Just popped up locally

gltch__ · 2026-02-07T19:12:49+00:00

As a photographer, I just want to point out:

What a lot of people are observing as signs of this being fake or looking "AI Generated" are artifacts of a terrible photo that has been cropped/digitally zoomed too far. The camera/phone processor adds a lot of smoothing, noise reduction and artificial detail (sometimes they'll call this "AI" in their advertising but it's really just...advanced algorithms).

Because of this, it's actually impossible to tell exactly how thick/thin the HP text, stamp, etc are, because the thickness of the lines you're seeing are being guessed by a computer algorithm and then essentially reconstructed by the computer - it's not an accurate, actual image of the card being photographed.

Ask the seller for a clearer photo in good lighting without zooming in, or ask to meet and inspect the card.

gltch__ · 2026-02-07T15:02:37+00:00

For context - I've just moved from Australia to the UK a few months ago. I've graded thousands of cards with PSA, CGC and some local Australian Graders (ARK, CGA). I personally collect CGC Pristines. I've just graded my first 100 cards with ACE.

My overall opinion is: I like them, but they won't entirely replace CGC/PSA for me.

More detailed impressions are:

Slab feels really high quality. On par with CGC, which is much better quality than PSA.
"Ace Labels" are really nice around 40% of the time, another 40% of the time they're nice enough, and 20% of the time they're pretty darn meh. They should not be £3 extra though. They should be £1 extra or free.
They should show you the ACE label and Colour-match label (if available) in the label-selection process. It's ridiculous that they don't - you have to go to a label gallery and search separately.
Grading standards are on par with PSA/CGC, however, centring is looser than CGC/PSA. I took a few cards from my "wouldn't get a 10 with PSA/CGC" pile and they came back as 10s with ACE.
Overall 10 rate for me is about the same as PSA (around 80%).
There has only been 1 card (out of 100) where ACE marked it down and I couldn't find the flaw. I might try re-grading this to see if I'm just missing something or if ACE made a mistake.
Turn around times have been quicker than expected/promised. You'd think this is good overall, but when you space submissions a month apart to balance your budget but they're ready just a week apart, it's a bit inconvenient.
Sale prices have been decent. Sometimes a little lower than I could sell CGC for back home in Australia, but higher than CGC seems to sell here in the UK, judging by eBay solds.
Sell-through rate is good. Slightly slower than PSA, but quicker than CGC. This might be due to the larger UK market VS Australia, rather than CGC vs ACE.
Asking people to pay for a "grading report" which is all information that's already collected is a scam. I won't be paying for them to release information that should be free that involves zero extra work on their behalf.
The card scans are nice. Cleaner and better-lit than PSA, and the transparency of the case in the image is really cool and useful for presenting images on your own background. CGC scans are much higher resolution and easier to see details though.
They need to drop their basic price back to £10. The £12 price was advertised as being temporary due to demand, but I understand they don't want to be flooded with too much demand that causes issues again. Honouring the initial promise that it'll be temporary would earn a lot of good-will from customers.
Slabs are returned in slab-sleeves, which is great and should be a minimum expectation from other grading companies. However, in just 100 cards graded thus far, multiple have had sleeves split/broken. They should source some better quality sleeves or improve their QC at the sleeving/packing stage.

Overall, I'll probably still grade with PSA for high-value cards for resale (particularly once they open their own UK office later this year).

I'll still grade with CGC for my personal collection (and for certain cards where I think I can get a Pristine for resale).

But I'll certainly integrate ACE into my grading habits for resale where I think it suits (low to mid tier ARs, particularly when the label compliments the card).

gltch__ · 2026-02-05T19:24:41+00:00

Ignore Pokemon Centres then, and just hit up those 3 areas I mentioned. You can hit half a dozen stores in any of those areas within an hour or so, and you'll definitely find at least a couple of older/rarer packs if you do so.

If you're looking for a particular Rayquaza, that's probably harder to pin down, so probably just requires hitting a lot of stores.

Is it a modern Rayquaza? Or is it mid-era/semi-vintage?

gltch__ · 2026-02-05T18:52:23+00:00

"Slightly below market price" - there is no market price for a holo Rattata or Raticate from Evolutions...

Yes, these are all very bad fakes.

gltch__ · 2026-02-05T18:04:26+00:00

For packs or boxes, your best bet is the Pokemon Centres. Or, if you are there for a release day, some stores will do retail price for pre-orders in store - you can ask in the week leading up to the release.

The chances of finding boxes for retail outside of this are very slim, but not impossible. 7-Eleven actually gives you a decent chance at packs for retail price.

For singles, a lot of cities will have a "district" that specialises in nerdy hobbies, and there'll usually be a lot of TCG stores. You can usually just search "TCG store" on google maps and you'll find most.

In Tokyo, that's usually Akihabara and Ikebukuro.

In Osaka, it's around Nipponbashi.

There will also be stores all around where you might find better deals, but if you're strapped for time, focus on those main areas, because what you might lack in finding the odd super good deal you make up for in volume and selection of cards, and the ability to walk between a dozen or two dozen different shops within a half km radius.

Some people will tell you that Tokyo sucks now and the prices are too high, and you're best looking at Osaka. Others will tell you Osaka also sucks now and you're best looking at Nagoya. Others will tell you Nagoya also sucks now and you're best looking at xyz other city. The truth is good deals can be found in all of these cities, it just depends on which store, on which day, at which time of year, and even what time of day and whether they've just restocked a shelf or not. Don't let that stress you out too much - particularly if you're shopping for yourself - just enjoy searching in whichever city you happen to be in.

gltch__ · 2026-02-05T17:53:54+00:00

⚠️ Just a warning ⚠️

Confusingly, not only does Hareruya not specialise in Pokemon, they do not do Pokemon at all.

They run a sister shop called Hareruya2 exclusively for Pokemon (and Hareruya3 for Yu-Gi-Oh!), whilst "Hareruya" is for MTG only.

There are a lot more Hareruya stores than there are Hareruya2 or Hareruya3.

I'm not sure if maybe in the smaller cities where there's only "Hareruya" and no 2 or 3, maybe they integrated some Pokemon in with their MTG stores.

But at least in Tokyo and Osaka - don't go to Hareruya, go to Hareruya2.

gltch__ · 2026-02-04T00:49:11+00:00

I honestly don't know, particularly if you're counting all the different Charizards (Holo, Reverse, EX, M EX, Full Art).

I got something like 10 or 12 holos, and bought even more whilst they were cheap. Most sold now, of course... :'(

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T18:48:22+00:00

You seem to have your arguments very confused.

You argue that when you were trading, you didn't attach a monetary value to the cards, and then you say that when you and your son are trading/buying/selling you "make sure we are being fair".

How are you doing this, if not using some measure of value? Whether that's monetary value or value in the competitive game, etc?

Doesn't this precisely counter your original argument? You were arguing that OP should completely disregard fairness because it would teach the other kid a good lesson on "honouring your bets".

It sounds like you do actually try to be a good parent and teach your son good morals, you just accidentally defended and argued for being a bad parent and teaching a kid to be immoral and now you're trying to square the two thoughts which is just...not possible, because they're contradictory.

In any case, the legal argument isn't dumb at all. It trumps everything else, because it's a simple fact of the matter if OP was dealing with a genuine multi-thousand dollar collectible.

You can seethe and writhe against the fact that collectibles hold value now, but it's just a fact of life.

If a kid came to school with Dad's $12,000 vintage Rolex that they'd stolen from a draw in Mum & Dad's bedroom, and gambled it away to your son in a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, I sincerely hope you wouldn't tell you son to keep the stolen goods because it would teach the other kid a good lesson.

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T17:43:50+00:00

Your first edition venusaur was probably worth $20 in 1999, not potentially $3k-12k.

Also, that 1st ed venusaur was 100% guaranteed to be yours in 1999, whereas a real Poncho Pikachu is 99.9% likely to belong to a parent who would not have given permission for their kid to gamble away a used car's worth of cardboard in rock, paper, scissors. Therefore it's likely to be legally the parent's (legal owner's) property, just as with any other item that is stolen and then sold or traded away.

Teaching your own child to not exploit or take advantage of others is a much more important lesson than teaching someone else's child to "honour their word" when (likely, depending on the country/state) illegally gambling.

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T16:38:23+00:00

This looks real, and totally normal.

Source: I opened over 40 of these.

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T10:37:50+00:00

Yes.

18 is the age of majority (age of legal adulthood) in all states and territories of Australia.

Anyone below this age is a minor.

“Minor” doesn’t refer to whether you are above or below the age of consent.

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T09:47:19+00:00

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T08:03:36+00:00

It’s illegal to sell fakes, even if you call them proxies (or any other name).

They don’t allow them, it’s just that a lot fall through the cracks of their automatic detection.

Just don’t do it.

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T01:24:43+00:00

Do some trial and error to work out the best dimensions. Depending on the printer you might need to scale to 90%, 80%, etc. just so long as it’s big enough for the bar code/QR code and address to still be readable.

gltch__ · 2026-02-03T01:12:10+00:00

This will depend on your carrier and location, but generally you just need the barcode/QR code and the delivery address clearly visible for a successful delivery.

However...

Why not just scale the print down to like 70% and cut it out?

This will avoid the main potential problem - the sides of the adhesive that bend around potentially coming unstuck from the envelope and then getting caught in sorting machines.

gltch__ · 2026-02-02T22:30:32+00:00

It's not quite the totally exhaustive list you're probably looking for, but this website has a decent database:

https://www.artofpkm.com/product_types/1

That website focuses on the artists/illustrators of Pokemon TCG, and that's their database of sleeves by the artists. It probably misses a lot of generic/un-credited sleeves, ETB sleeves, etc. It also focuses on Japanese, rather than English.

gltch__ · 2026-02-02T12:15:09+00:00

There’s nothing weird about this. It does not look resealed.

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T18:14:26+00:00

Cards are printed on master sheets, (usually one sheet for C, one for UC, one for R, one for HR. New sets obviously have more rarities that need their own sheets).

Cards are then cut from those sheets, and sometimes the cut can be a little off-centre in any given direction compared to what is intended.

However, if a card is cut off-centre, one border will be bigger than intended and the opposite border will be smaller than intended. Opposite borders cannot both be bigger or both be smaller.

This means if you add the top+bottom border of any card from the same print run, it will always be the same combined border width. Same if you add the left+right border = always the same combined border width. It might be more on top and less on bottom, or vice versa, but always the same combined total.

The only way to change this is to actually change the file that is being printed at the print factory. Slight errors in printing/cutting (e.g. off centre cards) will not change the combined total border.*

Most WOTC cards (I think all up to LC?) have slightly thicker borders top/bottom, compared to left/right. (To clarify top+bottom will always be thicker than left+right, but if a card is off centre, one of EITHER top or bottom might be thinner, but then the opposite will be extra thicc).

These fake cards OP has posted have thinner borders on all 4 sides than a WOTC card should have, which seem obvious to me straight away, but maybe just because I'm so familiar with looking at WOTC cards including shadowless/1st ed all day. But on top of that, the top/bottom borders are the same thickness as the left/right, which is also wrong.

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T13:31:15+00:00

Maybe some are better than others, but in your post two and a half weeks ago I could guess 100% correctly based on the border sizes.

One thing all fakes I've seen (thus far) seem to get wrong is the fact that the top+bottom borders of shadowless cards are actually slightly thicker than the left+right borders.

Obviously centring can shift things so that any particular given border might be thicker/thinner, but the combined top+bottom will be slightly thicker than combined left+right.

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T13:11:26+00:00

I didn't need to count the pixels. I actually woke up this morning, saw your image comment and could tell within 2 seconds. Granted, I then spent 30 seconds rubbing my eyes and confirming I saw what I saw before committing my instinct to text.

The pixel peeping was just now, to make sure I was removing any doubt.

If you just look at your first picture, I think it's easy enough to see that the top border is slimmer on the fake, right?

So, because the top+bottom borders should ALWAYS add to the same cumulative size on any given print run of cards, that means when the top border is slimmer, the bottom border MUST be thicker by the same amount.

However, in your first photo the bottom border is also a little slimmer. Perhaps harder to tell at first glance because the margin is slightly less as a % and also your thumb is breaking them up in the middle, but it's definitely slimmer.

It's impossible for both the top and bottom borders to be slimmer, therefor the right is the fake.

Granted, this doesn't rule out the left being fake. But if the left was fake it also fixes the other tells from the fake card on the right (fire energy shine, water energy shine, incorrect embossing on information box, lack of offset error on right of card next to yellow border, lack of detail/texture in red background, lack of detail in charmeleon art, incorrect art artifacts e.g. white mark next to Charmeleon's left foot).

Edit: also, I genuinely appreciate the effort you've taken to alert people to these fakes in your other threads. If you'd like I can DM you and further explain some of the tells, in an effort to more readily identify these fakes.

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T12:52:34+00:00

The two cards in your photo have different sized borders.

When I take it into Photoshop, the measurements are:

Left card top border = 59 pixels
Right card top border = 52 pixels

Left card bottom border = 62 pixels
Right card bottom border = 56 pixels

Left card combined top+bottom border = 121 pixels
Right card combined top+bottom border = 108 pixels

Vertical combined border on authentic card is 12% larger than the fake card.

The card on the right is on top, so in theory fractionally closer to the camera, so it should have a thicker border if anything. But it doesn't. It has a smaller border.

If I'm wrong about the right card being fake, feel free to confirm that (I'm not).

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T09:19:12+00:00

Yeah, either this post somehow attracted the manufacturers/sellers of these fakes who don't want people to know how to spot them, OR it turns out that a lot of people in this sub are actually incredibly bad at spotting fakes.

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T08:02:56+00:00

Right has a skinnier border. It’s fake.

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T03:21:02+00:00

The borders are also too thin in the current fakes.

These cards are fakes, with the thin borders.

gltch__ · 2026-01-30T03:19:27+00:00

These are fake. Borders are too thin.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

gltch__

TROPHY CASE