Someone on reddit posted that they used a black light on the backs of their 1999-2000 print jungle deck cards and noticed they fluoresce differently than other 1999-2000 cards pulled from base packs. According to them, the Aus deck versions are a more noticeable yellow on the logos. Obviously this is for the base set cards to keep everything the same,
Does anyone have the collection to double check this claim? Would it really matter to your collection if the ink used was slightly different at different non-visible wavelengths or would you not really care?
Usually cant you expect similar types of inks though at least for the levels of fluorescent material in them? But thats why I ask if theres anyone who would care to verify. There’s not really any proof beyond a random reddit post and we all know better than to believe what you read on the internet.
This level of detail is helpful for grading companies to identify counterfeits, but that’s about it. I’m not sure that any collector cares that different facilities used different ink. That was to be expected.
The differences are even more dramatic in MTG when comparing Japanese vs. Belgian vs. U.S. prints.
I think anyone who collects these Australian prints will corroborate part of their appeal is their more saturated color. They are the most colorful and highest quality printing of the classic WotC.
I don’t have Base 2000 cards anymore but you can always tell the difference when they’re side by side. If there’s a heap of cards in a pile the 2000s clearly stand out.
