I buy a card from Private, and another buyer send me a message that this Seller send fake cards. I’m new in this Hobby, and english is not my Mother language.
Do you think it looks fake?
Fairly-confident with it being fake. Ink looks too fresh, too uniform, and stamp alignment is very slightly off. I could be totally wrong though.
2 Likes
Yeah “all” English 1st Ed base non holos are thick stamp
Also bulbasaur is a common
4 Likes
This should be a thick stamp - meaning the “1” is wide - and it appears, that the stamp is rotated just the very slightest clockwise. I’m not an expert, but I’ve seen a good number of these, and that rotation looks off to me.
FYI, this stamp is a “thin stamp” meaning the “1” is skinny.
This is a great question to ask on E4, and a good first post! 
Welcome to the fourum, @Mosella-Hunting !
Here is a whole thread about stamp types, comparisons, etc. Basically the Silver Bible of 1st ed stamps:
3 Likes
Am I the only one who thinks the 1st Ed stamp looks photoshopped on there?
2 Likes
45° magenta is absolutely fake for a shadowless printing.
2 Likes
These threads make me not want to respond out of it potentially helping forgeries.
The whole card must be fake since it has magenta on the border.
2 Likes
Mhm, didnt have dots until the e-series
Did you purchase it on vinted or mkm?
There have been a lot of fake 1st edition commons and uncommons circulating on those platforms lately.
The easiest way to check if they are real is the light test: WotC-era non-holos should let some light pass through, while these fakes let through almost none.
They also do have different rosette patterns compared to thick/thin stamps 1st eds shadowless.
Here’s some useful threads on reddit with additional info if you want to compare rosettes:
No. I could see that.
Is the resolution the same for the stamp?
Like with all forensics, security, etc, it’s a cat and mouse game. Short of suggesting new ways to forge cards, keeping knowledge secret will never protect victims, but it may harm them.
Bootleggers will have to overcome a new obstacle. It merely moves the bar higher for bootleggers to clear.
Thank you for sharing the knowledge. This, I did not know.
1 Like
Thank you for all your knowledge. I think These 200$ are gone
Here you can see left the border colour of the 1.Ed. card, right is an other card.
The lighttest is positiv at these supposedly fake card, means the light shines through. Also you can see the Black middle layer from the side view. I dont want to rip it now, because I think i would see the Black layer.
1 Like
I think it’s also a matter of time and energy too. No counterfeiter is going to go through the process of getting the right colors, text overprint, etc, if it means they can’t sell their fakes at a reasonable price. And even if they get those details right in a cost friendly manner, there’ll always be something else they missed.
Knowledge is power here: there is nothing that we can share about accuracy that counterfeiters can actually use.
2 Likes
Indeed. and Part of what gave the cards their consistency (I understand the irony of using that to describe WotC printing) was the process in which they printed and stamped and cut cards. That process is a big part of what can’t be replicated. Down to the card stock, even… Like how modern cardstock is crap, yet far more consistent, compared to vintage.
1 Like
Go ahead and remove this comment. The light test only works if you know what youre looking at and this is like handing someone a power tool for the first time with no instruction.
These are both real. The counterfeits are using black core paper, even though they may stop more light as you claim, i have cards that are real that do it as well.
While these are 4th print, both styles can be found in shadowless.
1 Like
I’m talking about these specific fakes circulating rn on vinted/mkm, the card posted by OP is 100% from the same batch and they prolly bought it on vinted or mkm.
I never claimed that this would work on all the cards or every fake.
Also, real non holo wotcs cards should let light through like yours, this batch let none like I said b4, paper gsm is totally off on these fakes.
2 Likes
Still, when you tell them to compare two cards and the one that is darker is fake, that’s how you get real cards ripped in half.you need to add alot more context.
I returned this pidgeotto to TCG player a couple years ago. That’s the price I pay for not knowing and trusting the internet 
and not understanding the light test
1 Like
The problem is that unless you scan them or have seen them before/have professional tools, there’s no longer ad unicum test to verify.
It’s incredible how close high-end fakes are so much better compared to like 2 years ago and it’s really hard for beginners, doesn’t help that a lot of beginners use AI nowadays, and they end up getting oversimplified answers that are honestly terrible from it.
The light test is definitely not the best, but it can still be useful sometimes. The issue is when people treat it as the only thing needed to determine authenticity and spread this info on the internet without context or enough infos.
Also, “light pass through = fake” has always been a terrible take, may be true for holos, but it’s definitely not true for non holos.
I have seen a lot of people rip cards in MTG that were printed in japan cuz of the light test, I think the problem is that information without context is bad and internet has always been good at spreading infos without context.
Could teach you alot more
1 Like