Based on the Prerelease Raichu discussion, I thought it would be interesting to see everyone’s opinions on what “authentic” actually means. Given the following statements and example cards, rate their “authenticity” on a scale of 1 (completely fake) to 10 (completely authentic).
Not manufactured using traditionally authentic materials and licensing is questionable. Example: Funskool cards
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0voters
Manufactured with authentic materials only. Real card, real stamp, etc, but provenance and method of manufacture is unknown, unverifiable, or questionable in nature. Examples: Prerelease Raichu, Staff Shellos, Collector Charizard
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0voters
Manufactured with authentic materials in the course of normal production, but never intended to be released to the public. These items have verifiable provenance as test and/or unreleased cards, but will not be officially recognized. Examples: For Position Only, Disco Test Print Charizard, Protostoise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0voters
Manufactured with authentic materials and intended to be distributed, but not officially released to the public. These are extra unreleased copies or held by employees. Examples: pkonno’s extra trophy copies, extra Art Academy cards.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0voters
Manufactured with authentic materials and officially released. Examples: main set cards, promotional cards, official trophy cards.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0voters
Additionally, imagine you’re a grading company and you have to draw a hard line on what you consider authentic. Where would you draw that line and why?
Officially released and authentic need to be separated at all times.
If a card is made ‘authentically’ but was never intended for release, then it is still authentic and can be designated as it’s own card. I do not have a problem with this. These cards are interesting and don’t interfere with other cards.
For me the problem arises when ‘extra’ copies of a card released in a specified limited quantity are mixed in together with the cards that were released. Extra trophy cards, AA cards etc SHOULD be marked as separate from the officially released # and seen as different cards. The problem with these extra copies existing and being leaked to the public in the first place is that it is basically impossible to track this. Eventually you have 120 copies of a card that was only supposed to have 100, and you now have a 20/120 chance the personal grail/goal you bought has the asterixis attached to it.
Personally, I define the term authentic as having been manufactured with authentic materials by the owner of the intellectual property or by a corporation that legally obtained the rights to reproduce.
This means that, in my eyes, cards like Funskool are not authentic and neither are Timmy’s reproduced cards from down the road, even if they use identical source materials. But Prerelease Raichu or an additionally circulated Art Academy would be.
I believe that issues around release and provenance are separate from whether the cards are made of authentic materials and by the owner (or licensees) of the intellectual property.
I think if there is any deception, the level of that deception is what matters. Let’s look at the closest unauthentic example, in my opinion:
Prerelease Raichu edited because first draft suggested I was calling Dyl unauthentic. No. He’s the real Dyl.
@Dyl
But would you say the stamp on the prerelease Raichu is authentic? IMO, if the stamp is not authentic, or verifiable as such, then the card’s status should be altered as “inauthentic” as “authentic prerelease Raichu” is not verifiable. Or perhaps I’d say a “prerelease Raichu” is merely an “authentic Raichu”, with a questionable prerelease stamp on it. What would you say to this?
I would say that the card is authentic (i.e., it was manufactured from authentic materials and by the owner of the intellectual property). The stamp also meets these requirements to be authentic in my eyes.
Whether it was intended or formally sanctioned by WoTC is another question. I think you can have an authentic card that has a dubious history. Prerelease Raichu is a perfect example.
If someone could scientifically prove that the CGC 5.5 copy was an accident on a Prerelease Clefable sheet and that the CGC 8 copy was purposefully made outside of that print run, then I would say that the former is authentic and the latter is authentic altered. Altered meaning that it was reproduced to mimic an authentic error/mistake.
The more that I think about this goofy card, the murkier things become.
I think a lot of this comes down to the simplicity of the language we use in this hobby. We don’t really have a more percise set of words to classify a card. We also generally conflate “authentic” with “can it be graded?”
Ideally we could get more nuanced language. Relying on words like “licensed”, “documented” etc. more often to separate out the intention behind the card from the actual physical properties
I have a parallel from another hobby that some people might be familiar with.
In movie poster collecting, Star Wars movie posters are some of the most popular pieces and a lot of collectors focus explicitly on Star Wars stuff. Posters for the original 1979 release of Star Wars are some of the rarest posters, especially in fine condition, due to the fact movie posters were not collected at that time and Star Wars obviously had yet to become the phenomenon it is today.
At some point after the release of the movie, the original plates and equipment were used to produce more posters explicitly to be sold to collectors. It is not known who printed these posters, but they are considered bootlegs. While the ink is identical, the paper is identical, and everything about the poster is identical to the original printing for the film’s marketing, what is often described as a “hair” was present on the printing plate, which gives away that these are the “bootleg” versions of the poster.
It is the vertical black scratch down and to the left from Luke’s belt. You would not notice it if you were not looking for it. But obviously collectors know what to look for and they disqualify these posters.
For years people have debated in the movie poster community whether these should be considered “bootlegs” or “second printing.” This is a semantic argument, but people have mostly settled on them being bootleg posters and people do not desire them for their collections. Other people see them as a second printing, the circumstances of that printing being irrelevant, because they are factory identical except for that one subtle quality error.
I always think of this poster when we discuss what constitutes authenticity. The most interesting thing about it in my opinion isn’t whether you think this poster counts as a bootleg or not, but the fact nobody would ever know this happened or that there was “fake” versions of the poster out there from a second printing were it not for this one small mistake they made. It would be 100% indiscernible and no collectors would ever know.
If I can, I would extend this part of the statement distinguishing between
cards made with authentic materials ecc… Made by the employes with supervisions, part of the overall agreements of the owners of the trademarks but specifically not meant to be released (proto/demo cards)
cards made with authentic materials ecc… Made by the employes without supervisions, outside of the overall agreements of the owners of the trademarks and specifically not meant to be released (the example made by smpratte about the prerelease raichu)
And also I’d add this, just for fun, because it should be considered authentic by default:
cards made with authentic materials ecc… made to be released to a specific part of the public (staff cards, trophy) despite them passing hands to someone they were not meant to be (not staff members of the tournaments, Trophy cards sold or traded by the one Who got them First hands)
Yeah I didn’t understand (and maybe I’m still not doing so), what I meant was to establish three different kinds overall, on your specific post:
the card is documented to be authentic.
the card is documented to not be authentic.
the documentation cannot provide a certain state of authentication (so the card is not confirmed authentic nor confirmed unauthentic)
I was meaning to put on spotlight a “limbo” where a card can stay waiting for the final judgement
A judgement made only after the informations gathered are enough.
So to put it simple, to me, a card in waiting for more information to be proven authentic is not unauthentic by default
To me, authenticity simply hinges on whether there was official intention by the IP holder to create a card. Specifically, intention to create it exactly as it appears in its final format.
If at the point of creation TPC/i officially intended to manufacture a card, then it is ”authentic”. Regardless of what happens to that card in terms of release, distribution, theft, redacted official release etc., if that intention was there, then it is authentic.
In respect to Prerelease Raichu, there is no confirmation that there was official intention by WOTC or TPCi to create that card in its final format. For me at least, that’s end-of-story. The underlying Raichu may well be authentic, but that is an authentic Base Set Raichu, not an authentic “Prerelease Base Set Raichu”.
Assume the Item was produced in correct factory with correct materials. Was it made to be released? Was it an extra copy that was supposed to be disposed? Was it produced fraudulently by a rogue employee (is it indistinguishable from a normal copy? Does that matter?). Was it intentionally produced as a printing test?
Was it altered by a third-party? Second-party? Was it an error that was supposed to be destroyed? Was it stolen from the factory? Was it made with non-standard materials? Was it produced after a license expired? Was it released in the wrong product by mistake?
Do we care?
If we try to answer all these questions with 1 word (authentic) we will basically be fighting until the end of time. I think the vocabulary needs to become more nuanced to really be able to discuss this topic effectively
Just for fun, here’s how I feel about all these questions.
Starting with the ones that I don’t feel strongly about: Was it made to be released? Was it an extra copy that was supposed to be disposed? Was it intentionally produced as a printing test? Was it an error that was supposed to be destroyed? Was it stolen from the factory? Was it produced after a license expired? Was it released in the wrong product by mistake?
These do not factor much for me. I think existence often supersedes intention. In many of these cases, the dubious or unconventional origin would actually make the card more
interesting and desirable to me, not less so.
These ones are more complicated to me: Was it produced fraudulently by a rogue employee? - This one depends on some additional context. Are they producing more copies of something that already exists, or are they producing something novel that does not otherwise exist? I have more hangups about the first one, not so much about the second.
Was it altered by a third-party? Second-party? - This is another one that depends. In the instance of COLLECTOR Charizard for example, this was a card altered by a third party meant to commemorate a specific event. The LPP PIkachu was a card altered by a third party meant to promote a business. Both of these “unofficial” promo cards still hold some interest and value to me because they commemorate something surrounding the business of the TCG.
But if some random person made an alteration of a card this is just damage. It has no value. This one is definitely something I’d look at case by case and not something I’d say can be determined by a blanket judgment.
Was it made with non-standard materials? - This is another nuanced one because I think the subject of composition has a lot to do with the objective quality of a collectable. For example, when we saw those prototype Pokémon card mock ups printed on regular printer paper, it’s hard to say that those were “Pokémon Cards.” A piece of card stock with Jolteon written on it does not constitute the lost Jamboree card set. They are something, but they’re not Pokémon cards.
Do we care? - I definitely do, but it’s definitely a case by case thing.
