I think it was shared with the intent to protract interest/relevance by way of “some information is better than none, even if it’s intentionally incomplete” imo.
(Xiao is shown on the far left of the first picture as the dog avatar next to gemmintpokemon)
It doesnt inspire a lot of confidence in them. I wouldnt want to be involved with this sort of people. Scammers, grifters, and hobby scum are mentioned here. Who would trust this “provenance”.
Getting a PhD is easier than following this
this also sounds pretty normal for alt, if u buy something on their u gotta realize u gonna pay another 5% or so when all is said and done before u get ur item 
Was only one set autographed?
According to a video that I’ve seen yesterday only one set was signed by Akabane. I can’t link it because it’s on Instagram but you’ll find it if you check fanaticscollect (it’s the latest video).
This video?
Yes that’s the one. Thank you. They say it’s the only signed playtest Eevee by Akabane. So there can only be one signed (full) set.
These both sold yesterday so kind of strange that they claim there is only one.
Edit: I’m no auto expert but don’t those look like very different variations of the signature?
Why does that seem insainly cheap?
https://www.instagram.com/p/DFK4ycGM0XL/
The funny thing to me is that I never felt a sense of alarm about some of the prototypes being photocopies, as I assumed they were photocopied around the same time as the originals for the purpose of saving time/resources in the prototyping process, and as such are still cool historical pieces, which to me holds value just out of pure interest in the history of the TCG. That said I can see why those who saw these more as investments or paid premiums to add them to their collections would be frustrated by this, especially because it can be viewed as an indicator of these middlemen’s/CGC’s lack of transparency and a potential desire to rush these out for sale faster than people could realise what they were dealing with.
Same tbh. I’m still waiting for some follow-up posts of his. If they’re photocopies from 1995/1996, I deem them the same as the other prototype cards (although it would mean I’d have to find two versions if I do decide to buy all Pikachu prototypes one day, haha 
). If they are however photocopies from later in time (e.g. 2024), that’s an entirely different discussion of course.
I’m pretty sure it’s the first however, since CGC did grade them, and although I feel like they rushed these out without article, I assume they at least did some of their chemical tests before grading them.
Greetz,
Quuador
Hoo yeah, good luck if you have to go after multiple (maybe the upside of this information being shared more openly is having to spend less to acquire these, but we’ll certainly see). I’m of the same assumption that they probably aren’t newly photocopied, and with provenance from Akabane still deserve some respect as historical pieces, but I imagine the combination of how this has been handled and the lack of transparency will still put people off whether or not CGC did their homework, especially now that the seeds of distrust have already been sown; even just plainly stating that they are photocopies to the public, whether they were done in 1995 or a year ago seems likely to cause people to divert their interest/funds to the more comfortable areas of the hobby that they’re used to.
In general there seems to be some weird stuff going on behind the scenes with this, not just including Marco’s posts, possibly in part due to Nintendo/TPC/Gamefreak not being on board with it; the new Akabane account/supposed middleman just posted this, so hopefully we’ll get some answers soon.
Here is some additional evidence for the theory.
This was posted a few years back on his deleted instagram account:
CGC graded copy:
First you can tell they are not the same copies just by looking at the top border.
There is also an alignment of printer artifacts - which supports them being either printed on the same printer or one being a copy of the other.
In addition to what seems like a loss of saturation (but could be due to different camera/imaging), there are also additional lossy artifacts on the CGC copy.
You can see the corners appear square on the instagram post as part of a black outline printed.
The CGC card has the corners cut “rounded” with no apparent black outline
The continued doubt definitely adds downward pressure. I remember when the starters first appeared and was ready to throw down on squirtle. The contrast on how those initial prototypes felt vs now is night and day. Even from the time you posted and me responding there is another potential issue with the cards. 
Thats interesting… So clearly more then one set is signed.
How much did the original batch of these ell for… They are now going for 1-2K (unsigned) but obviously depending on card.
I am so confused… I really want one to add to collection but so much controversy and lack of information.
Mike
Thanks for sharing. That’s odd. Maybe they ment to say that this playtest Eevee is the only signed one in this grade.
