mounted on card means they put a cardboard backing on it because otherwise it is just a flimsy piece of paper.
no one really knows the supply of these other than the original owner. i personally wouldnt pay anything for them other than what i would be comfortable to lose.
out of all the weird shit that cgc grades, something like the disco test holos would be more appealing to me, and those are also way cheaper. theoretically there should be way more of those than any type of prototype cards as they were literally cut from sheets, yet hardly any of them are available to purchase.
edit: the signature series for cgc is equivalent to “witness” sigs at other grading companies - i.e. there is no way they are not authentic. which means they had some sort of private signing event with akabane in order to make these.
So these cards are regular paper mounted on card stock, right? Does anyone know how it is mounted? Is it some special glue or just regular glue used in arts and crafts?
If it is just glue, I’m wondering if the glue could eventually wear out and the paper just falls off.
In all seriousness, something like an Elmer’s glue sticks would be better because most regular glue will be too “wet” and may end up warping the paper printout.
I’ve been lurking in this thread trying to remain neutral and objective as I consider the different perspectives and here are my takeaways:
CGC has earned its skepticism: I think it’s in everyone’s best interest for any new discoveries to be met with healthy skepticism . . . it’s one of the many safeguards to protect the community from fraudulent items and bad actors. In this case, I believe CGC has every right to withhold information when authenticating items (that’s their choice), but in doing so, they also have to accept the resulting criticism and scrutiny that accompanies that choice. Given the highly unusual amount of cards hitting the market, the secrecy about them, the emergence of an impostor Akabane account, the different treatment of past items of a similar nature, and the alleged connection to some questionable figures in this space, I think skepticism is 100% justified. For better or worse, CGC has also demonstrated a history of authenticating items that other companies are hesitant to take-on (including some items believed to be inauthentic) and a willingness to provide preferential services/information to potential business partners. Neither of those things are inherently bad, but will fuel additional skepticism and criticism.
CGC has earned its reputation: Despite healthy skepticism, I still trust CGC’s ability to authenticate items and their ability to source/verify information. I’ve been a critic of some of CGC’s past business practices, but I have to credit them for being the industry frontrunning in authenticating niche items like error cards and some of the other prototypes mentioned (Protostoise, Disco Holos, etc). CGC is a long-standing company with a huge financial and legal interest at stake, and they have produced detailed articles in the past, demonstrating their processes, technologies, and some sources of information that they can call upon. As this thread suggests, CGC has connections to Akabane and likely other early WOTC employees/experts that we are unaware of. Personally, I think CGC SHOULD release detailed articles about every new landmark item they authenticate, and frankly, an emphasis on transparency would go a long way in alleviating the skepticism and criticism mentioned earlier. However, if they choose not to (for whatever reason) again that’s their choice. Until they give me reason not to, I have to trust CGC’s assessment over my own limited knowledge on items like this. By the same token though, I retain enough skepticism to not want anything to do with these cards . . . and I typically love this kind of stuff!
In speaking only about their unique physical make up; they look to be “mounted” meaning placed upon standard size cardstock that borders and displays the information, likely through an adhesive layer to prevent removal or separation. It can be done cleanly or sloppily depending on the care of whoever did it but only adds the thickness of paper assuming it is some kind of printed sheet which is negligible for the purposes of testing design, use, and format.
My opinion is they probably arent just using any old glue and it likely was not done recently but during the time they were produced. How they graded 10 is beyond me as the purpose can be inferred to be for testing, playing, and adjusting the information unless a set ment as display or masters was kept in a binder. Without having them to check in person it likely would be difficult to replicate the process in a manner that would match, from inks used to exact method and sizes used to “mount”.
I think but am not sure this might be a difference between alpha and beta prints but who really even knows, I see some on Goldin with the “Thick Lines” designation now.
isnt the only point of the backing so it doesn’t look like a piece of printer paper floating around in a plastic slab 
