The holo layer would most definitely block light in a light test. So yeah… a light test would have to be done with a genuine non-holo card to compare any differences.
The only way this error could have happened is if an employee accidentally fed a non-holo sheet into a printer instead of the intended holo sheet.
Regardless how many exist, CGC appears to be simply identifying the error and not saying it is ‘one of a kind’
I definitely don’t think CGC is lazy. They don’t decline to do the work of authenticating something just because its hard.
Coming from a currency perspective, I also don’t think this is groundbreaking. This card obviously ruffles feathers because it directly contradicts people in the field who carry authority. But I don’t think CGC is considering those opinions or listening to them. So “bold” seems like an out of place assessment. I think they got the card in, ran tests consistent with the authentication standards of the broader collectibles world (beyond TCG or cards alone) and issued the opinion.
Its a collectible authentication juggernaut doing its thing. They bring in nuance where it matters. And maybe the disagreement is there. That this should have been rejected because other people rejected it. But it is my sincere and humble opinion that this is an extremely basic authentication job that simply yields a result of “checks out and missing the holo.”
They know what rebacks are. They know how to test paper for being split/removed/tampered. After witnessing the methods and tech involved in currency, honestly, I had to check how much I really knew about what was possible in authentication.
But if you can reproduce this, test them out. Make it yourself. Send in fakes. Prove CGC wrong. Tank their company. Thats the risk they live with and I think they’re comfortable with it. Maybe it proves rejecting anything unfamiliar was the right play and PSA wins.
Guess we will see.
I have never held the card so I wont argue anyone on that, but if there is one thing where there should bo no room for nuance it is authenticating these kind of products. The card/product is either fake or real, no wiggle room.
This card isn’t just lacking the holo layer. Its lacking the necessary middle layer that is present on all authentic wotc cards. Why “heavy” packs are heavy is because holo cards have an extra holo layer on top of the standard inner layer. This card lacks both layers. It was more flimsy than a standard authentic Non holo pokemon card.
If there was an issue with both holo layers, it’s not necessarily out of this world to imagine that some sheets passed through without the holo-layers before someone was like, “Hold up! We got to fix this!”. I thought this was a fake at first but considering Charlie’s post, I’m reconsidering that instance. Especially considering what kind of errors have shown up from WOTC sets in the past.
What I want to know is if there have there been other Base 2 non-holo errors besides Charizard that have surfaced? If we find more non-Charizards like it, it would stand to plausible reason that a couple of sheets were printed in this way.
Not that I’m interested in getting a Gyarados or anything like that of course…
Where are the 47 other holo rares missing the holo layer from this sheet?
The standard cardstock used is composed of two layers of paper that sandwiches a layer of graphite. The graphite layer is black or blue and it’s what makes the card opaque to the light test and also provides that satisfying “snap” feeling when you flex the card. The holo is an additional top layer on one side of the sheet.
When I consider the validity of any questionable error, I first ask whether the error is something reasonable that could happen in a factory that mass produces trading cards. Accidentally swapping the cardstock seems like a pretty reasonable thing that could happen. And if the card is as flimsy and translucent as suggested, its not that it was simply a holo sheet swapped for a nonholo sheet but more likely something like a cheaper sheet that was used for testing or intended for a different product. If the ink traits - which aren’t replicable in counterfeits - are accurate then it’s pretty clear it was at least printed by someone with access to the correct files in the correct factory.
Should it be something encapsulated? I think if the ink characteristics check out then why not? Maybe I would have done something like a special colour label to indicate the card is altered from the standard expectation of what a “pokemon card” is (ie. Entirely different cardstock). Obviously a more contentious card to slab though
doesn’t the fact that it is a Charizard make it more suss? to me saying no one would give a shit if it wasn’t Charizard means more people would fake a Charizard
Not to be overly harsh here, but this attitude is the product of a lack of knowledge surrounding the production of cards. A lot more cards than you think pass through unique circumstances and different production methods. There isn’t just a Group A of all cards produced and distributed in the intended manner by Pokemon and a Group B of “oricas” and Chinese knockoffs. The difference between “real” and “fake” can get very nuanced if you dig into the weeds. And once you get down in there, that difference is largely a matter of personal opinion.
Also I should mention I don’t think PSA should grade this card. They run on different businesses models. PSA is strict on documentation and verifying the card is part of a legitimate release. You cannot slab this card as a regular base 2 #4 holo charizord. Similar reason why they wont slab no rarity venusaur/raichu or no damage ninetales or even give meaningful qualifiers to certain thinks like the orange stained hitmonlee or the purple stained hunter. They are interested in putting cards in very distinct and documented boxes.
Whereas CGG is clearly trying to establish itself as something that will recognize anything that makes a card unique - even to a fault (looking at you, ink dot charizord). They are clearly more open about what can be slabbed. If there isn’t a box the card can fit into, they just make a new box. My personal opinion is that if they find something that can establish authenticity and they label the card explicitly that it deviates from expectations, I dont see the problem
This reaction does not feel harsh at all! In my opinion any card that is not distributed by the pokemon company (international) or wotc in their respective time period should not be considered authentic.
But reading your reaction makes me doubt myself about errors like these, that with this definition ‘‘real’’ cards could be considered fake and vice versa. I would not know if cards like these could be authentic or not, as you said I am not really into card production. But aye you learn something new every day. Maybe not on this card because two very respectable people in the hobby are not agreeing on the card, but I will keep followiing this thread with great interest.
im just waiting for the reactions of prerelease raichu being graded by cgc
only one has unlimited resources and a lot to lose from being wrong, and i prefer to back that one.
The issue I have here is the feel and light test aren’t advanced, but they check for the middle layer/cardstock used. You address the cardstock issue by saying they’re the same, but you didn’t address the graphite layer. If that’s missing it’s not a WOTC card. None of WOTC cards would be produced without that layer being the same as all the other cards, as that’s the layer they used to put the front and back of the cards together.
If what Scott says is true, that that layer is missing/different, there’s no doubt that no matter what tests CGC used they failed at getting it right.
How important is the “middle layer” if buyers are willing to pay 4 figures for match print cards that are obviously on different card stock and are graded by BGS? There is clearly a market for this type of card. If I’m willing to spend $500 on a match print Typhlosion I’m more than happy to pay $500 for a Base 2 Chansey non holo like this if the ink is an exact match, even if the cardstock is different or the card was never intended for a booster pack.
People pay hundreds for fake cards. Demand vs authenticity are two different things. That’s what’s being discussed here when you have a grading company that’s authenticating cards.
@cullers That’s interesting. Any “test” that can be done on a Convention floor must absolutely be easily achieved in a controlled environment, like a grading room, by multiple professional authenticators with technology backing them, no?
The card is likely fine. It’s tough with many people being fully vested in PSA, understandably.
It reminds me of a section in a Malcolm Gladwell book where a museum went through a ton of tests to verify an item, all the tests were passed and the museum bought an expensive item. They then showed it off to a bunch of experts and instantly the experts said, “I hope you didn’t pay too much for this.” They couldn’t articulate what was wrong with it but they had a gut feeling it wasn’t authentic. Later on it was confirmed that all the testing wasn’t good enough to prevent the museum from being scammed.
That section of the book even mentions that the museum was new and looking to make a big splash that would allow them to take more risks that other museum wouldn’t take.
I don’t know what CGC is testing. If they’re not testing the right thing I don’t care what the results are, they failed.
As for the PSA comment, I don’t care if there’s another company that graded cards. Why do people think that PSA graded cards would be effected at all if there’s an alternative company? It hurts PSA not the collectors. This is why nobody cares what company you grade through and we only care if you try and push something on us.
Right! Why the hell would someone who knows it’s fake (even after mastering the ink and the paper) hold on to this for 15 years (not even in near mint condition) in hopes that some company in the distant future of 2020 would begin grading errors and that some buyer would care enough to want it?
