Revised, very subtle but also just wrong).
So much this- I'm still learning ways to spot various counterfeits and I never stop learning, Striker has pointed out some really strong issues.
I think the most telling thing is that crystal clear white text. Look at the scans attached to the other post I looked at- http://imgur.com/a/tCAxo and compare the text in particular. While these pictures were not the greatest in the world to work with, when compared to scans of these duals and what they're supposed to look like, you can see a world of difference.
Here's the thing on counterfeits. If you know what to look for, and don't mind taking the time to look for it, I don't think there's any counterfeit on the market that can pass the various tests and a high detail inspection with a loupe and such. This is a "good" counterfeit, and Striker nails a lot of them, particularly the white text and the black border bearing the rosette. Doing research and learning makes us all better at spotting fakes, and makes counterfeiter's jobs harder. If enough people know what to look for, passing off fakes becomes much, much riskier, and that's our best defense. If Coach and Louis Vuitton and Microsoft can't stop the Chinese from making bootleg products, what makes you think Wizards can? However, it's waaaaaay harder to counterfeit a Magic card than it is software or a purse, and people buying $200 Magic cards are going to put them to much closer inspection than someone looking to buy a discount purse.
I don't think counterfeits will ever get to the point that someone who knows what to look for won't be able to pick one out every time, but the real issue is that no one's putting cards under microscopes at events. Some do look good enough to pass during normal play, especially in a sleeve. They might fail under a loupe or something else, but they have to be suspected to begin with. In my mind, this can be remedied pretty easily by having some or all of a T8 at a major event undergo deck authenticity checks.
While counterfeiters have gotten good enough they can be tough to spot without a loupe, most are simply not on that level. Variations in texture, stock, gross errors, bad corner cuts, and more make up the majority of counterfeits. The more valuable the card, the more scrutiny it undergoes, and I think it's more likely that counterfeiters would choose to focus on the $20 and $50 modern/standard staples less likely to undergo inspection. Even so, some people do try their hand at getting ahold of duals for resale to unsuspecting people. The moral of the story is:
If you are pursuing duals, buying from major vendors is your safest option.
If you are buying from individuals, vet the potential purchase and inspect the card before you buy.
Don't buy a card you can't see. If you do, pay via paypal or do so in such a way you have some recourse.
If you know what to look for, it's unlikely you'll get swindled again. Some fakes are good, but they're not THAT good, and unless you can time travel to the facility that actually made them, and bring the proper paper and ink with you, I don't think it will ever be THAT good. If they ever do get to be THAT good, it won't matter anymore because at that point it's no longer a counterfeit, it's an unauthorized printing. Learn your lesson, but don't let it discourage you from building and playing the deck you want to build and play. It sucks this was kind of an expensive lesson to learn, but it could be worse, you coulda bought a fake mox off ebay or something.
On the green mana dot: So I've looked at various cards under a loupe before, and noticed that the green mana dot tends to contain magenta flecks, specifically in the part of the mana dot that's whiter to make it look a little three dimensional (the top right 30% or so). I looked at several cards a while back and noticed it on all of them. However, due to different manufacturers and printers, I can't guarantee its presence on every single one. Not having these flecks doesn't mean the card isn't real, but bearing them I think pushes me more into the "authentic" line of thinking. A normal loupe should be more than enough to spot it.
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave