Just for clarification there are real cards printed in 1996 with decodeable dots and real cards with no dots. Why were two different typed of printers used?
10 Likes
I think no one here said cards with no dots are real. They are in limbo till proven otherwise.
13 Likes
Right now no prototype should be considered real, with the proof that has surfaced from pfm and others about the lq ones you can’t trust them right now
14 Likes
ZandG said in the last video that he received 55 slabs back (he refunded all the customers) and sent them all to CGC with the declared value of what he sold them for. I hope he will get refunded!
28 Likes
It’s pretty fair to say the ones that have been proven to have been printed in '96 (the starters and the Pikachu) and are already in CGC slabs are as “real” as it gets. Whether those came from Akabane’s binder or some other source we don’t know for sure but the MIC metadata doesn’t lie. It’s safe to assume all prototypes/playtests beyond those select few are inauthentic/printed in 2024. Dots or no dots. No further raw prototypes from this point forward can be trusted due to this revelation by pfm as the cat (or rabbit) is out of the bag. Now, whether those authentic playtests will hold some significant value is another question as their reputation and association with this fiasco will certainly precede them.
15 Likes
Okay then clarify me on this.
-We know that two printers were used to print fakes and possibly three printers
-There is a possibility that some cards back and fronts were printed on different printers.
Is there more than one group suspected of printing fakes?
8 Likes
Pfm laid out the details in his report here: Report of Observations Regarding the Pokemon Playtests/Prototype Cards
The shortest summary of the situation is so far only a handful of prototypes were confirmed real, with most being printed in 2024.
16 Likes
There is evidence of at least three printers (outside of the 1996 one). The order can also be inferred. Here is a hypothetical timeline assuming the analysis in my report is accurate.
- A Konica Minolta printer used to make photocopies of true, original prototypes (frontside) and 9 cards were used to make copies of the backside (probably fitting on one sheet in a 3x3 orientation).
These trace back to at least April 2024
If beta are recent fabrications, they would have been made potentially starting around this time.
- An inital set of betas were printed (HQ). The printer used added no dots (Epson? Could be a home printer). The backside has traces of the Konica Minolta dots, perhaps a single back sheet from the previous batch was used to photocopy/scan more backs. Notably, it seems that beta Dodrio (I believe it was) uses the same backside as the alphas (a leftover from the first batch?). Also alpha Magneton and at least one alpha Raichu appear to lack dots and share scanning straitions on the front side similar to the HQ beta backs, evidence that the batches are not entirely separate.
HQ beta, I believe, were also the copies that have the earliest public appearance at Card Party (June 14).
At this point subsequent beta-like variants (delta, etc) would have been made
- LQ beta, beta-like variants, more alphas (trainers, popular Pokemon) were printed from the Xerox printer (June 29 based on the copy in the OP). The beta fronts are likely not photocopies but instead printed from the source file. Many of the alphas made are photocopies of photocopies which is why they have double dot patterns - this also implies the person who did it would have access to all those initial photocopies at that point in time. Likewise, the back is also a copy of a copy, which is why it has double dot pattern and why it’s so washed out.
This story is not demonstrated as fact but it does align with all available evidence.
If we want to stray a bit further into speculation, we can make a guess on why three different printers were used. First, a photocopy of all 100+ real prototype fronts were needed, which would be easier to do with a large office-sized photocopy machine like a Konica Minolta. Plus one would assume the quality would be better than what you could do it home. Japan also has far more publicly available resources that are more widely used than we do in the west (such as self-service photocopiers across convenience stores) which should be kept in mind.
Then with betas, a first “test” batch may have been printed from a small, home inkjet printer. Presumably the betas were printed straight from a file so it can be done in a single print job. The backs were a single scan which is also easy to do.
Finally, there are at least 8 LQ beta sets → 1200 cards → 133 front sheets and 133 back sheets. So again, it makes sense to go back to a larger printer to run this job instead of doing it from a home printer. I can’t remember if we’ve seen multiple dates on the dots of these but it’s possible the person went back to the same printer on multiple different days to produce them. EDIT: just checked and looks like some have dots as late as November
Hope that helps.
32 Likes
-
So someone photocopies all the real prototypes. These copied cards were sold privately along with real cards.
-
Next some alpha and HQ beta cards were printed from a digital file and a scan of the back of some cards. They have no dots on the front. These are the cards sold at card party. There cards are all inconclusive
-
lastly there are cards with dots on the front and back printed after April and after the card party? some of the fronts of these are printed from a digital file while others are copies of copies. All are printed from the same printer?
Just trying to determine if this is evidence of two different parties releasing cards.
7 Likes
Did I do this right? @mika
15 Likes
yea looks like alpha pattern
13 Likes
They are not inconclusive. They have traces of the Konica Minolta pattern on the back and that pattern - based on available evidence - was probably from a printer with internal parts dating to 2016.
There is no need to invoke a second party in the printing, and probably best to assume the simplest explanation supported by the evidence.
Even then, the evidence suggests a single party. According to the timeline I hypothesized: alpha copied first, HQ beta printed later. The beta Dodrio/alpha Magneton suggests a connection between the two batches. For the LQ beta and double dotted alphas to share the same printer serial number, it means that the person printing has access to both the beta digital files and copies of nearly every alpha Trainer, Mewtwo, Pikachu, Blastoise, Venusaur, charizard, etc.
We can get creative and imagine ways that multiple parties could be independently making copies but personally I think that makes unnecessary assumptions
26 Likes
Sincere apologies for my silence on this thread. There’s still quite a bit going on with the prototype debacle. Thank you for respecting my time away while much of this is still being figured out.
The news is incredibly shocking as I’m still coming to terms with what this all means. Big shoutout to @pfm who saved many collectors from digging themselves deeper.
I have taken remedial actions personally and supported others. I continue to engage with counsel on a daily basis.
While there has been tremendous private support, some have been less than supportive. I’m disappointed in a few. I’m reminded that this hobby is a business. Years of goodwill can be disregarded the second financial loss is put on the table. The damage I’m sorting through is something I would never wish upon any collector. The hobby had more bliss when values were closer to zero. All we wanted to do was to collect some cool cards.
It’s important to find peace in the moments of gratitude. We will get through this. We will bring the fraudsters to justice. There are so many victims, including CGC. My due diligence went beyond what was shared publicly. It still blows me away how everything got this far. I had over 100 signatures from Akabane and a Jolteon Shikishi. I had independent confirmation from a Creatures employee. The list goes on. There was no surefire detail that screamed fake, until PFM. Thank you.
As a hobby we tend to overvalue these types of items significantly more than sports or magic. This situation is a good example why increased risk should mean lower prices. Let’s save this dialogue for another discussion.
Back to work.
Your fellow collector,
-GMP
Side note - I never engaged in earlier prototype threads due to my conflict of interest tied to actively selling protos. E4 has always been a safe haven for pure collectors to converse. I did not want any conversation to come off as a shill or take away from what E4 means to me. I still wrote half a dozen drafts that were never posted. I couldn’t get past appearing as a shill when I was clearly trying to make a market for the prototypes. Not engaging in the threads seemed to be the right move. I was always happy to discuss privately.
76 Likes
There was no surefire detail because CGC never did their basic job in the first place. I don’t see how they are a victim in this situation as their only concern was making profit out of this.
15 Likes
Thanks for posting GMP and glad you’ve received support. Hope you feel confident enough to share more details, if appropriate, in the future once this whole scandal has been concluded. Would be fascinating to get a bit more insight into the conversations and meetings that happened during the process of authentication and bringing the cards to market.
16 Likes
Though I have no reason to disbelieve the 1996 and 2024 metadata we have seen, could it not be artificially altered to give whatever date you want?
As such a small handful have the 1996 date I tend believe its likely they are original, but I think that technically speaking the dates can say whatever. A pedantic point perhaps.
One thing that provides even more certainty in my opinion is when the printer used was created many years after the item was purported to exist (though to be even more pedantic, perhaps its possible they had access to the printer before it was publicly released 
).
9 Likes
Let’s say it’s possible and the perpetrator had knowledge of this - why select the majority of cards to be printed with 2024 metadata? Why leave only a few with 1996? It’s more straightforward to think that it’s either not possible, that they didn’t know, or both
18 Likes
Indeed, it seems plausible to me the dates are correct. But when being strictly accurate about what is possible, if a date can be artificially altered then a date can be artificially altered.
edit:
Now I think about it, perhaps it is even possible with a printer that does not print any dots. You can just print whatever dot pattern you want.
Perhaps not something helpful for considering whether something we have seen so far is authentic, but moving into the future a sophisticated imitator will likely have this detail as a priority.
8 Likes
If they were printed consistently in 2024 and at the convenience of Japan’s public access to printers (Lawson, 7-Eleven, etc), then I’m positive the perpetrator doesn’t even know what metadata is
13 Likes
Yeah the way it looks is that there was no awareness of dot patterns, even the older ones. We are lucky to have an unadulterated dot pattern this time round if that is the case. I would not expect that to be the case moving forward though ofc.
Also are we sure they were printed in Japan yet? I was thinking possibly China but perhaps Japan makes more sense.
8 Likes