Is this card Fake? Coro Coro Mewtwo Strikes back Jumbo 1998

Question
,
1

Disclaimer: I couldn’t find any topic to attach this question to, so I created my own. Apologies in advance if this was not the right way to do so.

I’m currently on a journey to collect all Mewtwo cards, and I recently added one of my favorites to the collection: the CoroCoro Mewtwo Strikes Back Jumbo card from 1998. Since I grade all my cards, I aim to find them in the best condition possible. As you might know, vintage cards—especially CoroCoro ones—can be tough to grade, so whenever I come across one in better condition than mine, I make sure to buy it.

That brings me to where I am now. I purchased these two cards recently, but there’s something strange about the second one. I’m unsure whether it’s a fake or just a print variation. Any information or insights would be greatly appreciated!

Cards:

IMG_3718.HEIC
IMG_3718.HEIC4032×3024 3.49 MB

Comparison with Notes:

Comparison
Comparison1920×1440 387 KB

1—Color: There is something weird about it. The first one is a bit more pale. It feels like comparing different versions of the Base set.
2—Centering and weird cut: The second one has this diagonal cut on the left side. The worst thing about it is that it’s not just bad centering. The cut makes the card smaller on the top compared to the other one. And the top-to-bottom centering is quite bad. The bottom red logo collides with the edge of the card, but that can be a production mistake.
3- No Peeling marks (I don’t know their name in English): The second one does not have the little cardboard connector that holds it to the cardboard frame where it came in. Nor Top or bottom. This is my strongest indicator that something is not right here.
4- Texture: The front has a similar glossy texture. But the back has an extra touch of glossiness that is hard to capture in pictures.

IMG_3727.HEIC
IMG_3727.HEIC3024×4032 2.38 MB
IMG_3724.HEIC
IMG_3724.HEIC3024×4032 2.19 MB

The back has the same color variation:

IMG_3726.HEIC
IMG_3726.HEIC4032×3024 4.05 MB

On the other hand, the graphics do not show visual discrepancies (at least, I couldn’t see any). That’s why I’m still confused about whether this is a terribly produced card or a fake one. Any help or insights would be very welcome!

Cheers

5 Likes
2

Can you take a close up photo of the second one?

Similar to this:

IMG_3840
IMG_38401170×2228 917 KB

3

Looks alright to me, print variation is well established in these early cards, I have a bunch whose quality is…inconsistent, to say the least.

4

Yes! Here are some close-ups around the card that might help somebody else, too. Thanks !

IMG_3731.HEIC
IMG_3731.HEIC3024×4032 3.86 MB
IMG_3732.HEIC
IMG_3732.HEIC3024×4032 4.2 MB

IMG_3733.HEIC
IMG_3733.HEIC3024×4032 4.32 MB

IMG_3734.HEIC
IMG_3734.HEIC3024×4032 3.32 MB
IMG_3735.HEIC
IMG_3735.HEIC3024×4032 4.53 MB

IMG_3737.HEIC
IMG_3737.HEIC3024×4032 3.15 MB
IMG_3738.HEIC
IMG_3738.HEIC3024×4032 3.14 MB

1 Like
5

Good to know! I hope this is the case. Thanks for the info.

6

Thanks for the photos. I was interested in observing the printing technique, if you zoom in, you’ll start to notice a pattern with each dot.

Second copy zoomed in:

image
image754×739 71.8 KB

If both copies have the same pattern, I would not be concerned. If they’re different, then it becomes questionable.

Here’s an example from another card:
image

The example above is what I would expect to see, it follows the “rosette pattern” used to separate cyan, magenta, yellow, and black colors. It’s great that you have the first copy and now you can compare both copies.

7 Likes
7

I don’t see any reason to believe either are fake from the pictures

5 Likes
8

I agree (weird choice to fake this), it would be nice to have reassurance for the owner :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
9

Agree! But there were too many red flags not to post it. Thank you so much. I’ll send them to PSA soon, and we might get the final verdict.

1 Like