Some more ways of telling if expensive cards are real

[CrashTest]

Since a lot of us Vintage players deal with expensive cards, I think this may be a good place to start a conversation on the subject with slightly new information that is not talked about. (i.e not only bend tests)

Aside from the usual stuff- rosetta printing pattern, bend test, light test, and just plain close examination- there are some other things to look for when d
iscerning if a card is real.

       I will add a few that i've noticed or read about, and hopefully more people can add insight so we can compile a nice list.

 1.) A lot of unlimited cards have a "printing" line through the card, usually two of them going across the width horizontally. Often these can only be seen when direct light is used to point it out, but it looks almost as though a cookie cutter was used to create a mark. The mark isn't damaging, just on the surface. Most likely, if an Unlimited card has this, it is real because these came from some sort of defect in the printing system Wizards used.

2.) I'm not sure which other Alpha cards may have this, but I've noticed a lot of Alpha Mox Sapphires have a white blemish on the lower right side, which can almost look like a rip at a long distance, but it's just a blemish. If anyone knows of other Alpha cards with this characteristic as well, mention it.

      Those are the two major one's I've noticed, hopefully we can get a nice list of factory or printing press large scale marks like the above that can be used to identify real cards better, to complement the other tests.

Some things that look sketchy at first but do not necessarily mean anything:

1.) If you look at the Unlimited Moxes, the Mox name, Artist name, and "Mono Artifact" text often look very light, or even slightly less in focus then the main text body. This is because of the font colors used, so it is natural to get this lighter text on most Unlimited artifacts. It can happen with beta too, but Beta is generally darker.

2.) Some Beta cards can be cut to look like Alpha, but unless it is a very good cut, you can probably tell right away. It won't mean the card is fake, just altered.

3.) The bend test- This test is often controversial. I have seen it damage real cards when done too many times or with excessive force. A lot of good fakes won't fail this test anyway, and the ones that do, you can usually tell are fake just by feeling them or looking closely. Becareful in bend testing unlimited cards, since you may damage them for no reason. Beta fakes are the ones to be rebacked, so only bend test if you really need to do it and everything else has failed.

[Penguin]

What I have noticed is, which almost nobody else realizes really, is that the quickest way to separate a revised card from a unlimited card is that the artist's name on an unlimited card is "suspended" in the middle of the lower block (where today you find the author, date, etc...) and on an revised care the artist's name "sits" on the very bottom border.  It doesn't take long to notice the difference if you look at for instance an underground sea in the gatherer as unlimited and revised.

I have also found this site to be very informative about what to do if you think you have a fake, and how to do it.

http://www.apathyhouse.com/mtg/fake/index.php

[Matt]

the artist's name on an unlimited card is "suspended" in the middle of the lower block (where today you find the author, date, etc...) and on an revised care the artist's name "sits" on the very bottom border.  It doesn't take long to notice the difference if you look at for instance an underground sea in the gatherer as unlimited and revised.

I don't see ANY difference at all:


Badlands is much much more convincing, you can tell there. Also Taiga. I think Gatherer actually just fucked up and is using Unlimited Underground Sea for both unlimited and revised. Way to pick the ONE card that Gatherer doesn't work for

[Harkius]

the artist's name on an unlimited card is "suspended" in the middle of the lower block (where today you find the author, date, etc...) and on an revised care the artist's name "sits" on the very bottom border. It doesn't take long to notice the difference if you look at for instance an underground sea in the gatherer as unlimited and revised.

I don't see ANY difference at all:

These are both Unlimited. There's no Tap symbol.

Cheers,
Harkius

[Mykeatog]

Show them to me.

I get paid to verify cards.

A scan can tell you everything that you could ever want to know -- I really don't know how this continues to be an issue. I also hate to do this but - most of the things suggested in the first post are completely looney.

"A lot of unlimited cards have a "printing" line through the card, usually two of them going across the width horizontally. Often these can only be seen when direct light is used to point it out, but it looks almost as though a cookie cutter was used to create a mark. The mark isn't damaging, just on the surface. Most likely, if an Unlimited card has this, it is real because these came from some sort of defect in the printing system Wizards used. "

... Some of them have ONE line. The line is VERY noticeable and doesn't really affect the value much. If you want me to take a Ravnica card and give it the same line let me know, I can do it with a book.

"2.) I'm not sure which other Alpha cards may have this, but I've noticed a lot of Alpha Mox Sapphires have a white blemish on the lower right side, which can almost look like a rip at a long distance, but it's just a blemish. If anyone knows of other Alpha cards with this characteristic as well, mention it. "

Nope. This is just a complete lie. A blemish? A rip? I am not trying to get down on this guy as much as I am trying to not lower the average intelligence of the community.

"Some things that look sketchy at first but do not necessarily mean anything: 1.) If you look at the Unlimited Moxes, the Mox name, Artist name, and "Mono Artifact" text often look very light, or even slightly less in focus then the main text body. This is because of the font colors used, so it is natural to get this lighter text on most Unlimited artifacts. It can happen with beta too, but Beta is generally darker. "

I have seen these lighter moxes, but they aren't very common - 75% of the time a typographical alteration on a card is a red flare. Or at least - some thing that SHOULD be considered sketchy.

"2.) Some Beta cards can be cut to look like Alpha, but unless it is a very good cut, you can probably tell right away. It won't mean the card is fake, just altered. "

This is not ONLY irrelevant, but also useless. Alpha cards were inserted in beta packs to get rid of the excess cards - none of this crazy stuff.

"3.) The bend test- This test is often controversial. I have seen it damage real cards when done too many times or with excessive force. A lot of good fakes won't fail this test anyway, and the ones that do, you can usually tell are fake just by feeling them or looking closely. Becareful in bend testing unlimited cards, since you may damage them for no reason. Beta fakes are the ones to be rebacked, so only bend test if you really need to do it and everything else has failed."

The bend test is all the common magic player has. Though I am also against using it (because over (extended) time it will damage cards), I certainly don't think of it as the enemy. If you bend test an unlimited card, and it gets a crease -- there is a VERY small chance that it is because it got tested too many times. What makes a beta card ANY more likely to get rebacked than an unlimited card? Are you incinuating that someone godo enough at rebacking beta cards, wouldn't do it to an unlimited card? And then - wouldn't you want to use the bend test right away to immediately expose the fake?

I have a hard time getting behind any conversation on this topic because it really doesn't bode well for the average vintage player. These conversations always strike me as "I buy things that I don't know are real - but it's okay, I'll worry about it later". I understand what this thread is trying to do but it will need a little more help in getting there.

Side note - if you are still hung up on telling the difference between the unlimited cards and the revised ones... there is a black bar (bevel?) between the white border and the inner border on unlimited cards. It isn't there on revised cards. Hold two up together - and you will never mistake one for another again. Why don't you try to crack alternate 4rth?

[Harkius]

Why don't you try to crack alternate 4rth?

UV Light is a dead giveaway, isn't it? I have heard that Summer Magic cards have a different UV coating (to prevent fading), and that they do not fluoresce under UV light, whilst normal 4th edition cards do. Is this untrue??

Thanks,
Harkius

[Mr. Fantazy]

Summer is different from alt. 4th.
Summer, or Edgar as it's also known, was during the Revised printing.

Alt 4th is easy to tell by looking on the back at the upper right corner of the "A" in the word Magic. On a normal printing the upper corner has a light spot, alt. 4th has a dark spot.

Once you know what your looking at it is very easy to tell.


-Shawn

[Mykeatog]

Alternate fourth held under a BLACK LIGHT is a dead giveaway - then overtime you can just tell. The ring on the back on the cards is a light purple, which is different enough from a normal card - oh and they have a 'wax' coating that makes them look kinda like 5th edition cards, that is how I spot them in people's binders; I just look for 5th edition lightning bolts.

Summer (I've heard it reffered to as many things but never 'edgar' Mr. Fantasy - where are you from? Any idea as to the origin of that name?) is something else entirely. Imagine an update to revised that did what unlimited did for beta - just reprinting the same shit. That is what summer was going to be revised with a fixed serendib, well heh - then they realized that summer was a dumb idea since 4th was far enough along in construction - so they canned the whole thing, or like - most of the whole thing, accept for a few delicious cases of summery goodness.  These are VERY easy to distinquish from normal revised cards, as there is a year on the bottom of the card (where it is supposed to be, and would be in all future magic releases).

[Mr. Fantazy]

Hey Mike,
I'm from out here in sunny So. Cal. Actually we've met a couple of times at GenCon SoCal.
You are absolutely correct about the Black Light, Ring and Coating, as well as the dark spot I mentioned.

Edgar was the codename for the reprinted set. Why they chose Edgar is beyond me though.

-Shawn

[Harkius]

Alternate fourth held under a BLACK LIGHT is a dead giveaway

They are the same thing. The difference is merely one of intensity and wavelength. Black lights are less intense, longer wavelength. It means that you are less likely to get cancer. However, I work in a molecular biology lab and am not a hippie. UV lights are easier for me to get my cards near.

Are alternate 4th cards worth anything? I would guess that they are. However, they are mcuh more common than Summer Magic/Edgar (I've heard the name, too. Wizards wrote something about it in their original encyclopedia of Magic Cards), as we found a whole bunch at our local store with a black light.

Cheers,
Harkius

Edit -- damn auto tag close!

[xrizzo]

"2.) I'm not sure which other Alpha cards may have this, but I've noticed a lot of Alpha Mox Sapphires have a white blemish on the lower right side, which can almost look like a rip at a long distance, but it's just a blemish. If anyone knows of other Alpha cards with this characteristic as well, mention it. "

Nope. This is just a complete lie. A blemish? A rip? I am not trying to get down on this guy as much as I am trying to not lower the average intelligence of the community.

I know what he is talking about.  On some black bordered mox sapphires, there is this white mark on the lower right side of the card.  It looks like a problem, but it is simply a printing error.  I wouldn't have believed that myself unless I saw like 10 with the EXACT same mark.

Here is a scan from my own alpha sapphire...

[Bram]

I've heard it reffered to as many things but never 'edgar'

That doesn't stop it being true, though

When Revised was printed, there were some problems, the most notable ones being the washed-out look of the set and the Serendib Efreet saddled with Ifh-Biff Efreet's art and frame. The powers-that-be decided to correct the mistakes for one last reprint (codenamed “Edgar�), and did so.

Also, my Alpha Sapphire does not seem to have the same mark.

[Jacob Orlove]

My alpha sapphire does, oddly enough. I hadn't noticed it before, but it's clearly a printing error--the black inside the white mark is just as glossy as outside of it.

[CrashTest]

"2.) I'm not sure which other Alpha cards may have this, but I've noticed a lot of Alpha Mox Sapphires have a white blemish on the lower right side, which can almost look like a rip at a long distance, but it's just a blemish. If anyone knows of other Alpha cards with this characteristic as well, mention it. "

Nope. This is just a complete lie. A blemish? A rip? I am not trying to get down on this guy as much as I am trying to not lower the average intelligence of the community.

I know what he is talking about.  On some black bordered mox sapphires, there is this white mark on the lower right side of the card.  It looks like a problem, but it is simply a printing error.  I wouldn't have believed that myself unless I saw like 10 with the EXACT same mark.

Here is a scan from my own alpha sapphire...

  Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about. Mike, I appreciate your insight, but I think you are being a bit rash on certain points. Can you explain your comments towards me on the Alpha Mox Sapphire "Blemish" being a complete lie, when in truth, it is absolutely accurate as many Alpha Sapphires do exhibit this mark? (Perhaps not all, but many do.)

[pyr0ma5ta]

I've actually noticed the blemish issue with newer cards too.  I draft twice a week, and I've noticed these marks on Ravnica cards.  I have a Elvish Skysweeper with the same blemish but on the bottom edge, too lazy to scan it.  But I believe it if you say it's common on Alpha Sapphires.

[Evenpence]

I've got the same mark here.  You do seem a little overly critical, Mike.  Thanks for your expertise in fakes and such.

[Harkius]

Still hoping for an answer about alternate 4th edition cards...

Thanks!
Harkius

[Bram]

Great. Now I'm worried mine's a fake

Anyone here who DOESN'T have the mark?

[CrashTest]

Bram, I've seen about 10 different ones and they all have the mark. No need to worry though, I am sure there may be ones without the mark. Just check ebay auctions and the like for pictures of Alpha Sapphires, you'll find some that are real without a mark most likely. Probably, who knows!

[Mr. Fantazy]

When Alt 4th was discovered, rather recently, prices spiked. There were alot of rumors about how much had gotten released. At first it was thought only a small amount had gotten out in the midwest, but now it looks like quite a bit got out, and prices have dropped quite a bit.

You can still get a small premium on the cards but the rarity is nowhere near summer magic.


-Shawn

[virtual]

@Bram

Mine has the mark, pretty clearly. 

However if you look at the scan of yours, it seems to have it too, just nowhere near as bad.

(Compare the 2 pictures right above to the right of "artifact")... you'll see the blemish very lightly on yours... I could pick it out right away, but had to compare to see if it was in the right spot.

[Harkius]

So, do Summer 4th cards have the bevel or is it missing?

Harkius

[CrashTest]

Here's an example of the printing lines I was talking about, on the Unlimited Black Lotus:

[Mr. Fantazy]

So, do Summer 4th cards have the bevel or is it missing?

Harkius

I'm not sure you're understanding that "Summer" and "Alt. 4th" are different sets.

Summer/Edgar was a reprinting of the Revised base set.
These cards look just like normal Revised cards (No bevel, which is how you tell between Revised/Unlimited). The difference between Revised and Summer is that Summer has c1994 next to the artist's name at the bottom of the card. Revised does not have a date.


Alt. 4th was a reprinting of the 4th Edition base set.
These look just like normal 4th Edition cards and can be distinguished by black light, feel, and/or the dark spot in the "A" on the back of the card.

Hope that clears it up.

-Shawn

[Harkius]

So, do Summer 4th cards have the bevel or is it missing?

Harkius

I'm not sure you're understanding that "Summer" and "Alt. 4th" are different sets.

Summer/Edgar was a reprinting of the Revised base set.
These cards look just like normal Revised cards (No bevel, which is how you tell between Revised/Unlimited). The difference between Revised and Summer is that Summer has c1994 next to the artist's name at the bottom of the card. Revised does not have a date.

What?

The fact that there was an answer that wasn't common knowledge (the printings had a number of differences and the bevel could have easily been one of them) should have told you that it was a reasonable question, not something to leap on me about. After someone pointed it out to me, I understood the difference quite rapidly. I understood that there was a copyright date on Edgar cards. I was curious about the bevel as well, since Revised was the only set that I am aware of without it.

You did answer my question, though, so thank you. Just be a little calmer next time, all right?

Harkius

[Mykeatog]

CrashTest - Looks like even a pro can learn a new trick every now and then.

I get very critical here - because if you don't stand behind what you are saying often the community can take it apart. I know what I am saying is fact and that concept is frustrating to me.

Unfortunately, if we have just now figured out this Mox Sapphire fault, it still can't help us AT ALL with the pending problem. Assume that people who are faking cards are doing so with real cards to fake - now assume they have one of these Sapphire's, so where does that leave us? Relying on a mark that is easier faked than a normal card. I would like to know if the 'dark beta' Sapphire has this mark. if anyone has one, could you enlighten me? If you are wondering what 'dark beta' is...

one time a guy walked into the printing factory and printed himself some rare sheets. Some people say he did more than just rares, and some say more than just beta, but what matters is - these cards are very hard to spot as fakes using any of the tests. They do not pass the natural vision test though - they have distintly different inking patterns. Almost impossible to show without two copies of the cards. There is still LOTS of debate as to if these are considered 'real' or not. I thought they were real, until Wizards and I worked together at Nationals 2004 to catch some guy peddling it at the event. Wizards took the cards from the guy - he wasn't pissed because he knew that they were dark beta and didn't pay alot for them.

heh, seems like within 5 years every card is going to be questionable.

[cosineme]

CrashTest - Looks like even a pro can learn a new trick every now and then.

I get very critical here - because if you don't stand behind what you are saying often the community can take it apart. I know what I am saying is fact and that concept is frustrating to me.

Unfortunately, if we have just now figured out this Mox Sapphire fault, it still can't help us AT ALL with the pending problem. Assume that people who are faking cards are doing so with real cards to fake - now assume they have one of these Sapphire's, so where does that leave us? Relying on a mark that is easier faked than a normal card. I would like to know if the 'dark beta' Sapphire has this mark. if anyone has one, could you enlighten me? If you are wondering what 'dark beta' is...

one time a guy walked into the printing factory and printed himself some rare sheets. Some people say he did more than just rares, and some say more than just beta, but what matters is - these cards are very hard to spot as fakes using any of the tests. They do not pass the natural vision test though - they have distintly different inking patterns. Almost impossible to show without two copies of the cards. There is still LOTS of debate as to if these are considered 'real' or not. I thought they were real, until Wizards and I worked together at Nationals 2004 to catch some guy peddling it at the event. Wizards took the cards from the guy - he wasn't pissed because he knew that they were dark beta and didn't pay alot for them.

heh, seems like within 5 years every card is going to be questionable.

you work with wizards? are you a special advisor or something? you own a shop?

thanks

[Bram]

However if you look at the scan of yours, it seems to have it too, just nowhere near as bad.

(Compare the 2 pictures right above to the right of "artifact")... you'll see the blemish very lightly on yours... I could pick it out right away, but had to compare to see if it was in the right spot.

Hmmm. Yeah, looks like you're right. I got a bit worried there that it was retouched or something, but I inspected it with a magnifying glass, and it's just a barely noticable version of the mark you guys have, too. Weird.

The difference between Revised and Summer is that Summer has c1994 next to the artist's name at the bottom of the card. Revised does not have a date.

You can also see it immediately because Summer looks much, much darker.

[Mykeatog]

cosineme - it isn't like that.

I deal at the pro events.

[CrashTest]

Mike, thanks, I understand your viewpoint.

     I'd really like it if a way could be developed to not only educate the masses on properly identifying fakes, but also a method of authenticating the cards on a widescale basis.

     For as much criticism as PSA gets, they have initiciated some steps towards this- i.e using DNA authentication after verifying that a card is real. Some people seem to not put too must trust in PSA for whatever reason, but I think they should not be sifted out of the community.

        The danger is not in obvious fakes, but in fakes that are just real-looking enough to fool the average educated buyer of expensive cards. Some level of fakes require someone with more experience to figure out, as some can be fairly convincing unless really scrutinized.