I already checked them, they show the expected dotcode (which is certainly the same on all the alpha from Sean, excepted the Gyarados which have the same back as the alpha which were confirmed from 1996, it was the only one among them):
5 Likes
the beta presentation/alpha presentation pop is completely wrong coz they either mislabeled a bunch or decided to change the terminology partway thru for some reason…
6 Likes
Thank you,
So the gyrados is authentic and the rest of seans have an identical dot pattern to each other but that hasent been decoded/confirmed currently?
4 Likes
Ah well that is a bummer. I guess it ties to them as labeled and databased with CGC, so useful for something perhaps, but not as useful as I had thought. Will be interesting to see how those numbers shakeout in the pops a year or a few years from now once the dust settles
4 Likes
Its probably useful. Gives a rough order of magnitude at least.
3 Likes
I used to do font matching or manual recreation a long time ago as a graphic designer. March and Alpha Playtest backs look noticeably different to me. The thickness of the front is different. The gradient in the small banner/flag is different. It is difficult to say if it is due to someone manually reproducing the artwork or slight variations done officially.
14 Likes
Yes you are right (even if the Gyarados has not been checked, but this is a card that was visible on a Akabane’s IG picture and it has the same back as all those that are certified from 1996, so it is most certainly the case for Gyarados too).
3 Likes
yeah, that benjamin guy might know why not sure i think i’ve seen him comment about it before. but if you check all the previously sold listings of “beta presentations” you’ll see they are just relabeled alphas except for the initial ones that sold at pwcc 
3 Likes
The way to tell how many slab included is people were keeping count of the quantity of individual pokemon that were graded and you can assume that there is a set for the max quantity. So if there were 12 beta playtest pidgeys, then there are expected 12 beta playsets. Across all different style designations i think there were about 20-25 individual sets graded, which assuming sets are 150 pokemon and some sets like alpha having trainers, maybe about 4,000 slabs total.
Hopefully some people can shore up the numbers with more factual and referenced amounts.
4 Likes
Guys, Can someone help me and do the test on my gengar! It would be a valuable help since I tried but I can’t see these Dots! I receive this gengar beta play test from beam collector…thank you in advance!
5 Likes
So correct me if this has already been determined but I suppose anyone deciding to fake these in the future can simply change their computer/system date or use a VM to fake the date and then when its printed the dot encoding will reflect that date? So then the only way to determine legitimacy is with the printer serial number and dating the printer by release?
3 Likes
Does anyone have a high quality raw scan/picture of the Japanese double sided Base set cards? I’m trying to find the pattern using the Goldin scans but the case/holo pattern might be obscuring, I’m not having any luck.
Referring to these
10 Likes
After a bit of research (not an expert), I’ve found a few resources that might help with unknown patterns:
18 Likes
I doubt there will be a future scenario where these are encapsulated.
17 Likes
Gem Mint Pokemon talking with Alt X Official while auctioning off these CGC protohype cards. All I’m going to say is that the 8 minute mark aged like milk…
9 Likes
IMO the legit one will be more valuable after this…others encapsulated maybe no. CGC will be better if they ask to bring in all the play tests graded by them to certify the legit again
4 Likes
Here are scans of my HQ venusaur i purchased August 30th from the heritage auction. I can not find anything on the front but the back i can see with a magnifying glass yellow dots scattered and maybe other dots but not sure. If anyone can help it’d be greatly appreciated.
7 Likes
This can be fixed by having all slabs sent to CGC. The fakes are destroyed and paid out. The real ones are put in a new slab with a new label showing its recertified
11 Likes
Quick Update for Those Affected:
After several exchanges with CGC’s representative, it turns out the initial instructions for submitting the cards won’t work. In their own words: “Due to the impact of this issue, we are in the process of updating our website with a process to submit these cards for review. Please do not follow the original resubmission instructions. Once the website has been updated, I will follow up with new submission instructions.”
I see this as somewhat good news, as it suggests they are developing a specific process for submitting these cards. From my perspective, this likely indicates CGC is indeed taking this very seriously (as they should) taking a closer look at the issue and may work towards addressing concerns for everyone who invested their hard-earned money in these “playtest & prototypes,” which CGC itself authenticated by encapsulating and putting its brand behind.
I’ll keep everyone updated as I learn more. In my point of view I believe in the next few days there will be a series of public announcements from CGC about next steps and the revised submission process.
25 Likes