" 1 of a kind" error charizard graded by cgc

[smpratte]

@qwachansey

You can print a Pokémon card sheet file in a WOTC contracted printing press on things other than WOTC Pokémon card stock. It’s not like a high res file only works with a specific stock and self implodes otherwise.

Anyway it’s clear no one’s mind is going to be changed on this and people are just going to keep being snippy myself included.

The problem is this is all speculation. Authentication shouldn’t be based on what it could be, but what is provable.

[qwachansey]

@smpratte

@qwachansey

You can print a Pokémon card sheet file in a WOTC contracted printing press on things other than WOTC Pokémon card stock. It’s not like a high res file only works with a specific stock and self implodes otherwise.

Anyway it’s clear no one’s mind is going to be changed on this and people are just going to keep being snippy myself included.

The problem is this is all speculation. Authentication shouldn’t be based on what it could be, but what is provable.

Yes, and confirming the ink pattern matches is proof enough to me. To my knowledge there has never been a Pokémon card faked well enough that the ink pattern holds up.

[qwachansey]

I’ll also add – my comments have been under the assumption CGC tested the ink pattern. If word comes out otherwise, my trust in the card will be greatly reduced.

[krill]

@smpratte

@qwachansey

You can print a Pokémon card sheet file in a WOTC contracted printing press on things other than WOTC Pokémon card stock. It’s not like a high res file only works with a specific stock and self implodes otherwise.

Anyway it’s clear no one’s mind is going to be changed on this and people are just going to keep being snippy myself included.

The problem is this is all speculation. Authentication shouldn’t be based on what it could be, but what is provable.

Thats the thing, pretty much all of us here can only speculate. I wanna know what technology or method CGC uses that makes them confidently say they think it’s authenticate. It’d be nice if they made some public comment or included some reasoning to the owner of the card when he got it as to why they think its authenticate. Without CGC saying why they think its legit, itll only be speculation among the community whether it is or isn’t authenticate and whether we should or shouldn’t trust CGC.

[smpratte]

@qwachansey

@smpratte

The problem is this is all speculation. Authentication shouldn’t be based on what it could be, but what is provable.

Yes, and confirming the ink pattern matches is proof enough to me. To my knowledge there has never been a Pokémon card faked well enough that the ink pattern holds up.

I didn’t have my diamond loop on my jnco jeans chain wallet at worlds. But those fake Japanese Neo cards looked spot on ink wise. I wish I would have taken some for this thread.

[qwachansey]

JNCO Jeans: the choice stylish outfit of TRUE collectors worldwide

[smpratte]

@qwachansey

JNCO Jeans: the choice stylish outfit of TRUE collectors worldwide

I can store my emote collection in them

[jkanly]

@qwachansey

JNCO Jeans: the choice stylish outfit of TRUE collectors worldwide

Jnco + fanny pack… Up your game brother.

[hypernova]

Quite a dose of deja vu reading this thread!

Shortly after I first joined the forum, I participated in a thread of a guy asking about the legitimacy of a card. A lot of the discussion was the same: graphite layer, phone flashlight test, “feel.”

My posts were very similar to some of the members here - what if? maybe it’s possible there are cards out there without the inner layer?

Wouldn’t you know it - cullers, and a few others from this thread, were also in that thread from 3 years ago, vehemently denying the card-in-question’s authenticity, no matter what.

Eventually the discussion turned to the “holier-than-thou” effect of the E4 Old Guard, who seemed so quick to denounce the dreams and possibilities of the young and hopeful.

Over time I’ve come to realize that experience trumps the “what-if” argument, but also that even an expert’s opinion is not fact.

From all the vast and varied errors that we know exist when it comes to printing Pokemon cards, almost anything is possible. If you are solidly in the “what if, maybe it’s a possibility” camp, feel free to go down the rabbit hole of research that it would take to verify something like this is authentic.

Personally, I wasn’t willing to do that, and I doubt most people are. I’ve learned that to spend time yearning for a “what-if” is time wasted. So for something like this Charizard, I defer to the experts.

…but…in this case, there are two sets of experts who share vastly different opinions! smpratte, cullers, et al that believe the feel and lack of an inner layer disqualify it from being authentic, and a new player to the arena, CGC, who has a vast assortment of technical, paper scanning equipment have determined it as being authentic.

Currently I have no connection to this card, so it’s of no importance that I choose one side over the other. If you feel like you are leaning towards one expert’s opinion over the other, based on their arguments (or assumed technical, paper scanning abilities), great!

But I can tell you right now that you are in no way going to get the former set of experts, smpratte, cullers, et al to change their opinion based on a “well, maybe if x, y, or z happened…” argument. They have had this discussion many times over, and feel strongly about their position on this particular card and others like it. And, if you had their 15-20 years of experience in the hobby, and have touched and interacted with as many cards as they have, maybe you’d think the same. I think if you really put this group to the fire, they’d be willing to admit that it’s possible this card is authentic, but that they’d need a lot of evidence before they could accept its authenticity. So far no one in the “what if” camp has presented any evidence, only conjecture, so their opinion stands.

If you are on the side of CGC, you’re going to have to assume that there was a certain amount of due diligence done to ascertain the authenticity of the card. Charlie noted that CGC has many very advanced scanners and whatnot used to verify the authenticity of moneys, comics, etc. We don’t actually know what CGC did for this card to verify its authenticity, so at least for now we have nothing but the idea of their technical capacity. However, if you feel it’s safe to say that CGC put this card through the ringer and subjected it to the most thorough of testing that allowed them to conclude that this card could not possibly be inauthentic, then personally I feel that’s a pretty strong expert opinion as well. However, we know that grading companies are no less infallible than printing companies, so we always have to keep that in mind.

In the end, it’s an interesting example of a card that will likely never have its authenticity proven to beyond a shadow of a doubt and conclusively persuade everyone everywhere. There have been many cards like it before, and there will be many cards like it in the future.

[jkanly]

@fourthstartcg

I think things have chilled out a bit and I’d like to get my opinion on record as we had a fun argument on the discord over this.

There are two different things that we are talking about here which are connected, but not as much as people seem to think. The first is the debate over where this card falls on the authenticity spectrum. And yes, it is a spectrum. You’ve got stuff like main-set release cards on the “fully authentic and verifiable” end, stuff like oricas and Chinese bulk GX on the “totally and completely fake” end, and cards like Prerelease Raichu, FPO, Collector Charizard, cardhouse Gold Star Horde, Matchprint, Staff Shellos, distributor promos, etc. all somewhere in the middle. They may be real, but they may not be verifiably real to the level of main-set releases. And some may be more verifiably authentic than others. I’d certainly say that Prerelease Raichu is less verifiable than something like FPO cards. The second is less a debate on this actual card and more on CGC’s threshold for authenticating and encapsulating a card. Giving this card all the benefits of the doubt, and fully believing the original owner’s story, this card is at best a test print or significant error with zero documentation, provenance, or other verification. If CGC is willing to authenticate cards that are on the “authenticity spectrum” like this Charizard, will they grade other cards like FPOs, matchprints, or, if submitted, Prerelease Raichu? And, more importantly, should they be authenticating these things? This is a very legitimate debate to have as things like the “authenticity spectrum” are very difficult to objectively flesh out and personal opinions play a large role.

I think we are all of the opinion that PSA is too strict with what they will and won’t accept. No damage Ninetales, no rarity Venu/Raichu, and other cards should be authenticated. However, we are now seeing what exactly accepting error cards looks like. We start to get some of those cards where the provenance (and authenticity) is a lot murkier than no damage Ninetales or the no rarities. So then we get into another debate over which errors are the “verifiable” errors and which ones aren’t. A lot of people use a slippery slope argument and before you know it we’re authenticating blastoisebargains’ custom Chorizords (help support a single dad!), but this is logically fallacious. The important thing is that there is actually a method for authenticating these cards and for distinguishing a “legitimate” card from an “illegitimate” one. Right now, it appears that CGC’s machine authentication tests are their standard. I’d be very interested to know more about these, but they are proprietary so that’s unlikely.

One thing that I’ve previously mentioned and that a lot of people in the hobby don’t get is that the authenticity spectrum is real. Something like this is the natural consequence of a grading company moving to be more inclusive. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is something that’s up for debate and I don’t think you can really come up with an objectively correct answer on.

I hope your point isn’t overlooked in the discussion, because you’re right about there being a spectrum. Deciding on authenticity is not black and white, and if it were, many of the error cards that collectors appreciate couldn’t reasonably become authenticated.

In that vein of discussion, I had written a 27 page error card guide completed with photos 8 months ago but haven’t posted it because of the complexity that comes with qualifying errors as authentic or otherwise. I even addressed most of this same conversation within the guide. It’s almost something I don’t want the headache of dealing with, but will probably post at some point and this thread helps to dissect a big part of the issue.

[hypernova]

@jkanly

In that vein of discussion, I had written a 27 page error card guide completed with photos 8 months ago but haven’t posted it because of the complexity that comes with qualifying errors as authentic or otherwise. I even addressed most of this same conversation within the guide. It’s almost something I don’t want the headache of dealing with, but will probably post at some point and this thread helps to dissect a big part of the issue.

You should definitely post this! Personally I feel like there’s a big gap of knowledge in the community when it comes to errors - not errors like Wartortle Evolution Box, “d” Edition Butterfree, or things of the like - but errors like having the front and back artwork printed on one side, rotational shifts, double prints, shifted Neo Destiny Shining holos, crimped edges, etc. I am not sure if those are the types of errors found in your guide, however, but that sort of error encyclopedia would be amazing!

[krill]

@jkanly

@fourthstartcg

I think things have chilled out a bit and I’d like to get my opinion on record as we had a fun argument on the discord over this.

There are two different things that we are talking about here which are connected, but not as much as people seem to think. The first is the debate over where this card falls on the authenticity spectrum. And yes, it is a spectrum. You’ve got stuff like main-set release cards on the “fully authentic and verifiable” end, stuff like oricas and Chinese bulk GX on the “totally and completely fake” end, and cards like Prerelease Raichu, FPO, Collector Charizard, cardhouse Gold Star Horde, Matchprint, Staff Shellos, distributor promos, etc. all somewhere in the middle. They may be real, but they may not be verifiably real to the level of main-set releases. And some may be more verifiably authentic than others. I’d certainly say that Prerelease Raichu is less verifiable than something like FPO cards. The second is less a debate on this actual card and more on CGC’s threshold for authenticating and encapsulating a card. Giving this card all the benefits of the doubt, and fully believing the original owner’s story, this card is at best a test print or significant error with zero documentation, provenance, or other verification. If CGC is willing to authenticate cards that are on the “authenticity spectrum” like this Charizard, will they grade other cards like FPOs, matchprints, or, if submitted, Prerelease Raichu? And, more importantly, should they be authenticating these things? This is a very legitimate debate to have as things like the “authenticity spectrum” are very difficult to objectively flesh out and personal opinions play a large role.

I think we are all of the opinion that PSA is too strict with what they will and won’t accept. No damage Ninetales, no rarity Venu/Raichu, and other cards should be authenticated. However, we are now seeing what exactly accepting error cards looks like. We start to get some of those cards where the provenance (and authenticity) is a lot murkier than no damage Ninetales or the no rarities. So then we get into another debate over which errors are the “verifiable” errors and which ones aren’t. A lot of people use a slippery slope argument and before you know it we’re authenticating blastoisebargains’ custom Chorizords (help support a single dad!), but this is logically fallacious. The important thing is that there is actually a method for authenticating these cards and for distinguishing a “legitimate” card from an “illegitimate” one. Right now, it appears that CGC’s machine authentication tests are their standard. I’d be very interested to know more about these, but they are proprietary so that’s unlikely.

One thing that I’ve previously mentioned and that a lot of people in the hobby don’t get is that the authenticity spectrum is real. Something like this is the natural consequence of a grading company moving to be more inclusive. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is something that’s up for debate and I don’t think you can really come up with an objectively correct answer on.

I hope your point isn’t overlooked in the discussion, because you’re right about there being a spectrum. Deciding on authenticity is not black and white, and if it were, many of the error cards that collectors appreciate couldn’t reasonably become authenticated.

In that vein of discussion, I had written a 27 page error card guide completed with photos 8 months ago but haven’t posted it because of the complexity that comes with qualifying errors as authentic or otherwise. I even addressed most of this same conversation within the guide. It’s almost something I don’t want the headache of dealing with, but will probably post at some point and this thread helps to dissect a big part of the issue.

I’d definitely wait till you’re ready to defend your thesis for several hours if not days when you end up actually posting it

[smpratte]

@hypernova

Quite a dose of deja vu reading this thread!

Shortly after I first joined the forum, I participated in a thread of a guy asking about the legitimacy of a card. A lot of the discussion was the same: graphite layer, phone flashlight test, “feel.”

My posts were very similar to some of the members here - what if? maybe it’s possible there are cards out there without the inner layer?

Wouldn’t you know it - cullers, and a few others from this thread, were also in that thread from 3 years ago, vehemently denying the card-in-question’s authenticity, no matter what.

Eventually the discussion turned to the “holier-than-thou” effect of the E4 Old Guard, who seemed so quick to denounce the dreams and possibilities of the young and hopeful.

Over time I’ve come to realize that experience trumps the “what-if” argument, but also that even an expert’s opinion is not fact.

From all the vast and varied errors that we know exist when it comes to printing Pokemon cards, almost anything is possible. If you are solidly in the “what if, maybe it’s a possibility” camp, feel free to go down the rabbit hole of research that it would take to verify something like this is authentic.

Personally, I wasn’t willing to do that, and I doubt most people are. I’ve learned that to spend time yearning for a “what-if” is time wasted. So for something like this Charizard, I defer to the experts.

…but…in this case, there are two sets of experts who share vastly different opinions! smpratte, cullers, et al that believe the feel and lack of an inner layer disqualify it from being authentic, and a new player to the arena, CGC, who has a vast assortment of technical, paper scanning equipment have determined it as being authentic.

Currently I have no connection to this card, so it’s of no importance that I choose one side over the other. If you feel like you are leaning towards one expert’s opinion over the other, based on their arguments (or assumed technical, paper scanning abilities), great!

But I can tell you right now that you are in no way going to get the former set of experts, smpratte, cullers, et al to change their opinion based on a “well, maybe if x, y, or z happened…” argument. They have had this discussion many times over, and feel strongly about their position on this particular card and others like it. And, if you had their 15-20 years of experience in the hobby, and have touched and interacted with as many cards as they have, maybe you’d think the same. I think if you really put this group to the fire, they’d be willing to admit that it’s possible this card is authentic, but that they’d need a lot of evidence before they could accept its authenticity. So far no one in the “what if” camp has presented any evidence, only conjecture, so their opinion stands.

If you are on the side of CGC, you’re going to have to assume that there was a certain amount of due diligence done to ascertain the authenticity of the card. Charlie noted that CGC has many very advanced scanners and whatnot used to verify the authenticity of moneys, comics, etc. We don’t actually know what CGC did for this card to verify its authenticity, so at least for now we have nothing but the idea of their technical capacity. However, if you feel it’s safe to say that CGC put this card through the ringer and subjected it to the most thorough of testing that allowed them to conclude that this card could not possibly be inauthentic, then personally I feel that’s a pretty strong expert opinion as well. However, we know that grading companies are no less infallible than printing companies, so we always have to keep that in mind.

In the end, it’s an interesting example of a card that will likely never have its authenticity proven to beyond a shadow of a doubt and conclusively persuade everyone everywhere. There have been many cards like it before, and there will be many cards like it in the future.

I have a couple grey hairs now, old guard confirmed.

But seriously that was a well thought out post. We talked on discord voice the other day about how there is a huge gap in knowledge on Pokémon error cards and oddities. Where mtg has theirs down to a science. Mainly because they have direct communication with wotc.

@jkanly You should definitely share your work! An error card analysis like snopes is something that E4 is primed to create, it would just take significant dedication and time.

[qwachansey]

[smpratte]

@qwachansey

Hahaha how long into the video did it take to find that face!

[jkanly]

@hypernova @krill @smpratte thank you for the kind words that definitely gives me some motivation. I hadn’t thought about it in 8 months since I put it on the back burner and until I saw this discussion. I’ll take a look at it this week and see what more it needs and try to get it done for everyone. And Scott it does actually does have a Snopes-esque vibe to it, which is a ideal approach.

[two]

I guess we’ve all come to understandably trust and believe the words of a graphite layer being missing, and how flexible the card was at worlds (how many years ago was that again?).

Again, I wonder if CGC felt how flexible, or not, the card was. Most definitely a card with a Holo layer will be less flexible than one without a Holo layer. In reality, the card should have the same flex as a genuine non-holo card. I feel pretty confident CGC, multiple experts, louped the edges of the card and noticed a graphite layer. It’s a key element for determining authenticity for both Pokemon and Magic the Gathering.

It’s still hard for me to believe CGC would take the risk of authenticating a card if they weren’t fully confident doing so.

[KingPokemon]

I believe everyone here, except the diehard romantics, know with 99% certainty the cards a reprint. The only loser in all this is sadly cgc. They seem to be trying too hard to satisfy everybody in order to acquire subs/market-share. They need to tread lightly and build up a little confidence from potential customers before stretching into other things. Plays like this one only hurts the reputation they want and so badly need:(

[quuador]

TL;DR at the bottom.

Since it isn’t a Pikachu or Seviper, I personally couldn’t care less on a personal level. But seeing all opinions and arguments thus far I’m personally 50/50 about the authenticity of this Charizard card.

Although I must admit I’m always more in the mind-set of “what if” in general with these kind of cards. It was similar with the Funskool cards for example, which has always been rumored as a real TCG release in India in the past. Given their look, it would indeed seem obvious they are fake, but given the stories I’ve heard from multiple sources I wasn’t sure. Only after hearing all arguments and seeing all different evidences from both sides, I am now also convinced they are indeed bootlegs. Hasbro was licensed to create Pokémon products in India under their brand-name Funskool, but this didn’t include cards. I always had my doubts (I always was like “what if”), but the main turnover for me was the regular ‘e’ instead of ‘é’ in the word ‘Pokémon’ on the cards themselves.
Although those cards are more obvious bootlegs that this Charizard of course, the discussions were rather similar. The experts had their opinion ready and were convinced they were fake, but other people with a more open mind (“what if”) were reading and collecting all kind of sources and information, and only after that came to their conclusions.

Another similar example that also caused a lot of discussions and controversy was the ‘Prototoise’ (Blastoise with MTG back). Back in 2016 when I’ve first heard about that card and saw it, I quickly just deemed it fake like everyone else and that was it (here a relevant thread from back then). I was only collecting for halve a year at the time, so when everyone states it’s fake and seeing what it looks like, I was convinced it was fake as well back then.
Last year the discussion came back again, this time with a lot more arguments and evidence, including an uncut MTG sheet containing a Blastoise (with black borders instead of yellow, but it was still there on the uncut sheet). At that point I was 50/50 again (and I still am), although I’m currently more in the group believing it might actually be a real prototype. Not that it really matters, because this card still won’t sell within the Pokémon community for anywhere near what people within the MTG community are willing to pay for it; the communities simply have a different history and therefore different believes in general. (Here the relevant thread from last year; here a relevant post on the Pokémon Misprint FB from coincidentally last week - which also has a lot of comments from MTG expert Travis King; and here a relevant post on the MTG misprint group).
Anyway, let’s not open that jar again. Not until we have that video of Travis King at least. I’m just mentioning it because we again had two clear sides: one group stating “no”, and the more open-minded people stating “what if” and listening to all arguments and trying to find evidences toward either side themselves (like I did here).

---

In my Pikachu checklist I’ve personally split all cards into four categories:

• Official releases. As its name suggests, these are all officially released cards, which are also documented as such and can be verified. These are marked as light green in my checklist if I have them in my possession; yellow (with lowercase ‘o’ in column G) if they are incoming; and white if they’re still missing in my collection. (I’m still missing 20-25 officially released Pikachu cards to 100% complete my collection.)

• Unofficial releases. This includes sample prints (like the Matchprint, FPO, Japanese sample prints, etc.); cards never intended for public release (Ishihara & Pikachu GX tag team for example); errors of any kind (miscut, off-centered, square cut, ink drops/stripes, crimped, the Inverted WB promo, WB promo without stamp, holo bleeds, color misprints, etc. etc.); 1st edition stamp differences; autographed cards; sun-discolored cards; unofficial stamped cards (LPPCollecting for Pikachu, but the Collectors Charizard would also be an example); the Solid Golden Base Set Pikachu; etc. These are marked as swamp green if I have them in my possession; yellow (with uppercase ‘O’ in column G) if they are incoming; and grey if they’re still missing in my collection. (I’m still missing 40-50 unofficial Pikachu cards that I want to 100% complete my collection.)

• Altered cards. This is mostly my collection of painted Base Set Pikachu cards, but also includes some one-off stamped cards. These are marked light blue if I have them in my possession; and yellow (with uppercase ‘O’ in column G) if they are incoming.

• (Fake cards.) I don’t collect or buy them, but I do have some, which are all at the very bottom of the list (also in swamp green).

If there would have been a Pikachu which was released officially in holofoil, but had an error like this with missing holofoil and inner graphite layer where everything else checks out (the Rosetta pattern and colors in this case), it would for me personally be in the unofficial releases section. But I’ll probably also add the following text in white: “non-Holo - missing graphite layer (most likely fake)”, which I also did for one other card that I am pretty sure is fake, but for which I’m still not 100% sure about given the information about the card.

---

Anyway, whether it’s a misprint or was printed as fake on purpose using the same printers as WotC isn’t really important to be completely honest. If CGC is convinced everything about the card is real, except for the missing graphite and holofoil layers, I would personally put it in the same category as a misprint in my collection. It was never meant to be released like this, that’s a fact. But if the colors and Rosetta pattern are the same, it’s also not a 100% and obvious booleg.

Fact is CGC has decided to grade it. Whether that was a good or bad decision on their part is another discussion entirely of course. (I personally think it wasn’t a very good decision at this point in time, since they still have to gain reputation and trust. I also don’t really like that they’ve graded the ink-altered card… Although I am happy they are willing to grade a lot more cards than the two existing grading companies - especially PSA, so I hope CGC will be able to fix some bumps on the way and become one of the big three grading companies.)

Anyway, I personally see two main issues here:

1. It’s a Charizard, so everyone is losing their shit…
2. Everyone has different opinions and views about this card, but 90% of those aren’t willing to listen to the arguments of the other. That’s just human nature of some sort tbh, and I’ve seen it many times in discussions before (here, on FB, on reddit, on YT, etc. - especially online tbh).

Besides, assuming CGC’s methods are correct and the card is in fact printed with the same printers WotC used, but with missing holofoil and graphite layer, what does it matter at this point? They graded it, that’s a fact. Everyone can have their own opinions and views and decide for themselves whether they deem this card an error or the most convincing fake ever. I personally think it’s an odd coincidence not one but two layers are missing (holofoil AND graphite), but since it’s a Charizard I personally don’t care less either way, despite being in the “what if” mindset.

TL;DR: But please continue the discussions, since that is what this forum is all about of course. What I’m mainly trying to say: don’t waste time and effort convincing the ones with an opposite opinion after you already gave very convincing facts, since it probably won’t convince them anyway… ¯\_😊_/¯ This applies to either side of the coin.

Greetz,
Quuador

[cullers]

@anon92205803

@cullers

You’re right. We should all accept that this card is real. It makes total sense…

Clearly during the card stock process the two rolls of paper were getting their graphite layer and somehow, one sheet got a different treatment. Now we can speculate all we want one this and all these speculations are completely viable.
A) the sheets were produced by a third party that also produces a more flimsy graphite layer and when they accidently shipped WotC that one sheet.
B) the graphite was running low at the very end leaving a smaller layer than normal, you would think that quality control would see this, but not this day.
C) god.

Now that we’ve established that it’s entirely possible, neh probable. Well then take our journey to the foil treatment of the card. Where we just happen to find, there wasn’t any foil treatment. Yes, not only did this card no have a proper graphite layer, but it is also missing it’s foil treatment. Now some might be skeptical here, but don’t you worry it’s a very simple explanation. See blind Billy was working this shift, and blind Billy is, as you might guess, blind. See a sheet fell off the non foil rack and Billy was tasked to pick it up and put it on the correct pile. Don’t ask why they sent Billy to do this job when there’s a bunch of able bodied individuals more capable of doing this task. They’re a very progressive company at WotC and they believe Billy isn’t effected by his condition.

Now normally Billy would have felt the different layers and determined which pile had a foil treatment applied to it, but not only is Billy blind, he’s also highly efficient and he knows that there’s a 50/50 chance he’ll get it wrong and Billy likes those odds. Those seconds add up.

Now we have the perfect scenario for this card to not only be missing a holofoil layer, but to also be without the proper graphite layer. Now all we need is for quality control to miss the entire 120 holofoils that would have been on this sheet. Do they do it? We’ll here’s the beauty, they don’t. It slips right past them like a greased up pig on it’s way to the troft.

Well now we have the issue of 120 of these cards in circulation. How do we explain why nobody has seen any of the other magic cards that had improper graphite layer-no foil treatment-that are on the run from WotC law. Well, I’ll tell ya here. This is the best part of the story. You ready? Those 120 cards are rumored to still be out there. *looks over shoulder to make sure nobody is listening in* But here’s the secret. They’re base set 2 and nobody cares about base set 2 so nobody ever going to find them.

Think about it, who wants to open light packs of Base Set 2? It’s the perfect crime.

I DARE ANYONE TO FIND A FLAW IN THAT STORY!

It’s not so much that everyone is accepting it’s real as people are speculating and debating it since we just don’t know the story. Yeah, it being fake is a very distinct possibility, and maybe we would all feel confident accepting that if it wasn’t just graded by a professional grading company.

I understand people are more accepting it because Charlie said that they did extensive testing to verify it’s real. I still find it a joke that their extensive test failed to recognize that it’s missing a foil layer and it’s graphite layer is off. If I were to write a guide on how to tell a fake card from a real one you can bet both of those are going to be included.

Yet, somehow because the person submitted the card saying it’s missing the foil layer they skipped that check, I still have no clue how they gave a pass for the graphite layer being off, my guess it didn’t. So now, people are willing to accept it as real? If this thing was in a PSA or Beckett slab there wouldn’t be a debate. Everyone would know they screwed up, but CGC and their extensive years of trustworthiness is on a different level?

We have no clue what the tests were, we don’t know who the experts were, but some people are willing to accept this thing as real. Forgive me if I find those people gullible. Especially since we have actual people with expertise that have handled this card and nobody though it was real despite the fact they were overlooking the lack of a foil.

I mentioned it before, but there was a museum that paid millions of dollars for a statue that they had extensively tested. A lot more testing than CGC did, I can promise that, and all their test came in favor of the statue being real. When the experts came in they knew it was a fake. This is a scenario I can see being exactly the same.