quote:

---

Originally posted by WeedIan:
So i've noticed multiple people post on facebook, twitter that these are easy to spot (Including Stu and Ben from SCG )

I'm again on the side that Chas made a fear mongering article that is going to let SCG buy more collections

---

So two high profile guys working for SCG say publicly that these are easy to spot. By doing this they are actively trying to lessen any fears the public may have. At the same time you have the article by Chas, a person who writes for SCG and is only on the payroll "technically" and not in the same capacity as Stu or Ben, and you are accusing SCG of having him write that article to generate profit via purchase of collections from panicked individuals? Is the reputation of their business really worth risking for such a short term, minor monetary gain?

SCG is a legitimate business and despite the accusations thrown at them with regard to cornering markets and buy outs I cannot understand how anyone can draw the conclusion that they are attempting to subvert the market via fearmongering for any gain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stab107:
So two high profile guys working for SCG say publicly that these are easy to spot. By doing this they are actively trying to lessen any fears the public may have. At the same time you have the article by Chas, a person who writes for SCG and is only on the payroll "technically" and not in the same capacity as Stu or Ben, and you are accusing SCG of having him write that article to generate profit via purchase of collections from panicked individuals? Is the reputation of their business really worth risking for such a short term, minor monetary gain?

SCG is a legitimate business and despite the accusations thrown at them with regard to cornering markets and buy outs I cannot understand how anyone can draw the conclusion that they are attempting to subvert the market via fearmongering for any gain.

---

SCG sucks, and I hate them and what they have done, but I think as you said it's in their best interest to be truthful. After all, if they weren't easy to spot perhaps you'd get fake product out of buying off of SCG from somebody slipping up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stab107:
So two high profile guys working for SCG say publicly that these are easy to spot. By doing this they are actively trying to lessen any fears the public may have. At the same time you have the article by Chas, a person who writes for SCG and is only on the payroll "technically" and not in the same capacity as Stu or Ben, and you are accusing SCG of having him write that article to generate profit via purchase of collections from panicked individuals? Is the reputation of their business really worth risking for such a short term, minor monetary gain?

SCG is a legitimate business and despite the accusations thrown at them with regard to cornering markets and buy outs I cannot understand how anyone can draw the conclusion that they are attempting to subvert the market via fearmongering for any gain.

---

They always have the choice to *NOT* publish his article or make changes to it before it is published. I don't believe they are attempting to subvert the market but at the same time it looks fishy for a writer to say "fakes so good the end is here" and then one of their top guys go "fakes easy to spot we've never had one".

quote:

---

Originally posted by WeedIan:
They always have the choice to *NOT* publish his article or make changes to it before it is published. I don't believe they are attempting to subvert the market but at the same time it looks fishy for a writer to say "fakes so good the end is here" and then one of their top guys go "fakes easy to spot we've never had one".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stab107:
So two high profile guys working for SCG say publicly that these are easy to spot. By doing this they are actively trying to lessen any fears the public may have. At the same time you have the article by Chas, a person who writes for SCG and is only on the payroll "technically" and not in the same capacity as Stu or Ben, and you are accusing SCG of having him write that article to generate profit via purchase of collections from panicked individuals? Is the reputation of their business really worth risking for such a short term, minor monetary gain?

SCG is a legitimate business and despite the accusations thrown at them with regard to cornering markets and buy outs I cannot understand how anyone can draw the conclusion that they are attempting to subvert the market via fearmongering for any gain.

---

Because greedy entities are greedy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
Maybe that's why one simply writes and one is their main purchaser.

---

And it's still sketchy. Not saying I believe all this crap, but even they have to realize that what their site has put out is sketchy. I didn't like the guy's article all that much either. He goes from "it's not the end of the world" to "it could be the end of the world if..." to "don't worry guys. it's all good."

__________________
"Message to women worldwide: Girls....we're stupid. We don't like games. We don't know games. We can't read minds. Say it like you mean or STFU." -rockondon

I still have a couple of beautiful Unlimited fakes from the late 90's that were, to my mind, among the best ever. They fooled more than a few major dealers. Then the FBI got involved and the source quickly dried up.

A small cache of them resurfaced on Ebay around 2002 or 2003 and temporarily panicked the MTG market. I used that opportunity to scoop up dozens of dual lands at $3 to $5 each from very willing sellers. I also completed most of my Unlimited players set at pennies on the dollar. I guess those sellers knew better than me.

Until their extent is known, counterfeits will spook a market. But the reality to any market is almost always minimal so long as the counterfeiting is publicized and aggressive steps are taken to eliminate the source.

If only a few (or even a few dozen) cards are counterfeited, once the list is publicized players and collectors can know which cards to pay extra attention to. And just as quickly, the community can learn how to spot the counterfeits.

This happened with the Malaysian counterfeits of vintage cards that appeared on Ebay in 2008. The sellers got wiped out almost as soon as they surfaced.

1. His goal is reader count. Saying something sensationalist is par for the course, especially in regards to MtG "journalism". It's honestly no different than when various people try to hype their respective spoiler cards. Anyone else remember Irwin's spoiler video for Time Reversal?

2. Chas has actually been fascinated about "things that could kill magic". He's written multiple articles about this subject, and it's actually a very interesting topic.

The real problem boils down to how these counterfeits are being presented to the community. I've read a dozen different "first hand" accounts on the quality of these fakes, ranging from easy-to-spot, to needs-expert-scrutiny. Honestly, I'll start taking it seriously if and when people start getting DQed from PTQs and GPs for using fakes.

Just like you don't counterfeit $100 bills, you don't fake older rarities. Sure, people reback power and other such things, and they may find a sucker and get a quick couple hundred bucks out of it, but you don't make real money doing that. Those cards are under too much scrutiny all the time and the market is so small, it's just too much work. Instead, you go for the $10 and $20 bills and make a ton of them. Go for the stuff that is in high demand by a lot of people, not niche collector items. Start printing off sheets of Modern Masters stuff, like goyf and Bobs, or mid range Type 2 stuff like Reckoner. You have hundreds of potential victims, not just a handful of collectors. These are also things that won't get inspected too closely, so they're a lot easier to slip in unnoticed.

Fortunately, it's hard to unload a thousand Deathrite Shamans, at least not without attracting all kinds of attention. And anyone doing so would probably be willing to take quite a bit less than what they're actually worth, so the classic case of "if it's too good to be true..." certainly applies.

The other thing to consider is the print size of the counterfeiters compared to the actual print run by Wizards. Since we have no idea about either of those, let's just make up numbers for the fun of it. Let's pretend there are a million DRS's out there (and I would venture to guess there's a hell of a lot more than that), compared to our counterfeiter's 1000. Even if they managed to somehow fully distribute that load, we're only talking about <.1% chance that any given DRS is fake.

quote:

---

Just like you don't counterfeit $100 bills,

---

google "superdollar". they certainly do.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
google "superdollar". they certainly do.

---

I don't expect anyone could run this batch of counterfeits in a deck unless the entire deck is counterfeit. Over the course of a match the opponent should start to wonder why certain cards appear faded whn next to others in play.

I'm less concerned about these counterfeits crashing the market than I was before, they are not terribly difficult to spot if you're reasonably astute. Still, I would really like WotC to make a statement acknowledging this and outlaying some of their methods of combatting it. The M14 security features are a tacit acknowledgment, after all.

Cheers;
keywacat