Nier, Thank you for that, if you have a minute, you can use the link in my original post, all macro pics of the cards are there including the text, which is sharp and precise, like all other authentic cards I have.
Really strange that the patterns vary that much.
Was just looking at a Tabernacle of Pendrell Vale, and it has the same exact "flower" ou Firework pattern, however you like to call'em https://www.ebay.ca/itm/382521013881
Hi Guys,
Have a nice played Miscut Volcanic Island, but the print patterns are really different from my graded one. Card feeling, texture, old paper, wear, blacks of text and borders, everything seems totally right. Except the print patterns make circles instead of the "triangles". I pulled out some basic lands from my revised booster box I opened myself in 94, but since they are all from the same box, they are also all from the same print run, and patterns also don't match.
Just your opinion on this would be appreciated !
If it's really an old box from a 1994 player, I wouldn't be cautious about authenticity, there weren't any ******erfeits back in the days.
Demonic Tutor Revised is prbly your best item in the list.
Those look more than Near Mint, they look like freshly out of the press and brand new cutters !!!
Black look maybe too black.
Were they freshly out of a pack ?
I don't have any authentic 93 Beta's that don't "look old"
How does the card feel ? Texture, gloss, close up look at the blacks with a jeweler's loupe ?
I don't have those cards in Beta, so can't provide images to compare.
Here is a side view I made of a revised dual land fake I got from eBay. I know it's a white border, but as you mention, the thickness looks a bit like what you describe (not the same ratios per layer)...
It would help to get clear really closeup pics.
One good thing also, (I assume you don't have another Beta BLotus to compare, but put another Beta card beside.
Colors, textures, print patterns, etc...
Here is a high res of a beta card to try to help you ...
Hi Again,
I think that now that I had a doubt, it's hard to get it off my mind !
So tonight I went through my collection, and spotted something interesting.
2x Unlimited Counterspell, Blue Uncommon, in every single edition of MTG since 93, no real reason to do any fakes of that !!
Then I noticed that one of the 2 looked like it also had the "misalignment" of the layers.
So I made again macro pics of the 3 cards side by side ...
I am starting to think that everything is real, went with jeweler's magnifier, light test, the macro pics...
Hi All,
I was lucky to get ahold of a beautiful Ancestral Recall a couple of weeks ago, and when doing my macro pics, I noticed the print dots at the bottom that go past the black bottom line.
(You really have to zoom to see the small color dots in the black line, and past it...
I know that the Unlimited has many print defects, and that all color layers were added one on top of the other and sometimes not perfectly aligned, so was wondering if I should be nervous about those dots ... I know that finding color dots in the black borders of an alpha or beta is immediate sign of fake...
And at the price you must pay to get a second of those to compare, thought I'd use the forum's knowledge before !!
This one looks REALLY nice...
I had the chance (or the badluck) of being shipped a fake candelabra after a buy on eBay.
I used my macro lens to take HD pics of the fake, and the same pics of my other real candelabra.
I did a little collage of both side by side.
You can look at those details on your card, but from the 1200DPI scan I see it looks like a really nice card, would keep it for a while :o)
See the rosetta print patterns are smaller on the fake, almost every detail is more blurry, but I must say the candelabra was harder to distinguish compared to the fake underground sea.
The side view in Macro is also interesting, the paper fiber, and the core really come out different. We should never forget that even though they could be mint from a pack, they are still 25yo cardboard pieces...
Hi Guys,
I have started to pull out my 93-96 MTG collection, and there are some cards which I have a hard time identifying.
I know it must not be worth much, but what is it exactly ?
My finger is hiding the year at the bottom, it's 1996.
Is this the right place to ask this kind of questions, I have many other cards in foreign languages which I am not sure about.
Thanks
Really strange that the patterns vary that much.
Was just looking at a Tabernacle of Pendrell Vale, and it has the same exact "flower" ou Firework pattern, however you like to call'em
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/382521013881
Have a nice played Miscut Volcanic Island, but the print patterns are really different from my graded one. Card feeling, texture, old paper, wear, blacks of text and borders, everything seems totally right. Except the print patterns make circles instead of the "triangles". I pulled out some basic lands from my revised booster box I opened myself in 94, but since they are all from the same box, they are also all from the same print run, and patterns also don't match.
Just your opinion on this would be appreciated !
Here are all the HD Macro pics for your pleasure :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rhdLayO0PJA57jy8ZzvKRV1h-9SuVcDZ
Demonic Tutor Revised is prbly your best item in the list.
Black look maybe too black.
Were they freshly out of a pack ?
I don't have any authentic 93 Beta's that don't "look old"
How does the card feel ? Texture, gloss, close up look at the blacks with a jeweler's loupe ?
I don't have those cards in Beta, so can't provide images to compare.
Here is a side view I made of a revised dual land fake I got from eBay. I know it's a white border, but as you mention, the thickness looks a bit like what you describe (not the same ratios per layer)...
https://drive.google.com/open?id=19MEtobT4nCmPXa-1qbOBDK9Qg8cZOlJQ
One good thing also, (I assume you don't have another Beta BLotus to compare, but put another Beta card beside.
Colors, textures, print patterns, etc...
Here is a high res of a beta card to try to help you ...
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0S0PqKi5708ZWd4b0F3SHlUZWs
I think that now that I had a doubt, it's hard to get it off my mind !
So tonight I went through my collection, and spotted something interesting.
2x Unlimited Counterspell, Blue Uncommon, in every single edition of MTG since 93, no real reason to do any fakes of that !!
Then I noticed that one of the 2 looked like it also had the "misalignment" of the layers.
So I made again macro pics of the 3 cards side by side ...
I am starting to think that everything is real, went with jeweler's magnifier, light test, the macro pics...
Anyone's opinion on the topic ?
Front Bottom : (ancestral is the back card)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z4KWLuPC14zh9r5gYeJAG0UeUCiLGd5E
Front Top : (obvious where it is ;o)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vPSNgZvHFuwhpdsxle65sJycMz03VrPw
Top Side View for the Cores : (ancestral in the middle)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fJEZMmFuWhRnrJmwM4fq79JDWo1aW1sB
I was lucky to get ahold of a beautiful Ancestral Recall a couple of weeks ago, and when doing my macro pics, I noticed the print dots at the bottom that go past the black bottom line.
(You really have to zoom to see the small color dots in the black line, and past it...
I know that the Unlimited has many print defects, and that all color layers were added one on top of the other and sometimes not perfectly aligned, so was wondering if I should be nervous about those dots ... I know that finding color dots in the black borders of an alpha or beta is immediate sign of fake...
And at the price you must pay to get a second of those to compare, thought I'd use the forum's knowledge before !!
Thanks
Dave
Front :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0S0PqKi5708NmI4VV9EQ1U3NUE
Back :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0S0PqKi5708NGF4UnlZRW9ET3c
I had the chance (or the badluck) of being shipped a fake candelabra after a buy on eBay.
I used my macro lens to take HD pics of the fake, and the same pics of my other real candelabra.
I did a little collage of both side by side.
You can look at those details on your card, but from the 1200DPI scan I see it looks like a really nice card, would keep it for a while :o)
See the rosetta print patterns are smaller on the fake, almost every detail is more blurry, but I must say the candelabra was harder to distinguish compared to the fake underground sea.
The side view in Macro is also interesting, the paper fiber, and the core really come out different. We should never forget that even though they could be mint from a pack, they are still 25yo cardboard pieces...
Seems authentic though, but not worth a non-altered card.
I have started to pull out my 93-96 MTG collection, and there are some cards which I have a hard time identifying.
I know it must not be worth much, but what is it exactly ?
My finger is hiding the year at the bottom, it's 1996.
Is this the right place to ask this kind of questions, I have many other cards in foreign languages which I am not sure about.
Thanks