Many of the Pokemon playtest cards were likely printed in 2024

[MachopGOAT]

@gottaketchumall

Wouldn’t CGC announce that you have x days to get your order sent to them? I doubt they would just terminate things unnoticed, that would be very tone deaf…

[collectible_showcase]

Agree with that. What does “immediately” mean in days?

[pfm]

I find it very hard to believe that the dpi and quality of printing advanced this much between July 1996 and October 1996

---

Also, the longer I look at it, the more the alpha pattern seems to be from a Konica Minolta printer. It’s probably not a well-known brand (at least in North America) because their flagship product line, the “bizhub”, is giant expensive photocopier/printer instead of a home printer. Notably the bizhub line first appeared in 2003, so if it’s possible to tie the pattern to a bizhub specifically then we have a earliest boundary for the year. Konica and Minolta were separate companies in the 90s but both had color photocopier products at the time.

This is what a bizhub looks like

Japan has many places you can go to for self-service printing. There’s a chain called Kinko’s that specifically provides Konica Minolta machines for self-service.

I’ve actually went around my city trying to find any printing places that have bizhub copiers. I managed to find one and ordered a print

What I really need is more dot pattern data, any amount helps. I thought about contacting a second-hand printer dealer to source color printed samples from all their Konica Minolta printers in stock (even the colour test sheets you would throw away would work). If you want to help out, getting a scan of any Konica Minolta printed sheet (and the model id!!! serial # if possible) would be very useful.

[pfm]

I also want to point out that this “Proof of Concept” Seadra that we have good reason to believe is a photocopy also has a Konica Minolta dot pattern. But it’s got uniquely different dot positions from what is seen on the alpha pattern, which suggests to me that it was photocopied on a different machine.

[corinn]

You think CGC would’ve set up a special receiving and logging for these and process they as them come in. If they are logging these like normal submissions shows there’s no urgency

[Lemon]

They do say on the submission form to write “HR” on the outside of the box because they prioritize holder review orders. They’re probably just prioritizing “HR” in general right now.

[nikhil]

It probably allows for safety as well for people to not know what the contents of the box are

[cardstockpile]

Yes, I did write HR in big letters on the side of the package. I am not sure if they are currently analyzing them or what but they definitely have not been logged as of yet. Will let you all know when I have an update

[BUEFFES]

Beta Playtest total Pop now 433 (yesterday it was still more than 1200).

[pfm]

Evidence that the alpha pattern is probably from a printer made in 2016, HQ Beta implicated too

I may have finally cracked the alpha code with a couple new printed samples I picked up today.

Reminder that HQ, LQ are low quality and high quality.

To bring us up to date:

• Alpha prototypes are printed black & white so limited analysis can be done. Majority of the copies (LQ) sold seem to be photocopies of a single HQ set.

• Roughly 8 Alpha playtest that have been graded have HQ backsides. All cards I tested with HQ back have dots that say 1996. Majority of alpha playtest (specifically the ones that first appeared on auction) have a unique dot pattern. Since then, there have been trainers and a few of the more expensive Pokemon that have appeared with dots that decode to 2024.

• Majority of Beta playtests are LQ, all tested have 2024 dots. A single near-complete HQ set exists with no dots on the front. The backside contains traces of the alpha pattern, which suggests the back of the HQ beta are photocopies of the alpha playtest back - which means they shouldn’t be older than alpha playtest.

• Delta playtest, gamma, alpha presentation have 2024 dots on all copies tested.

• Beta presentation (corocoro magazine cards) don’t appear to have dots; no obvious issues with them that I’ve seen

TL;DR: certain alpha and beta playtests are inconclusive at this point. If alphas are printed recently, betas are implicated too.

Contrast between the “Xerox” dots seen on LQ beta and the “Konica Minolta” dots on alpha. All inconclusive alpha cards have the exact same dot matrix.

This Seadra also has similar Konica Minolta dots to alpha but it has a unique configuration. I’ve explained why I believe this to be a photocopy.

I apologize in advance: this will be pretty technical. You can skip to the end to see the main result which doesn’t require all the details.

I’ve collected 32 unique examples of Konica Minolta printed dots (plus the two above). Majority of them come from this dataset: https://madm.dfki.de/downloads-ds-mic - this is the data that was used to decode the “Xerox” pattern. All printers here are pre-2005. I found about 8 more examples that were published in research papers and printed 2 samples out myself today.

Basically the pattern is a grid with 30 boxes. Each box encodes one number from 0 to 5. Multiple boxes can be put together to form a single number in base 6. For example, the boxes used store the hour information (box 25 and box 24 below) encode “2” and “3”, which together is 23 (in base 6), which is 15 (in decimal) = 15:00 = 3pm. I put the time-based blocks in blue, I’ll note that the way to decode the time blocks does not seem to be 100% consistent across all printer models.

Unfortunately majority of the samples have the time information absent - including the alpha pattern (and Seadra pattern):

I suspect most of the black boxes have to do with the printer serial number. One thing that stood out to me is that the boxes I highlighted in orange are the only ones consistent across the same printer model. However, box 7 was the same across all my pre-2005 samples. When I finally collected data from newer printers, I noticed box 7 changes on newer models.

Basically, it seems box 7, 3, and 2 together encode a number that corresponds to the printer model. I checked the numbers of all the samples I have, here are the results:

Note: I did my best to find the manufactured year of each. It is actually quite difficult. Many of them can be found by looking at the manuals for each model. It also has very little to do with the numbering of the model.

year	code_base6	code	brand	model
2001	001	1	Minolta-QMS	Desklaser 2200
2001	001	1	Minolta-QMS	Magicolor 2210
2001	001	1	Minolta-QMS	Magicolor 2210
2001	001	1	Epson	AcuLaser C2000
2001	003	3	Minolta	CF1501
2001	003	3	Minolta	DiALTA Color CF2001
2003	005	5	Minolta-QMS	Magicolor 2300DL
2003	005	5	Minolta-QMS	Magicolor 2300DL
2003	005	5	Minolta-QMS	Magicolor 2300DL
2003	005	5	Minolta	Magicolor 2300DL
2003	005	5	Minolta	Magicolor 2300DL
2003	005	5	Konica Minolta	Magicolor 2300DL
2003	005	5	Konica Minolta	Magicolor 2300DL
2003	005	5	Epson	AcuLaser C900
2003	005	5	Epson	AcuLaser C1900
2003	005	5	Epson	AcuLaser C1900
2003	011	7	Minolta-QMS	Magicolor 7300
2004	022	14	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C350
2005	030	18	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C252
2005	030	18	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C252
2005	030	18	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C252
2005	030	18	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C252
2005	030	18	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C252
2005	031	19	Konica Minolta	Magicolor 2430DL
2005	031	19	Konica Minolta	Magicolor 2430DL
2005	031	19	Konica Minolta	Magicolor 2430DL
2005	031	19	Konica Minolta	Magicolor 2430DL
2008	100	36	Konica Minolta	Magicolor 8650
2012	221	79	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C754
2012	221	79	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C754
Alpha pattern	300	108	Konica Minolta?	???
2016	303	111	Konica Minolta	Bizhub C658
Seadra pattern	333	129	Konica Minolta?	???
2021	353	141	Konica Minolta	Bizhub AccurioPrint C4065

The code starts from 1 sometime around 2000-2001 and increments for newer models. You can see some models (and even Epson - a different brand) have the same code. I believe because they are using the same internal OEM parts. Konica and Minolta did not merge until 2003 and in those early days the printers were sold under a few different brand names. As a scatterplot, we can really see the relationship:

Primary result - comparing printer model code to approximate year produced

It would be extraordinarily unlikely to see this by pure chance (R^2= 0.983). Not to mention that all printers that share the same model also share the same code. If my interpretation is accurate, what it also implies is the following:

The alpha dot pattern was likely produced by a printer manufactured around 2016.

(2019 for Seadra)

Now, this is not 100% definitive. I’m making an inference based on the data; there could be weird exceptions. Notably though, I also think this pattern may not have existed before 2000. Basically, Minolta (which was mostly a camera company at the time) started mass producing their own inkjet printer heads around the year 2000. So it makes sense that this is when the dot pattern was established and why the model code would start from 1 around this point in time.

source

Let me know if you want any raw data so you can validate my work. I’m also happy to continue to check more prints from Konica Minolta machines to see if it conforms.

---

Summary:

Konica Minolta printers appear to encode the printer model number dot pattern matrix. The dots from the alpha pattern point to the “alpha printer” being built in 2016 (unclear when the actual printing of alpha happened, we can only date the printer)

I am convinced to my own personal satisfaction that the alpha prototypes were printed from a modern printer. If true, this also implicates the HQ beta prototypes (ie. every beta copy has now been brought into question - are they even variants that existed in the 90s?)

In other words, if a card has a backside and it’s not high quality, I would assume it’s been printed recently.

[cpbog1]

I’m working late into a Friday night in order to catch up on work that got delayed from all my time I spent on E4 the past two weeks. Meanwhile, I get pinged that you’re here cracking the code (pun intended) to the remaining pieces of the prototype copies. Thanks again for all of your work researching and running tests on multiple printers

On another note, I had a brief conversation with a CGC rep today, and they mentioned they are implementing additional “advanced testing.”

The more relevant comment - they mentioned that they will be providing additional findings once they complete their investigations regarding the prototypes and the people involved. As a “half glass full” type of guy, this comment is reassuring for everyone negatively impacted given that they are a large entity with the necessary funding to make customers whole. Patience will be a tested virtue for the community while the investigations are ongoing.

cpbog1

[Dirge]

Great investigative work as always!

Hi CGC, I know you’re in here. Quit screwing around and pay out. This dude did all the work you were supposed to do and then some.

[camrok37]

The amount of incredible work that has been put into this is seriously impressive. Someone should be offering you a salary for all of this! Thanks for sharing your findings with us.

[kantokollektiv]

Honestly you should get some kind of bounty or compensation from CGC for all the hours you put into this. Great work man!

[hian_43]

Fantastic investigative work. My Australian University uses these Konica Minolta printers and they updated the one I usually use just last year so I may be able to get you a 2024 data point on Monday. What color sheet is best to print out in order to see the dots clearly?

[TheMarillFoundation]

Amazing work!
It won’t be long until the eBay authenticity guarantee programme is rerouted to pfm’s house instead of CGC

[pfm]

https://www.eff.org/files/test07-checkerboard.pdf this one should work well

[swolepoke]

Pfm I’m going to reach out to the Nobel Committiee and see if I can get you nominated to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

If not, then at the very least I’m getting Christopher Nolan to turn this into an adaptation.

[Janineneedscaffeine]

Amazing work from everyone who helped to uncover this It is heartbreaking thinking of all those who lost from this scam, hopefully everyone is compensated as they deserve to be and the companies who we put our trust in will be more vigilant in future.

[MattCollects64]

Well, shit… If my card is proven fake and I get my $3k back, what card should I replace it with? I wanted some piece of history, but it doesn’t look like much of that exists now… The disco holos are interesting, but not really history to me.

1. Ungraded 1st Edition Charizards are around $3k, but the risks of getting a fake one seem too high.

2. Grade 8 Shadowless Charizards are around $2k, but I don’t think they will ever be as cool as a 1st edition

3. I do like the Full Art Mario Pikachu. I don’t know much about how rare it actually is, but I love the crossover.

4. New tires for my car.