In the original threads my skepticism about ‘when mounted on card’ or uncut sheets being cut seemed a bit of a stretch, now it seems like something may have happened in regards to this. Even if authentic, cutting sheets of paper feels different to cutting sheets of card, Perhaps there is a scenario where there were all sorts of authentic components that were assembled (which would explain access to original card stock). Then perhaps you had a bunch of examples where they had access to original fronts or backs and they printed new fronts or backs to the complete the card. Perhaps Akabane sold off a lot of components he saw as lacking value that found there way to someone that then went on to create new components to make complete cards? All speculation at this point, many unknowns.
Tbh even buying one of these cards felt like buying a shit coin. On the one hand there was the moon (scarce, historically important Pokemon item) and the other was dust (possibility of a much larger supply or worse case authenticity concerns).
There are like 9 copies sold pre-2024 that are probably authentic. Then for the 1500+ copies sold during 2024 nearly all have evidence of recent printing. Akabane signed literally hundreds of these. At this moment here is no reason to believe an “authentic component” of beta, delta, etc. has ever existed.
There’s also no reason to think it’s a coincidence that all the cards from 2024 that are based on the ones below, including the backsides, show evidence of being photocopied. And the variants that are not appearing here and have never been documented seem to be printed straight from a digital file.
There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties but at this point we actually know a lot. And for what we don’t know, we can at least be realistic about it.
For example, consider these two options: 1) Akabane was in on it OR 2) Akabane sold authentic components to someone who made copies of items, including a never-ending series of variants that are all the same other than image swaps and he signed hundreds of cards (that he never sold because he only sold components which would have included digital files of beta); or maybe all the hundreds of autographs are forgeries including the cgc witnessed ones and the ones he did for people within the hobby he personally met.
In this thread was there ever a rough estimation of how much money in total was spent on these? Is it in the seven figures?
More than 8 figures
It might be a trivial thing to acquire but if the the white card stock has the same attributes to the original I could see that being a raw original material for example that was worked with. It is potentially one of the components that cannot just be newly created with ease like the printouts(?).From then on they could have some original materials (such as uncut sheets) that they assembled, at this point the line of legitimacy is being blurred. Then it is not a small conceptual/‘moral’ leap from assembling original materials to creating new components.
The original components being assembled is a tangential theory at this point without evidence.
The theory you propose has a lot backing it. If that is the case, it truly is an example of ‘tell a lie so big that people believe it’. Though even with this theory, there is still the possibility of original components being used.
If original components were assembled, it is even possible that a 1996 dot pattern was newly cut from a sheet. Though as you say, only a handful of 1996 dot pattern cards have emerged (they are likely original completely). Also a possibility the copiers acquired legitimate cards, removed the authentic paper components and replaced them with copies onto the original white card stock.
None of theories so far require the component of original materials to prove a recent production date, but it is a possibility I am open to.
In this thread I linked to an example where in MTG they printed paper sheets of card designs for other purposes
Though of course this would not be relevant for examples with recent printing. In an example of a recently cut original sheet, you could see how someone could use something like this.
Also in reference to some of the people pointing to the signatures as proof that CGC allowed for newly cut sheets to be stuck to card and graded as ‘mounted on card’, if this is true perhaps it was what opened the door to new part assemblies to slip through the net. Once you accept a ‘purportedly authentic’ newly cut sheet to be mounted to card and graded, it is not as much of a leap to miss newly printed sheets to be cut and mounted to card. Especially if there were to be any tests in regards to glues used.
I believe the estimate is in the 30-50 million range and I do not know that this is including all private sales
I’d agree with this estimate, I can trace roughly 18-20 million from just the early handful of buyers and that figure does not account for any of the sales from the big auction house companies (Fanatics, ALT, Goldin, etc). I’d say it would be a minimum of 10-15 million in addition to the 18-20 million solely from the auction houses. 30 million seems to definitely be a “low estimate” at this point in time.
Just wondering is the fan club Gyarados authentic? It’s unlike uncut trophy pika and illustrator
I am just unsure what the point of this analysis is because, as you say, there’s no evidence of partially authentic materials being used.
Outside from the handful of likely authentic copies, all backsides have evidence of being photocopies. Nearly all frontsides show evidence of recent printing in the dots, with the primary exception being HQ beta. But all evidence points to the beta variant being a fabrications from 2024. There’s no evidence I’m aware of suggesting the cardstock is “real” either. You blank cardstock is readily available today. The corners of also show variations, for example I’ve noticed that some batches have overcut corners:
Or just sloppy cuts in general:
Meanwhile the cards with 1996 dots show evidence of play wear (and generally present a clean machine cut look otherwise):
In other words, cards either present as fully legitimate or all parts being a recent creation (even the design for many variants). There is no current evidence supporting the use of authentic components in 2024, at least as far as I’m aware (and this is specifically applying to the playtests/prototypes and maybe a better can could be made for some of the other stuff that came from Akabane)
No, re-read what I what I said. It is common knowledge that you can’t print counterfeit money on a home printer( inkjet or laser) because they leave dots. This is how police and other agencies detect counterfeits. CGC which works with currency, they should already know this.
Also I wouldn’t be surprised if some cards are half original and half fake if digital files have gotten loose.
this is some crazy speculation that I’m not sure should be tolerated for risk purposes lol
I don’t know where you’re going with this even if you are correct.
Are you saying that law enforcement looks for commercial printer dots when evaluating if currency is counterfeit? If this is your claim, it’s incorrect because of the myriad other security features which currency already has and makes it near impossible to produce on a commercially available printer. As PFM pointed out, most currency has embedded patterns that a commercial printer will refuse to photocopy or reproduce in the first place. You can’t get printer dots if the printer won’t even print your counterfeit currency to begin with. That’s the reason why you can’t print counterfeit currency on your home printer, not because everyone knows about the dots and how to decode them. I’ll happily concede this point if you can find just one example of high-quality counterfeit currency being uncovered solely because law enforcement or an authentication company decoded the dot-matrix pattern printed by a commercial printer.
I assume that if someone made very obvious counterfeit currency and tried to use it, steganography could be used in law enforcement investigations as evidence to prove what printer was used and when. But this is very different from using steganography as an authenticating technique, of which I can find no evidence of it existing.
Second, knowing that printer dots exist and knowing how to decode them are two very different things. Pfm has done tons of original investigation here to get to this point. The existence of printer dots really isn’t an issue, as we have “legit” prototypes and “fake” prototypes that CGC would have needed to decode the dot matrix for in order to determine the difference. Decoding these dots is challenging and not something CGC would (or should) have experience with.
As usual, I don’t think we are too far apart here. Everyone believes CGC is to blame for this. We’re just disagreeing over why they’re dumb for authenticating these cards.The red flags about these cards were clear from the beginning to a large amount of people. You don’t need steganography to see that these cards are highly questionable. CGC shouldn’t have touched them in the first place.
To some of the comments made above about cgc’s ability to test the authenticity or aging of the prototype papers vs no ability to do so…
Do you guys remember this clip (posted below)? This suggests that CGC does have the ability or at least acknowledgment to test the aging of paper to verify that it’s not recently printed. And maybe he was told by certain someone in CGC that they have the ability to do so but CGC just didn’t follow through due to hopefully negligence…
Then it just makes you wonder about the lack of transparency again…. Is cgc the victim? I don’t think so.
watch here
The USD did not always look the way it looks now or have features like plastic strips embedded, black light reactivity, ring constellation, etc.
People did print currency on home printers but the yellow dots, non removable red and blue fibers and lack of magnetic ink meant that they didn’t work in vending machines and cops could detect fake bills. As far as I know the yellows dots were created as a forensic tool for the prevention of counterfeiting.
The new features are to make it easier for cashiers but there were still counterfeiters getting around the plastic strip and water mark problems. I’m not sure if older printers will not print a ring constellation though, I haven’t tested it.
lul.
I just received confirmation from CGC via email and on their site that they have received my card. Not sure if anyone else has received this. It’s the only update I have received so far.
Too funny…was just going to post the same thing. We seem to have been notified at the same time. Wonder if they were waiting for the go ahead to start logging them.
I received a FedEx confirmation that the package has been delivered, but no email from CGC and no confirmation in their system yet.