The Magic Librarities

A french guy bought recently a beta Ancestral recall on ebay, hi-res scanned it and compared it to a CE/ICE Ancestral he owns, and some differences in the ink dot alignment appeared.
The beta card he received passes the bend test, the opacity of the card is good, brievely said, the card looks legit.
So what could explain these differences in the dot pattern?

Is the printing process different for an Alpha/beta card and a CE/ICE card?

http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=12PKF011 (.doc including hi-res scans of both cards)

i don't like megaupload,
you have to wait almost one minute before you can download...... .
waiting for a diferent source for the pictures

yeah, try www.koolfiles.com

Here you go

http://www.koolfiles.com/files/problemancestral.rar

Yves: No the priniting process should be the same. Carta Mundi used the very small, concentric circles in their printing process to dupe card fakers. It takes extremely high res scans to duplicate the circles correctly. Either a high res scan, or if you have very good vision, a jeweler's loop or good magnifying glass can show these differences.

Your letter to the seller is correct...the card is a fake. This feature is the most overlooked and I found the most effective way to quickly debunk fakes. If your eyes is trained well enough, you should be able to spot these types of fakes more easily, noting that something just does not seem right about the card.

I have gotten into discussions with very respected M:TG store owners and collectors on the topic of when a fake is not a fake. Or basically if someone produced a fake well enough that passes every known test. I am sure it is done, but if there is no way to distiguish the card...even under high resolution scan and scrutiny, is the card really a fake any more? If you cannot tell a extremely well done fake from an original, does it not make the fake "real"? I have to guess that someone has perfected this method to some degree. The key is that most folks this intelligent to cover every aspect to make a card real also know well enough not to flood the market, thereby even devaluing their own fakes.

Thanks a lot Mintcollector.

mintcollector wrote:Yves: No the priniting process should be the same. Carta Mundi used the very small, concentric circles in their printing process to dupe card fakers. It takes extremely high res scans to duplicate the circles correctly. Either a high res scan, or if you have very good vision, a jeweler's loop or good magnifying glass can show these differences.

I have gotten into discussions with very respected M:TG store owners and collectors on the topic of when a fake is not a fake. Or basically if someone produced a fake well enough that passes every known test. I am sure it is done, but if there is no way to distiguish the card...even under high resolution scan and scrutiny, is the card really a fake any more? If you cannot tell a extremely well done fake from an original, does it not make the fake "real"? I have to guess that someone has perfected this method to some degree. The key is that most folks this intelligent to cover every aspect to make a card real also know well enough not to flood the market, thereby even devaluing their own fakes.

I agree that it is getting more difficult to determine whether some cards (or tokens) are fake. But this does not mean it is impossible. Rather, it means that those who are trying to determine whether something is fake lack the appropriate tools.

hammr7 wrote:

mintcollector wrote:Yves: No the priniting process should be the same. Carta Mundi used the very small, concentric circles in their printing process to dupe card fakers. It takes extremely high res scans to duplicate the circles correctly. Either a high res scan, or if you have very good vision, a jeweler's loop or good magnifying glass can show these differences.

I have gotten into discussions with very respected M:TG store owners and collectors on the topic of when a fake is not a fake. Or basically if someone produced a fake well enough that passes every known test. I am sure it is done, but if there is no way to distiguish the card...even under high resolution scan and scrutiny, is the card really a fake any more? If you cannot tell a extremely well done fake from an original, does it not make the fake "real"? I have to guess that someone has perfected this method to some degree. The key is that most folks this intelligent to cover every aspect to make a card real also know well enough not to flood the market, thereby even devaluing their own fakes.

I agree that it is getting more difficult to determine whether some cards (or tokens) are fake. But this does not mean it is impossible. Rather, it means that those who are trying to determine whether something is fake lack the appropriate tools.

Hank: you are missing the point. At what point is a fake no longer considered a fake when it passes every known test without issue and looks exactly like the real thing? It is the same things as a perfect counterfeit of a painting or money. At what point is a fake no longer a fake when it can fool all the experts as well? In other words how far can something still be called a fake if the forgery passes EVERY known test? The problem is that if this ever has happened, and never publically revealed, then the fake passes for real and even those who know to look at every detail possible cannot see this as a fake...then is it real? Well of course it is easy to say, no it is a fake, then I'll counter you by saying, prove to me this is a fake then. Without destroying a card with a water test or ripping it apart, a perfectly done fake...you cannot. What do you do even if the fake passes these tests?

Or, as I've said in the past, it's real in any way that can be tested. Since ripping it in half is not a useful test for our needs, it's effectively real.

There's no question that cards CAN be faked to that level of 'realness', it's just that in the past, it was too much trouble/required too much gear to do it right. As time and technology progresses, that barrier becomes less of an issue.

And, of course, not only does flooding the market lower the overall value (assuming one floods too much), but it also sets off red flags everywhere.

So that 'amazingly mint' UL lotus might be fake, but if it passes all the tests, does it really matter? And even if it did matter, can you tell anyway?

Gryfalia

The exisiting tests are not the only non-destructive tests that can be run. They are merely the only non-destructive tests tried by Magic collectors. And few Magic collectors have ever worked in the print industry. As someone who has run a print QC department, I am familiar with a number of additional tests that could be brought to use. Unfortunately the equipment required for some of these is expensive.

In fact, the entire PSA business model is based upon the supposition that PSA can and does utilize many of these esoteric test methods that aren't available to the normal collector, when necessary. Of course PSA doesn't divulge specifics, so there is no way of knowing which tests (if any) they actually utilize. But the scope of such tests would make it virtually impossible for a counterfeit card to completely match an original unless the counterfeit was run at the same time on the same printing press with the same inks, coatings, and paper. If that is the case, then I would agree that the fake is real. But at that point the card is real; it is just using an illegal distribution method.

I've been doing an evaluation of Crazy Clown tokens, which suffer from counterfeiting, and have found major differences between real tokens and at least sone (if not all) of the counterfeits using tests not normally utilized on Magic cards. I will provide information soon in another thread.

what about schrodinger's cat?

what about something like resealing a pack that will never be opened, or putting a brick in a MODO redemption box.

Recently, I thought my unopened CE packs may have only commons in them, and I was sad. Then I found out they have the UC's, so I'm glad. My point being...NOTHING HAPPENED...

What I'm saying is, maybe the only real test on whether a card is real or not is if the owner cares.

mintcollector wrote:
Hank: you are missing the point. At what point is a fake no longer considered a fake when it passes every known test without issue and looks exactly like the real thing? It is the same things as a perfect counterfeit of a painting or money. At what point is a fake no longer a fake when it can fool all the experts as well? In other words how far can something still be called a fake if the forgery passes EVERY known test? The problem is that if this ever has happened, and never publically revealed, then the fake passes for real and even those who know to look at every detail possible cannot see this as a fake...then is it real? Well of course it is easy to say, no it is a fake, then I'll counter you by saying, prove to me this is a fake then. Without destroying a card with a water test or ripping it apart, a perfectly done fake...you cannot. What do you do even if the fake passes these tests?

On both a subjective and objective level this is true, but only so long as the fake passes every possible test, both at the time of its purchase and at the time of its sale. A fake is only "real" when you can't begin to guess it is fake.

The problem is that fakes are eventually uncovered. Often it is something obscure, like a wear coating that glows (or doesn't glow) under unltraviolet light. Or it is a characteristic that only shows itself over time, like a paper stock that isn't acid resistant, and starts to discolor. Whatever the off characteristic is, once it is exposed some simplified method is usually developed to test for it.

From an ethics perspective, there is another component. If you believe or know it is a fake, then it is fake no matter how real it appears, and no matter how many tests it passes.

mintcollector wrote:

hammr7 wrote:

mintcollector wrote:Yves: No the priniting process should be the same. Carta Mundi used the very small, concentric circles in their printing process to dupe card fakers. It takes extremely high res scans to duplicate the circles correctly. Either a high res scan, or if you have very good vision, a jeweler's loop or good magnifying glass can show these differences.

I have gotten into discussions with very respected M:TG store owners and collectors on the topic of when a fake is not a fake. Or basically if someone produced a fake well enough that passes every known test. I am sure it is done, but if there is no way to distiguish the card...even under high resolution scan and scrutiny, is the card really a fake any more? If you cannot tell a extremely well done fake from an original, does it not make the fake "real"? I have to guess that someone has perfected this method to some degree. The key is that most folks this intelligent to cover every aspect to make a card real also know well enough not to flood the market, thereby even devaluing their own fakes.

I agree that it is getting more difficult to determine whether some cards (or tokens) are fake. But this does not mean it is impossible. Rather, it means that those who are trying to determine whether something is fake lack the appropriate tools.

Hank: you are missing the point. At what point is a fake no longer considered a fake when it passes every known test without issue and looks exactly like the real thing? It is the same things as a perfect counterfeit of a painting or money. At what point is a fake no longer a fake when it can fool all the experts as well? In other words how far can something still be called a fake if the forgery passes EVERY known test? The problem is that if this ever has happened, and never publically revealed, then the fake passes for real and even those who know to look at every detail possible cannot see this as a fake...then is it real? Well of course it is easy to say, no it is a fake, then I'll counter you by saying, prove to me this is a fake then. Without destroying a card with a water test or ripping it apart, a perfectly done fake...you cannot. What do you do even if the fake passes these tests?

The point to which I'd no longer consider it a fake is when it's physically identical to a "real" one.