Revised duals with a different feel?

[MagicGyy]

Merry Christmas everyone!

I have the chance to get two duals, an Underground Sea and a Bayou, from a friend for a fair price. I have compared them to other duals I own of the same kind and they pass the light, gloss, and loupe tests but they just have a different feel. Very slight but almost waxy. I flipped my unsleeved pile of duals upside down and without looking, was able to tell the difference between them and pick them out of the pile. The Bayou is slightly darker, just a tad, as is the Underground Sea. So my questions is, are these fakes even though they passed other tests or are they real and I am being paranoid?

In addition, I did Google this in advance of this posting and could find things about glossy duals (which I have seen) but that is not what these are.

Thank you in advance.

[mistercakes]

Do they look like they've been played with for 20 years?

I have some fake cards from China (wanted to see what they were like. This was a few years ago but they definitely had a very glossy feel, but also failed the light test.)

[MagicGyy]

Here is a link to the images and scans.

Underground Sea https://imgur.com/gallery/PEdIy

[MagicGyy]

Here is the Bayou. Bayou https://imgur.com/gallery/ayOcg

[raudo]

From the look of the backsides I would have quessed they are played cards from early 2000. All my duals look a bit lighter imo. Not sure how much the photo fakes. Could you post your original duals in the same picture?

[mistercakes]

Hard to tell, they look legit. I'm. A little hesitant of any front that looks that good like the bayou. My recommendation is bring it to a well known dealer. The patterns look good though in the fine print scans.

[jandax]

Rosettes are legit man, the black is crisp and obviously in sync with wotc printing layers (i.e. applied last). Maybe the waxy feel comes from card sleeves? I mean if it passed all your standard tests?...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[MagicGyy]

Hard to tell, they look legit. I'm. A little hesitant of any front that looks that good like the bayou. My recommendation is bring it to a well known dealer. The patterns look good though in the fine print scans.

The camera is giving it a lotof credit. I debated posting that pic. Another one coming soon.

[MagicGyy]

Hard to tell, they look legit. I'm. A little hesitant of any front that looks that good like the bayou. My recommendation is bring it to a well known dealer. The patterns look good though in the fine print scans.

Here is a closer pic. If you are reffering to the clean border. I have seen the guy take a lightly damped, smoothe cloth and make a dirty border look great again.

Bayou 2nd Pic https://imgur.com/gallery/9OKkz

[MagicGyy]

From the look of the backsides I would have quessed they are played cards from early 2000. All my duals look a bit lighter imo. Not sure how much the photo fakes. Could you post your original duals in the same picture?

Here ya go. In each picture, the ones I'm questioning are on the right. The Bayou is a little darker. Could that just be a print run thing? I see that happen with cards all the time.

Comparisons https://imgur.com/gallery/P6if0

[MagicGyy]

In addition, should it be a red flag that I cannot immediately see the rosette pattern on the very bottomof the underground see by the artist's name? It seems like it can be tough to find in the snowflake rosette patterns.

Top and bottomof sea https://imgur.com/gallery/qaXKL

[Mr Miagi]

Might help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7gajYmdUMw

[MagicGyy]

Might help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7gajYmdUMw

Funny enough I was watching this at the time you posted. Unfortunately he doesn't say anything about rosette patterns and such. The problem is everything else looks good so does one weird thing make it a fake?

[MagicGyy]

In addition, should it be a red flag that I cannot immediately see the rosette pattern on the very bottomof the underground see by the artist's name? It seems like it can be tough to find in the snowflake rosette patterns.

Top and bottomof sea https://imgur.com/gallery/qaXKL

This link actually answers my question here. The snowflake rosette pattern is incredibly inconsistent and that is why the snowflake is easy to seein one spot and not the other. That then takes me back to my original question, is the feel being slightly off really something wo worry about when it passes all the other tests?

http://the-print-guide.blogspot.com/2009/04/rosettes-everything-you-didnt-realize.html?m=1

[apple713]

Merry Christmas everyone!

I have the chance to get two duals, an Underground Sea and a Bayou, from a friend for a fair price. I have compared them to other duals I own of the same kind and they pass the light, gloss, and loupe tests but they just have a different feel. Very slight but almost waxy. I flipped my unsleeved pile of duals upside down and without looking, was able to tell the difference between them and pick them out of the pile. The Bayou is slightly darker, just a tad, as is the Underground Sea. So my questions is, are these fakes even though they passed other tests or are they real and I am being paranoid?

In addition, I did Google this in advance of this posting and could find things about glossy duals (which I have seen) but that is not what these are.

Thank you in advance.

If you are receiving these from a friend and questining their authenticity i might question my friendship first if you think he would sell you fake duals.

Older card sets had alot of printing inconsistencies.

[MagicGyy]

If you are receiving these from a friend and questining their authenticity i might question my friendship first if you think he would sell you fake duals.

Older card sets had alot of printing inconsistencies.

Wow. I did not expect this. In no way do I think he is trying to sell me fake duals. I think the feel just does not bother him. I am just very particular about cards, especially old ones and wanted my paranoia relieved or validated before making a decision.

[apple713]

Wow. I did not expect this. In no way do I think he is trying to sell me fake duals. I think the feel just does not bother him. I am just very particular about cards, especially old ones and wanted my paranoia relieved or validated before making a decision.

Also consider that if a card is actually fake but it is such a good fake that no one could tell and you wouldnt get in trouble at a tournament what difference does it make? Obviously no one wants a fake card but sometimes it doesnt matter. If anyone you would eventually sell it to couldnt tell it is effectively authentic.

[MagicGyy]

Also consider that if a card is actually fake but it is such a good fake that no one could tell and you wouldnt get in trouble at a tournament what difference does it make? Obviously no one wants a fake card but sometimes it doesnt matter. If anyone you would eventually sell it to couldnt tell it is effectively authentic.

You are toxic to the Legacy community. It always matters. I could not keep/play with much less trade a card that I had the slightest feeling might be fake. This thread has officially jumped the shark. I am just going to bring it to some judges to be looked at. I will report back with the outcome.

[apple713]

You are toxic to the Legacy community. It always matters. I could not keep/play with much less trade a card that I had the slightest feeling might be fake. This thread has officially jumped the shark. I am just going to bring it to some judges to be looked at. I will report back with the outcome.

I think you may have misunderstood. Ofc it matters because no one wants to add fake cards to the pool. However, there comes a point when you do all the checks and something still doesnt feel right or seem right but other than your instinct the card checks out ok. You can continue to gather more opinion or tou can just accept that cards that are 25 years old are going to be a little different. There are a number of reasons why.

When i say printing inconsistencies think like when a printer runs out of ink or starts to run low. Sometimes the finish they put on the cards make ght not have been applied correctly. 25 years ago the company was tiny and didnt have the same quality control as they do now. If you have alot of old cards like alpha, beta, or unlimited, you will notice subtle differences. The reason i know that they existed is because i have tons of old alpha and beta commons that no one would ever make fakes of. Between them there were a few different feels and shading differences. Obviously there were miscuys too.

In addition to the various printing inconsistencies there are other reasons cards can appear and feel different. Iirc revised was printed in two different factories. There was the american one and foreign one, i think in europe. I think this resulted in different card stock being used and probably the wax coating. This is most recognizable when touching revised cards in foreign languages. Additionally cards wear didferently based on how they were used. Cards used without sleeves obviously show wear. But wax coating wear differently based on oils in players skin. Also consider the conditions the cards were stores in. Cards can be stored indoors ~70 degrees but also left in the garage and frozen or left in the texas 100 degree heat and dried out. Consider high humidity areas too like houston texas. These can also affect how cards look and feel.

For these reasons and probably others i have left out are why i say that at some point it doesnt matter. Its not that i want fakes in the community but you have to just accept that cards have discrepancies at somepoint. Once you have exhausted all reasonable means for testing a card you have 3 choices. Rip it in half and look for the blue, get it graded by professionals, or just accept it.

[MagicGyy]

I think you may have misunderstood. Ofc it matters because no one wants to add fake cards to the pool. However, there comes a point when you do all the checks and something still doesnt feel right or seem right but other than your instinct the card checks out ok. You can continue to gather more opinion or tou can just accept that cards that are 25 years old are going to be a little different. There are a number of reasons why.

When i say printing inconsistencies think like when a printer runs out of ink or starts to run low. Sometimes the finish they put on the cards make ght not have been applied correctly. 25 years ago the company was tiny and didnt have the same quality control as they do now. If you have alot of old cards like alpha, beta, or unlimited, you will notice subtle differences. The reason i know that they existed is because i have tons of old alpha and beta commons that no one would ever make fakes of. Between them there were a few different feels and shading differences. Obviously there were miscuys too.

In addition to the various printing inconsistencies there are other reasons cards can appear and feel different. Iirc revised was printed in two different factories. There was the american one and foreign one, i think in europe. I think this resulted in different card stock being used and probably the wax coating. This is most recognizable when touching revised cards in foreign languages. Additionally cards wear didferently based on how they were used. Cards used without sleeves obviously show wear. But wax coating wear differently based on oils in players skin. Also consider the conditions the cards were stores in. Cards can be stored indoors ~70 degrees but also left in the garage and frozen or left in the texas 100 degree heat and dried out. Consider high humidity areas too like houston texas. These can also affect how cards look and feel.

For these reasons and probably others i have left out are why i say that at some point it doesnt matter. Its not that i want fakes in the community but you have to just accept that cards have discrepancies at somepoint. Once you have exhausted all reasonable means for testing a card you have 3 choices. Rip it in half and look for the blue, get it graded by professionals, or just accept it.

My apologies. I did misunderstand and that explanation makes complete sense. Thank you for elaborating. So I take it you have or have had cards with the same type of texture as I explained? Because like I said, they look exactly like other cards and pass the tests. I even bought a few revised cards to compare them to, the texture is literally the only thing that seems off. Thank you again for your in depth explanation. And again, my apolgies for calling you toxic.

[bruizar]

Send it to bgs/psa if you really want to know. Yes, it costs money, but knowing whether a card is real or not is worth money.

[rlesko]

Looks fine to me. I've never seen a fake thats good enough to even fool the naked eye of a knowledgeable person. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but its currently my belief that the fear of fake cards is disproportionate to the number / quality of fakes in circulation.

[non-inflammable]

i'm in the printing industry...

the cards look good, probably real, but the "feel" could've been caused by high humidity.

[non-inflammable]

I've never seen a fake thats good enough to even fool the naked eye of a knowledgeable person.

so i found a very good (revised badlands) fake at my LGS. it fooled everyone's naked eye with casual scrutiny.
my LGS paid cash for it...

it took me about a minute with a loupe and intense scrutiny to find enough warning signs to say it was fake.
it had a very slight plastic feel. the first "tell".
the only way to describe this would be to slide your thumb over a real card, then slide your thumb the same way over the fake.
the fake felt slightly plastic and your thumb moved "faster" as it traveled across the fake card.

the rosette actually looked pretty good and i couldn't find any big warning signs there (20 years printing experience)

the color on the front "art" was slightly off (tell?) with a yellow tint but that could just be a color issue on press.
the back art looked correct.

the HUGE "tell" for me was the "white" border of the card had a very slight percentage of cmyk "dots".
meaning the white areas around the edge of the card had ink in about a 2-3% saturation.
i could just see it with the loupe but not the naked eye.

i didn't do a black light test, but i will.

the store told me it passed the back lit test correctly, i didn't test it.

another "tell" was where the the face and the back of the card were "glued" together from two different pieces of material.
you could actually see a tiny line where they went together.

the card itself had slight wear and even a small dent or two so it wasn't in NM condition.
someone "put the wear" on the card to make it look legit.

the downside is that this card would fool most casual observance and the huge tell for me (dots in the white) can easily be corrected on the next press run.

i will get a pic posted (hopefully) of all the "tells"...

[ParkerLewis]

I have never seen a fake pass a 20x magnifying loupe rosette check. Comparing with a real card, I've never even see it getting it close to the real pattern, especially in the back (unless of course for rebacked cards). There's just not even the slightest hint of doubt possible, at least if you actually have a real 20x or more magnification (emphasis on real as Amazon is full of shitty "20x" or "30x" that are in fact 10x).

Also, with the same kind of loupe, you can also very clearly differentiate between genuine blue core and fake black core simply by looking at the spine/edge of the card. You will see the slight blue line of the blue core, but it will appear a bit "fuzzy", and "not going straight". While fake cards I've seen have a very "neat", almost perfect line (usually black). Actually, if you have (very ?) good vision, you can even see the difference with the naked eye.

[Ronald Deuce]

i will get a pic posted (hopefully) of all the "tells"...

Excellent post! That would be a tremendous service.

OP, one thing I've noticed is that MtG's quality control wasn't very good in the early days, but it's still not particularly great. I've gotten entire boosters of "smeared" cards, wacky color-balance cards, and things like that, mostly starting with Kaladesh. The fact that I only buy packs a few times a year should indicate that it isn't a statistically rare occurrence to get a "lemon" pack. I was playing casual and borrowing a deck about eight months ago, and when I pulled a Worldspine Wurm off the top of the deck, it flexed so far in my hand that I blurted out, "there's no way this is a real card." We pulled all four from the deck and started doing tests; the others were all the same. The coloration was different but within acceptable levels of variance, the printing process and kerning didn't raise any flags, and the thickness was normal. The only thing that raised a red flag was the flexibility of the card. We actually stacked all four of the guy's Worldspines and flexed them, and they flexed farther than a number of singletons: a verified Worldspine from somebody else (either the store or me; I don't remember), a basic land from RtR, and a bunch of random cards from the same guy's deck.

Of course, that raised a ton of questions (Why counterfeit Worldspines? If fake, did they sneak past the vendor? Was the vendor legit if he was selling a quad of a very suspicious card? etc., etc.), but when the owner of the cards took his concerns to another vendor, the verdict was that the cards were real, even though all the people who handled them (incl. a store employee) immediately felt the same flexibility problem. I can't argue with the other store owner's experience (he moves a good number of duals and, occasionally, power), but he said that it's not uncommon for cards to have a very different "feel." I'm still not convinced the Worldspines were real, but there's that.

The scans looked fine to me, but you should probably get the duals checked at a store or by a grading company if you're that concerned. Apple is right that there's only so much you can do to verify the cards on your own, and that there comes a point at which it probably doesn't matter insofar as being able to play with them is concerned.