To me it seems like whoever made the LQ ones might have very closely digitally recreated the cards. So that they didn’t need to own them all, just to been able to seen them all and have access to the artworks. Or idk what the leaks were about that was mentioned in this thread, does they contain these designs? Lack of imperfections (not scanned), minor differences/errors in design (like the colorless energy). Maybe they had one authentic one to compare to get the dimensions right and scan the back to be used.
For future authentication, one thing I’d pay more attention to would be the blank cards these are attached to and how they are attached. Were they all attached in 2024 or were the real ones attached back in 1996? If there is ~30 years between the cardstocks, it should be difficult to fake the blanks. Ofc it would also be hard to authenticate without real one to compare to. And not practical when dealing with only images (or slabbed ones). But in case someone has to deal with raw ones.
I might be wrong but when I compared some of the images in this thread, seems like the HQ ones are few millimeters taller than the LQ ones. Also, I’d expect some aging in the used glue. Or the glue work to be different in general.
@pfm Did you manage to search for yellow dots on LQ alpha?
For me HQ alpha are the ones from Sean, and LQ alpha are the ones after (and “REAL alpha” are for the moment I guess Pika, Charizard, Gyarados and the 3 starters, all with the good back lol).
I wonder if the LQ alpha were printed with the LQ beta, if yes they will share the same yellow dots (and I don’t think we will find a superposition with the HQ alpha dots because they are difference between some cards of the same Pokémon so they are not the same cards).
If it helps I’m willing to purchase any of these playtest cards from anyone, don’t worry I’ll give you the fair market comps .
But seriously it helps to only stick to blue chip Pokémon investments sometimes, these cards had more red flags than a Chinese communist parade. CGC are utter clowns their reputation is in the trash, Akabane is definitely doing some dodgy crap too. Thankfully none of these play tests really made their way into the UK.
By the way, there is another intriguing detail on the HQ alpha / alpha from Sean.
On some cards, some lines or areas change “texture”, they become “blurry” and streaked, there is like a change in quality.
For example on the Magneton (we also see this on the Raichu):
And I am sure that it does not come from the scanning process because this “effect” appears on the CGC scan and the PWCC scan (so 2 independent scans).
Using the ones that date to the period via the dot analysis as benchmarks is the only way to do this properly. You’d need to use those benchmarks to establish qualitative characteristics for the tests in that period, to which all authentic versions would need to match.
This could be used for those without dots.
Edit to say that these standards would need to be very rigid based on what is observed on known authentic copies (controls). Creating a lot of forgiveness here would render this method unsuitable as the upper and lower limits (standards) would be too wide, allowing forgeries to slip through.
Can you not just set an old PC to a correct date and use an old printer?
Can anything truly be verified at this point
There could be a few real ones, or the people could have just thought it was so easy to get them graded after the first batch or so just from Akabanes word, so why bother putting in effort for more?
That is purely speculation, but it feels like a hard pill to swallow to just assume any are real without more outside discussion with people involved at the time who are not Akabane
I honestly believe that, given this omission by the counterfeiters, there are some that can be verified. The ones that date to 1996 with the dot analysis. But your concern is warranted because this can’t last forever. Surely, as you say, there is a way to get around this problem.
My thoughts are (as above) that these known authentic copies should be used as controls for immediate analysis. Anything that does not conform to them cannot be determined authentic. It is rigid, but the surest way for long term viability.
You’d want to see all of the “standards” present on any authentic card. It would need to pass the dot analysis that @pfm has shown us, but also conform to the qualitative characteristics present on those cards that pass the dot analysis presently. If not - inconclusive or worse. This seems to be the fairest and surest way to keep all forgeries out.
NO XRF.
Edit to say that using Akabane is just an appeal to authority that has already failed. His word on something like this should count for nothing given that he signed forgeries.
Someone sent me this Dewgong card in pm, after checking it corresponds to the exact date/day of @pfm first discovery (It was printed 15 minutes after the Nidoqueen).
No, there is a unique serial number that is printer specific that is present in the dot code. Right now unless your cards came from that printer, it’s likely fake. Maybe they had multiple printers but narrowing criteria feels safest here.
This was masked out in the images pfm shared, and the cgc scans are too low res to show it (luckily)
Following this line of thought, I am reminded of a conversation with linkdu83 back in October 2024 when he brought up the differences between the HQ and LQ Beta Playtest Bulbasaur (Pokemon Card Prototype Discussion Thread - #415 by linkdu83)
The placement of Bulbasaur is clearly different from the HQ to LQ. It shifted to the right in the LQ Beta. Following up on what PFM said, the HQ Beta has no dots and LQ Beta has 2024 dots. I’m wondering if the HQ Beta are real but the counterfeiter tried to digitally recreate it which is why they came out from different printers.
It’s possible its a recreation. It’s also possible that the LQ ones were printed from the original files.
A part of me also wonders if the betas and deltas even make sense at all. Their placement in the timeline doesn’t make sense to me, they have different fonts, their purpose is unclear, no poke powers, no updates or variants like we see in alpha, I’m not even sure if the R/B artwork existed for all 151 before the TCG was available in stores.
Can someone explain to me the technique for revealing the DOTs? with photoshop or something else so that I can check several of mine and maybe move things forward?
I have a lot of certifications that start at 600xxxx and I have the impression that they look more “real” than the 140xxx HQs that are mostly added here.
There are methods methods of seeing the machine identification codes (MIC).
If you do a quick google search along with the contents in this thread, you will find the answers you’re looking for, but for your convenience, I copied the url so you can research: Google Search
I personally tested with blue light, microscope, and 1200 DPI scans to identify the MIC. I believe someone else above mentioned simply using a phone camera and adjusting the settings to expose the MIC as well.
.
