X-Men Metal Red PMG 001/100?!

[jjas311]

Nimrod 1/100 PMG?!

Is this a fake, or is it actually 81 or 91 with bad stamping?

[imwonderboy]

Originally Posted by jjas311

Nimrod 1/100 PMG?!

Is this a fake, or is it actually 81 or 91 with bad stamping?

I'm pretty sure in that set cards 1-10 are Green PMGs and cards 11-100 are red so if that is the case there isn't any card 1/100.

But I could be thinking of a different set. Others here may know for sure.

[PurplesaurusRex]

I thought I read somewhere that they switched it up for the newer PMGs. 100 reds and 10 green.

[DynaEtch]

The Marvel retros had the 100 red PMGs and 10 green. Since there was also a blue PMG of 50, they were all separate.

In the X-Men and Spidey Metals, pretty sure they went back to the original basketball scheme and had first 10 numbered green then 11-100 as red.

So it’s either an error or an ambiguous digit that’s not clear from the scan.

[BipolarBear]

Looks like 091/100 to me. There shouldn't be 1-10 on the X-Men: Metal Red PMGs. I've never encountered another single-digit red.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by BipolarBear

Looks like 091/100 to me. There shouldn't be 1-10 on the X-Men: Metal Red PMGs. I've never encountered another single-digit red.

Weird how comc identifies it as 001/100 though…not sure how these numbers are obtained into their system, but they have the card right in front of them. Would think they should be able to discern a 091 from 001 in person. Who knows though

[1992UDFootball]

It's Upper Deck, they mess up things like this.

[Archangel1775]

Looks like 91/100 but the 9 was all jacked up when UD stamped it. Its just human error on the COMC employee side. If the employee knew the set was numbered 11-100, they wouldn't have put that.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

Looks like 91/100 but the 9 was all jacked up when UD stamped it. Its just human error on the COMC employee side. If the employee knew the set was numbered 11-100, they wouldn't have put that.

Plausible. I’m looking at other red PMGs with 9’s in the serial number and the 9 is very distinct with a clear gap. But I guess a jacked up digit would explain things.

[Rictor]

Don't users identify the serial numbers on cards at COMC to earn COMC credit and history points? The few times I've done that, a lot of cards like that are hard to identify the serial number, so you just take a wild guess. I had to look at the card scans 10 times to even figure out where the serial number was on that card.

COMC identifies the cards I submit incorrectly all the time. Most commonly, they miss the fact that a card is serial numbered completely. They also mistake inserts for base, get the set wrong, get the artists of sketch cards wrong, get player names wrong, etc. Every batch of cards they process, I have to send them a bunch of corrections.

The Rogue sketch card I submitted recently from Women of Marvel, they added it as a blank sketch card. What?! There's clearly a sketch on the card, it's not blank. And it took a week for them to correct it because they were backed up during Black Friday.

[DynaEtch]

Well in that case makes sense to take the comc serial number designations with a grain of salt.

I wondered if maybe the cards transferred to comc from epack (which is a good chance with this card but not guaranteed) have the serial numbers built in listed from upper deck, but glancing at the epack marketplace I see no reason to think they are. I guess the the serial number in the title is coming from comc and its users (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

[jjas311]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Well in that case makes sense to take the comc serial number designations with a grain of salt.

I wondered if maybe the cards transferred to comc from epack (which is a good chance with this card but not guaranteed) have the serial numbers built in listed from upper deck, but glancing at the epack marketplace I see no reason to think they are. I guess the the serial number in the title is coming from comc and its users (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

That's a good point, I didn't know random users identify numbering.

I'm not going to buy this, but I would be very interested to see a closer image. Some of the stamping on the PMGs in this set bleed, but it should be pretty clear with a good image if it is a 9 or a 0. I haven't seen any fakes from this set but if this is really 001, it would confirm that fakes do exist.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by jjas311

That's a good point, I didn't know random users identify numbering.

I'm not going to buy this, but I would be very interested to see a closer image. Some of the stamping on the PMGs in this set bleed, but it should be pretty clear with a good image if it is a 9 or a 0. I haven't seen any fakes from this set but if this is really 001, it would confirm that fakes do exist.

Would be interesting to see a closer up or higher res pic, agreed. Too bad this isn’t the ‘elite’ comc tier since those pics are clearer.

If it indeed is 001 it still doesn’t have to be a fake, it could just be a UD-produced card that’s an error. In fact much more likely that than a fake, I just don’t see a modern marvel PMG being fake and never heard of that. It’s also not like 90s basketball where various inserts had backdoored copies that were stamped with fake serial numbers.

[1992UDFootball]

Really think it's a chunked foil 081/100.

[BipolarBear]

I am thinking error and not fake. It seems like a lot of effort to create a forgery of an obscure character in a set that currently is at a low in its value. Like, seriously, what's the realistic premium on the alpha Nimrod? $10? Less?

[glen87]

could be #1...the greens are numbered #/10

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by BipolarBear

I am thinking error and not fake. It seems like a lot of effort to create a forgery of an obscure character in a set that currently is at a low in its value. Like, seriously, what's the realistic premium on the alpha Nimrod? $10? Less?

Yea this. And since there is no alpha for the red PMG Nimrod in the first place, it doesn’t even make sense that it’d be faked as such. Fakes you’d think would try to mimic an actual card. I’ve also never heard of a marvel pmg fake and don’t think that’s an issue. The ‘alpha’ of the nimrod red PMG is the 011/100, which no one finds interesting.

I think it’s likely down to
1. Not 001/100: Ambiguous digit because of the way UD stamped it.
2. It is 001/100: an error where they stamped an incorrect number in the 001.

Complete side note, but I’m seeing common red PMGs from this set (which look pink for some reason) with asking prices on COMC as low as 20 bucks now, and some sold prices in the $5-10 range on ebay. Well that didn’t take long, and this was oh so expected, with the large checklist with many commons…what end collector does a card like this even target- set collector? (Almost no one is collecting this massive and expensive PMG red set), character collector? (who is collecting Nimrod)…so who does that even leave then. No surprise at all prices, especially of the commons, have plummeted.

[imwonderboy]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Yea this. And since there is no alpha for the red PMG Nimrod in the first place, it doesn’t even make sense that it’d be faked as such. Fakes you’d think would try to mimic an actual card. I’ve also never heard of a marvel pmg fake and don’t think that’s an issue. The ‘alpha’ of the nimrod red PMG is the 011/100, which no one finds interesting.

I think it’s likely down to
1. Not 001/100: Ambiguous digit because of the way UD stamped it.
2. It is 001/100: an error where they stamped an incorrect number in the 001.

Complete side note, but I’m seeing common red PMGs from this set (which look pink for some reason) with asking prices on COMC as low as 20 bucks now, and some sold prices in the $5-10 range on ebay. Well that didn’t take long, and this was oh so expected, with the large checklist with many commons…what end collector does a card like this even target- set collector? (Almost no one is collecting this massive and expensive PMG red set), character collector? (who is collecting Nimrod)…so who does that even leave then. No surprise at all prices, especially of the commons, have plummeted.

Yeah prices are down across the board though. Great time to buy.

I agree that this set was WAY too many cards for PMGs. I think they should stick with 50 like they did in 2017. Plus, I am not fan of the high/low character variations.

[DynaEtch]

We should have an answer soon in a few days, I have it coming to me.

Will either be an error, or I slightly overpaid for a jacked up serial number mis-ID’d by COMC. Hopefully the former but I’m guessing the latter, and in that case, it is what it is.

[jjas311]

I hope for your sake it is an error! Would be a really fun error, likely the only one in existence of any character. I've been watching these since release and I haven't seen anything like this before.

[One more set]

Scratch that

[jjas311]

Originally Posted by One more set

I pulled several red, a few green pmg’s, and a purple from that set and I don’t remember seeing three digits on any of them.

The reds are definitely XXX/100. I have a bunch of them.

The old school PMGs were all /100, red and green, but the Green were numbers 001-010/100 and the red were 011/100-100/100

They seem to do it different every time which is ridiculous, but this set is the closest to the old school numbering, however the greens were just /10 and the reds are all 011/100 thru 100/100. A 001-010 should not exist.

Thats why this one is odd. There should be no red PMGs in this set or the recent Spider-Man metal set that are 001-010 /100.

EDIT: Also, for anyone who is frustrated that the reds are worth more than the pink...there are actually only 90 of each red, not 100.

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

The Marvel retros had the 100 red PMGs and 10 green. Since there was also a blue PMG of 50, they were all separate.

In the X-Men and Spidey Metals, pretty sure they went back to the original basketball scheme and had first 10 numbered green then 11-100 as red.

So it’s either an error or an ambiguous digit that’s not clear from the scan.

Sorry, I jumped ahead and didn't see that you already covered this!

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by jjas311

EDIT: Also, for anyone who is frustrated that the reds are worth more than the pink...there are actually only 90 of each red, not 100.

Pinks were /75 right? So I guess it still doesnt make sense, considering common pinks are like $6-15 and common reds /90 are like $15-30, like double as much. The power of a name apparently! Heck the red pmgs basically look pink in this release..

[jjas311]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Pinks were /75 right? So I guess it still doesnt make sense, considering common pinks are like $6-15 and common reds /90 are like $15-30, like double as much. The power of a name apparently! Heck the red pmgs basically look pink in this release..

I personally feel like a print run difference of 15 is negligible, but yes, the reds are stamped PMG and the pink is just a pink parallel.

And the reds are definitely less of a bold red than the previous PMGs...but I think they look great in hand and not pink. They definitely look pinkish in photos though. I actually don't really like how deep red and etched the FUSM PMGs were, and I didn't like the thick card stock.

That being said, a 100 card set would have been much better than a 200. I gave up on completing the set. Should have sold the rest of them during the boom, but thanks to high sales a couple years ago, I broke even and the 50-60 PMGs I have left were free (including 2 Deadpool)

[DynaEtch]

So the result is not exciting as I wanted, but it was expected. At first glance it does sort of look like 001/100



Tilting it in the light, I think it is unquestionably 081/100



With perhaps a slightly jacked up serial number. So no error, it’s all above par, and mislabel by COMC.