I purchased a Revised Edition Tundra on ebay, which is by far my most expensive single card purchase. I immediately noticed the back of the card is significantly darker than all of the other mtg cards I own. I don't know if I have any revised edition, but I do have a lot of older cards going back to at least to '94. Is it normal for Revised Edition card backs to be significantly darker?
It won't let me upload a photo on this thread for some reason, so I put photos on a temporary storage site linked below. The card on top is the tundra, and the other card is a basic land from an older set with similar fonts/layout but I'm not sure what edition. The photo really doesn't capture the color difference very well. It's very noticeable in person.
Other than that, the card seems very legit. The weight of the card seems comparable, looks similar when shining a light through it, and the print patterns are very similar when you zoom in on the picture of the card front.
I can't tell you for sure or not as I don't have any tundras but I will say I have noticed older cards can have significantly darker backs. I hope someone can be of more use to you than I have.
I can't tell you for sure or not as I don't have any tundras but I will say I have noticed older cards can have significantly darker backs.
I've noticed this too - anything from at **least** 4th Edition and earlier (including Arabian Nights, Revised, Beta, etc) will most likely have a darker back, compared to more recent sets (though this may not be absolute... ?)
I can get the image of the back, as I only get the hosting site front page, but the front looks like a real card.
Old cards do have different colored backs, so much so that when sleeves were not allowed at high level tournaments people could identify from which set the card backs were from and know if they had a land on top of their deck at all times. Luckily for the game integrity won and better print quality control also helped.
Revised has both normal and darker back cards and some that are in betwen. The set was rushed out at incredible rate and quality control didn't have a chance to catch more than the most glaringly misprinted sheets.
But without seeing the backside scans I can suggest you do the light test with a known real card and feel the card. Lot of the fakes have slightly more plasticy feel than real cards and reflect light more than real cards. If your biggest frar is the darker back, then that is normal and is not a major red flag for the authenticity.
Thanks for the replies! Makes me feel a lot better.
Yes, the color of the back was my biggest concern. I did a few light tests, and it seems comparable in light reflective qualities and about the same amount of light that passes through when shining a light behind it, when compared to a known real card.
I had to upload the image of the deck backs again:
It won't let me upload a photo on this thread for some reason, so I put photos on a temporary storage site linked below. The card on top is the tundra, and the other card is a basic land from an older set with similar fonts/layout but I'm not sure what edition. The photo really doesn't capture the color difference very well. It's very noticeable in person.
Other than that, the card seems very legit. The weight of the card seems comparable, looks similar when shining a light through it, and the print patterns are very similar when you zoom in on the picture of the card front.
Card backs:
https://ibb.co/jVykGQ
Card front print pattern:
https://ibb.co/hGUQGQ
Thanks in advanced.
I've noticed this too - anything from at **least** 4th Edition and earlier (including Arabian Nights, Revised, Beta, etc) will most likely have a darker back, compared to more recent sets (though this may not be absolute... ?)
Old cards do have different colored backs, so much so that when sleeves were not allowed at high level tournaments people could identify from which set the card backs were from and know if they had a land on top of their deck at all times. Luckily for the game integrity won and better print quality control also helped.
Revised has both normal and darker back cards and some that are in betwen. The set was rushed out at incredible rate and quality control didn't have a chance to catch more than the most glaringly misprinted sheets.
But without seeing the backside scans I can suggest you do the light test with a known real card and feel the card. Lot of the fakes have slightly more plasticy feel than real cards and reflect light more than real cards. If your biggest frar is the darker back, then that is normal and is not a major red flag for the authenticity.
Set to default
Yes, the color of the back was my biggest concern. I did a few light tests, and it seems comparable in light reflective qualities and about the same amount of light that passes through when shining a light behind it, when compared to a known real card.
I had to upload the image of the deck backs again:
https://ibb.co/cmAuvk
Thanks again