ohn Monsen is one of the more recognizable “is this real?” voices in the hobby, especially when the question is about high-dollar Pokémon and MTG singles. People call it John Monsen TCG authentication because it’s basically that: a longtime collector, dealer, and print-production guy who’s handled enough real cardboard to notice when something’s off.
He’s not trying to be a lab. He’s the opposite of that, honestly. His approach is experience-first, with a small set of simple tools, a big library of known-good examples, and a refusal to pretend a photo on your phone is the same as a card in your hand.
If you want a feel for how he thinks outside of authentication, he also writes straightforward MTG guides like The Best Magic the Gathering Tools for Research, Deck Building, Proxies, and More and Upload & Print Your MTG Deck List.
John Monsen TCG authentication Q&A
CoG: Tell us about yourself and your background.
JM: I’ve spent over 20 years in print production and shop operations, and I’ve been collecting trading cards for most of my adult life. At some point those two worlds collide. If you’re around paper, inks, coatings, and finishing all day, you start noticing tiny tells. And if you’re around TCGs long enough, people start sliding cards across the table and asking, “Do you think this is legit?”
I started as a collector. Then I bought and sold. Then I started getting pulled into authenticity questions because I’d seen enough real cards, from enough eras, to spot patterns.
CoG: When did you make the transition to being an authenticator?
JM: I’m really a collector and dealer more than an authenticator. My primary work is still the hobby, and in my case, printing and production too. Authentication became a serious sideline because the requests kept coming. When you’re the person who’s not afraid to say “nope,” word travels.
CoG: Tell us about the groups of authenticators you were with. What were they and why didn’t they work?
JM: I’ve worked alongside different groups, mostly in the “help us build a process” sense. Stores, online sellers, and people doing intake on big buys. The problem is always the same: everyone wants a checklist that replaces judgment.
I’m not a conformist about authenticity calls. If something feels wrong, I’m going to slow down, pull comparisons, and be annoying about details. A lot of operations want speed and uniformity. That’s how mistakes happen.
CoG: And so now you’re solo and your company is called…
JM: I do it under my own name and under the umbrella of PrintMTG when it overlaps with education. I’m not trying to build a giant authentication factory. I’m trying to give people an honest answer.
CoG: Are you going to stay alone, as your own service, going forward?
JM: I’m not looking to form a big multi-person firm. I’m open to working with reputable hobby businesses if the goal is quality, not volume.
What he authenticates and how fees work
CoG: How do your customers contact you and find out more about submitting items?
JM: The website is the hub, and email is the easiest. If it’s a high-end situation, it’s usually appointment-based because I want the cards in-hand, under consistent lighting, with time.
CoG: What are the services available (fees, areas of authentication, etc.)?
JM: I focus on TCGs, mainly Magic: The Gathering and Pokémon Trading Card Game. Singles, high-risk variants, and “this slab feels weird” checks.
Fees vary. A basic authenticity opinion on a modern card is not priced the same as a vintage holo or a high-end MTG staple where counterfeits are sophisticated.
CoG: What are the factors that can make the price vary?
JM: Two things. Difficulty and downside. Some items are heavily targeted by counterfeiters, so you’re not just checking “is this printed,” you’re checking print method, surface, edge work, sometimes signs of alteration.
And yes, value matters. If someone sends a card that could be worth thousands if real, the standard of care has to be higher.
CoG: What’s your response to people who don’t like the fee changing based on the value of the item, and not the work it takes?
JM: You can’t price it perfectly until you see it. Someone might send a card that’s a blatant fake and I know in ten seconds. Another person sends something that’s a very good counterfeit or an altered real card, and now you’re deep in comparisons. There has to be a system that accounts for risk and complexity.
Art vs science and the “no fancy machines” philosophy
CoG: Many collectors believe it’s important to have a formal authentication background, a scientific background. Do you concur with that statement?
JM: I think education helps, but it doesn’t replace handling real cards for years. The hobby has a weird blind spot where people think a gadget will save them. Tools matter, but experience is the thing you’re really buying.
CoG: How much of what you do is an art vs. a science?
JM: For me it’s more art, but it’s not vibes. It’s pattern recognition from thousands of reps. You learn what “normal” looks like, and then the abnormal stuff jumps out.
CoG: What kinds of scientific methods do you use? Do you have any fancy machines?
JM: No lab. My “gear” is boring: magnification, consistent lighting, a scale, calipers, and reference cards. Sometimes a UV light for quick tells.
Most of the time, the answer is in print quality, stock behavior, and surface finish. You don’t need a spaceship. You need a loupe and patience.
CoG: What percentage of your opinions are based on subjective vs. objective evidence?
JM: Objective evidence matters a lot. Wrong fonts, wrong alignment, incorrect saturation, unusual gloss, incorrect light transmission, weird edge layering, inconsistent holo pattern, signs of recoloring, trimming, or surface coating.
The subjective part is knowing when something “almost” matches but still fails the overall feel. That’s where experience lives.
CoG: How important is provenance in the authentication process? Can it be a tipping factor?
JM: If I’m 90 percent leaning one way, strong provenance can tip it. But provenance has to be real. Not “my uncle pulled it from a pack once.” If the card looks wrong, a story doesn’t save it.
CoG: You don’t have a formal team but do you get second or third opinions?
JM: I try not to. If I’m not confident, I’d rather decline than outsource the call and pretend that makes it cleaner.
Certificates, disputes, and accountability
CoG: What’s your verbiage, letter of authenticity or professional opinion?
JM: I call it a professional opinion. If you didn’t watch it come out of a pack, that’s what it is. I don’t pretend otherwise.
CoG: What is your process when somebody questions your evaluation?
JM: I’ll look again if they want. Nobody is 100 percent, and I’m not interested in acting like a statue. But it comes down to evidence, not ego.
CoG: If you’re proven wrong, do you buy back your mistakes?
JM: If it’s proven to me with real evidence, yes. Not “someone on a forum disagreed.” But if I made a real mistake, I own it.
CoG: You buy and sell in the field in which you authenticate, and some people have been critical of that.
JM: The people who have handled real volume tend to be better at spotting fakes. That’s not a coincidence. Conflict of interest is real, so the fix is transparency and consistency. No special treatment for big clients. No “because I like you” calls.
CoG: How do you protect your certificate from being copied?
JM: Unique serials, record-keeping, and verification. If your paperwork can be duplicated with a home printer, that’s a you-problem waiting to happen.
CoG: Do you put anything on the item itself, a sticker or anything?
JM: I don’t put adhesive on raw cards. I’m not going to be the reason someone’s surface picks up residue or a corner gets dinged. If something needs long-term protection, the hobby already has established encapsulation routes.
CoG: Do you see every item that has your name on it?
JM: Yes. If I didn’t handle it, it doesn’t get my name.
CoG: If you don’t have the resources or the exemplars, do you decline?
JM: Absolutely. I say no all the time. It’s annoying, but it’s the job.
CoG: What about using a scan?
JM: I’ll give a casual opinion from a photo if it’s obviously bad. But I will not say “it’s good” from a scan. If you want a real call, the card has to be in-hand.
Counterfeits, alterations, and what’s hardest to spot
CoG: How long do you spend per item?
JM: It depends. Some are instant. Some take an hour. The worst ones are when the card is real but altered. That’s where you need to slow down.
CoG: Do you authenticate large collections, and if so, do you look at every item?
JM: For large collections, people usually want the expensive stuff reviewed. You can’t “one cert” a whole binder like it’s a car title. If it’s a mixed lot, I’ll be explicit about what I did and didn’t review.
CoG: Does one fake card make the whole binder fake?
JM: Not automatically. But it changes how suspicious I am about the rest. And if I’m writing anything, I’ll be clear: “These cards reviewed good, these were counterfeit, these were not evaluated.” Clarity beats drama.
CoG: Which of the other authenticators do you trust?
JM: I trust systems more than personalities. PSA, Beckett Authentication, and CGC Cards all have processes that the market understands. I still don’t turn my brain off just because a label exists.
CoG: Dueling authenticators can be very frustrating for collectors. What is your advice?
JM: Go with who you trust more, and ask what they based the call on. Also understand that print runs vary. Language, era, and even factory differences can complicate “one simple test” thinking.
CoG: Are there some newer, quality forgers out there right now?
JM: Yes. Better scanners, better print equipment, better surface coatings. The floor is higher than it used to be. That’s why relying on a single trick is risky.
CoG: Have you ever made a mistake and later had to correct it?
JM: I’ve changed my opinion after seeing new information, better exemplars, or the card in different conditions. If you never change your mind, you’re not learning.
CoG: How can you tell if a card is altered rather than fully counterfeit?
JM: Alterations leave fingerprints. Recolored edges, touched-up borders, surface coatings, pressed dents, trimmed edges, swapped backs, cleaned surfaces, and “improved” holo that doesn’t match normal wear. Counterfeits are usually wrong in a more global way. Alterations are surgical.
CoG: Would you be willing to go to court to back up an opinion?
JM: If it’s a situation where my documentation and process matters, yes. But I’m not chasing courtroom stories as marketing.
Final advice for collectors
Cog: What’s your advice if somebody clearly purchased a counterfeit?
JM: First, try to get your money back. If the seller fights a refund like it’s life-or-death, that’s a signal. Use the platforms’ dispute systems. And if it’s serious fraud, report it. Also, don’t keep cycling the counterfeit back into the hobby. That’s how the problem keeps living.
CoG: What are the toughest items to authenticate in your lane?
JM: High-end vintage Pokémon, certain modern textured treatments, and the MTG cards that have been counterfeited for decades. Also sealed product can be a headache because you’re evaluating packaging behavior, not just the card.
CoG: What are the most counterfeited cards?
JM: The ones with money attached. That sounds obvious, but people still act surprised. If it’s iconic and expensive, it’s targeted.
CoG: Where are your exemplars from? How do you know they’re real?
JM: Pack-fresh cards, known-good purchases, and graded references when needed. I’m picky about what goes into the reference library. Garbage references create confident mistakes.
CoG: Do you ever conduct authentications without exemplars?
JM: No. If I can’t compare, I’m guessing. I don’t sell guessing.
CoG: Are you in any organizations?
JM: I pay attention to what the major grading and support organizations publish, and I stay connected to the dealer side so I see what’s actually hitting the market.
