Posted By:
HankronFor the record, I honestly thought Scott was doing a joke, and if I had thought he was serious I would have kept this whole issue off board. Scott is someone I know and respect, and I wasn't trying to show up anyone.
I had and have serious issues with the scan provided. However, I have only seen a single closeup shot of a part of a card and am not about pass final judgement without seeing the card in person. To that end, I have requested to have the card mailed to me. I am well aware that scanners can do goofy things, and, if you scan an item three times each picture can be slightly different. Some people will enlare a picture to the point that you don't know what's a detail on the real object and what's a pixel. In no circumstances can an object be authenticated from a snapshot photo or digital image, especially when it shows only a portion of the item.
The E95 cards and similar T and E cards were made with an old fashioned type of lithography that has qualities that do not exist in reprints. The original cards were colored lithographs versus color lithographs. Colored versus color is not a mere technicality or mere play on words. Also, the ink used was different than is used today, and this ink is identified under a high power microscope. The later fact again indicates why I can't and won't pass final judgement on a card's authenticity without me personally viewing it through a microscope.
I don't mean to come across as arogant, but I am confident that I know more about these issues than anyone else including the grading card companies and the auction houses. I am also aware that sometimes online images lie or are otherwise deceptive and, when an item is viewed in person, the original confidence or doubts are squelched. I will readily admit that my first impression was wrong, if in person examination shows that the card is authentic.