Well, the bottom corners were there but my point was also, how can you rely on them at all?
I mean, let's just assume someone buys a lot of Beta and goes through the cards with a corner cutter. At that point, how can you tell the difference between a genuine Alpha and a cut Beta?
And yes, I'm asking because it seems unreal to me that one can increase of a good 50% the card's value just by re-cutting corners.
There should be some other telling signs, correct?
I've recently purchased a small lot of Alpha and Beta cards for my collection. I already had several Beta cards but I have never owned an Alpha.
I knew there were differences between Alpha and Beta printings (esp. on the rich black border), but I can't really spot any difference between the Alpha and Beta copy of the cards I bought. For reference, this is the 1200dpi comparison between the Alpha and Beta version of Stream of Life (all the other cards show the same differences or lack thereof).
Did I get scammed and the "Alpha" cards I purchased are actually Beta with cut corners? If not so, how can I safely tell Alpha from Beta?
Sorry man, you're right to be worried, this is a really bad fake. The black spots on the card border indicate this is probably an erased card printed over with a low quality inkjet. I see an Ancestral and a Time Walk in the background of your photo, I really hope you weren't scammed by malevolent people over there selling full sets of P9 counterfeits.
By all means, if you paid for these and they were advertised as genuine, open a dispute immediately.
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?
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.
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.
Hello, this is Lorenzo from Italy, been playing since the '90, mostly active between 94-99 but I've always followed the game. These past months I've been gathering money and time to get back into Vintage (that was once called type 1), and joined the forum to get/give suggestions and support.
I mean, let's just assume someone buys a lot of Beta and goes through the cards with a corner cutter. At that point, how can you tell the difference between a genuine Alpha and a cut Beta?
And yes, I'm asking because it seems unreal to me that one can increase of a good 50% the card's value just by re-cutting corners.
There should be some other telling signs, correct?
I've recently purchased a small lot of Alpha and Beta cards for my collection. I already had several Beta cards but I have never owned an Alpha.
I knew there were differences between Alpha and Beta printings (esp. on the rich black border), but I can't really spot any difference between the Alpha and Beta copy of the cards I bought. For reference, this is the 1200dpi comparison between the Alpha and Beta version of Stream of Life (all the other cards show the same differences or lack thereof).
Did I get scammed and the "Alpha" cards I purchased are actually Beta with cut corners? If not so, how can I safely tell Alpha from Beta?
http://u.cubeupload.com/lorenzo1980/StreamoflifeAlphaBet.jpg
Thanks!
By all means, if you paid for these and they were advertised as genuine, open a dispute immediately.
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?
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.