Originally Posted by Johnphotoman (Post 2505001)

It would be cool to tell how they are fakes, yes it is obvious, but it would be cool to hear someone describe how they are fakes. Who knows…could miss something and it would be fun to hear how people describe fakes along with just looking at them. John

Originally Posted by tiger8mush (Post 2505003)

The front alone - picture quality, colors, font, frame. Let alone the back, and the fact it's an impossible combo. It's almost like asking how can you REALLY be sure an apple isn't a banana.

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2505042)

If you're going to fake something, why change everything to make it patently obvious it is fake?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2505048)

Because these weren’t meant to deceive - these are from an early full reprint set that was an honest effort and never supposed to be confused with the originals.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2505048)

Because these weren’t meant to deceive - these are from an early full reprint set that was an honest effort and never supposed to be confused with the originals.

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2505057)

I cannot find the set these originated from. The typical 1980s reprint sets all copied the original font and list clearly they are reprints. And they don't have fake backs with super bad cuts.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2505082)

Look a little harder and you will see tons of these floating around, you can probably find 30 more from this reproduction on eBay in a few minutes. Fantasy fake backs and color combos were normal on 80’s reprints and you can find hundreds of them from multiple reprint runs on eBay every day of the year.

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2505084)

So yes they were meant to deceive lol. Not sure how you got to "they weren't meant to deceive" if the back literally has the word reprint removed. Like I thought before, the real 1980s reprints have it clearly listed, shown here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25680501835...mis&media=COPY

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2505084)

So yes they were meant to deceive lol. Not sure how you got to "they weren't meant to deceive" if the back literally has the word reprint removed. Like I thought before, the real 1980s reprints have it clearly listed, shown here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25680501835...mis&media=COPY

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2505104)

…. No fucking shit the seller of these is trying to deceive. The cards themselves were not meant to be deceptive, which is why all the details are wrong and completely different. This was an honest reprint set, not intended to be confused with the originals. The seller here is trying to pass them off as real and scratched off the “reprint” tag. If you want to play this game, read and make sure you’re right before you play.

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2505106)

Maybe word your post better? I've never seen somebody lose their temper that fast and be so oblivious at the same time. It's obviously not clear that's what you meant in your first post. It looked like you were referring to the cards I posted about saying they were an honest attempt. Hence James post above clarifying.

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2505042)

If you're going to fake something, why change everything to make it patently obvious it is fake?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2505048)

Because these weren’t meant to deceive - these are from an early full reprint set that was an honest effort and never supposed to be confused with the originals.

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2505084)

So yes they were meant to deceive lol. Not sure how you got to "they weren't meant to deceive" if the back literally has the word reprint removed. Like I thought before, the real 1980s reprints have it clearly listed, shown here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25680501835...mis&media=COPY

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2505155)

It is not complicated. This is not a difficult line to follow.





The question is why every aspect of the reprint has been changed - and the answer, like it or not, is because this reproduction run was a legitimate one that was not meant to deceive people. No difficult words were used. That we are talking about the set is explicitly stated and included, not assumed in the on sentence statement.

Before you choose to play this game:



Make sure you read the post you are trying to correct and mock correctly.

Originally Posted by Beercan collector (Post 2505166)

What the hell is with people arguing on this site - If it has re-print on it it’s not meant to deceive - if “re-print” has been removed it’s meant to deceive

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2505104)

…. No fu#$^&* shit the seller of these is trying to deceive. The cards themselves were not meant to be deceptive, which is why all the details are wrong and completely different. This was an honest reprint set, not intended to be confused with the originals. The seller here is trying to pass them off as real and scratched off the “reprint” tag. If you want to play this game, read and make sure you’re right before you play.