KEM Red Arrow on Ebay Fakes? Comparison PICS.. |
|
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:36 pm GMT by adidino
I know this was mentioned on this forum so I decided to do some comp pics. I received a set of KEM red arrows from ebay about two weeks ago. As soon as I took them out of the package I noticed some differences. First, the stock is much rougher than the KEMS I've been playing with. Second was the print quality of the cards. Check out the ACE pics below.. You be the judge..
Original KEM on right, Ebay KEM on Left. Notice the way the "A" is too close to the edge on the Ebay vs the original KEM. The 800 # is also missing from the Ebay version.
EBAY VERSION (ABOVE)
ORIGINAL KEM (ABOVE)
Check out the detail of the girl on the Original vs the Ebay. Also notice how the print is a bit saturated on the Ebay version where the original KEM is clean. If you look closely.. you can also see the soft ridges on the stock vs the sand paper feel and look of the Ebay version.
Just some observations.. thought I would share them.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:08 pm GMT by Always_Bored
thats good to know. Maybe you should report the seller to ebay saying he may be selling fakes and passing them off as real. How much did you pay for them? A lot less? How do the cards feel?
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:12 pm GMT by adidino
They feel sort of like mild sand paper.. I'm not too crazy about the feel. I think I paid $20 shipped for 1 deck.. so It wasn't cheap but I'm not going to persue it. Cost be 20 bucks to know to keep away from the Ebay Kems. 
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:17 pm GMT by TheNuts
Do you remember the eBay seller's ID?
I just won 2 decks of Blue Arrows from eBay....... Hoping I'm not getting scammed 
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:25 pm GMT by Always_Bored
I just checked the ones i ordered from ebay and they have the 1800 number on them. I think mine are real. They also dont feel like sandpaper.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:29 pm GMT by Prettey Toney
The "real" Kem's should have a smooth finish with almost a flexible "rubbery" feeling, with the long wavy "grain" when looked at right.
They should not have the "gritty" feeling or texture, and should not at all be that "stiff" feeling.
These are like the bad ones I got. Somethings fishy there.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:37 pm GMT by ChkDeezNuts
Adidino...those Kems you got are "seconds" meaning they are the defective ones that the Company instead of throwing away sells at 80% discounts to retailers....The problem is that the seller did not notify you of the status of these cards.
I once bought a lot of "BEES" that were seconds because all the decks had the Ace of Diamonds printed too close to the edge. The lot was 100 decks.....I paid $25 for the lot....get the picture?
Report that seller for false advertising. He sold you a defective product and passed it off as "new".
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:48 pm GMT by galderon
I while back I noticed that problem...I ordered two KEM decks, and one was definately poorer quality...scratchy stock, inferior printing, and poorer cutting:
www.texasholdem-poker.com/forum/t5748/not-all-kems-created-equal
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:50 pm GMT by ChkDeezNuts
Not to spam....but I own two sets of Copags....and you don't see me complaining...just throwing that out there.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:56 pm GMT by adidino
The user ID was KEMSTORE I believe or KEM something. If they are 2nds, then they should be considered fakes because they don't compare.. really.. the paper, the print.. all wrong. Poor quality.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:58 pm GMT by adidino
| ChkDeezNuts wrote: | Adidino...those Kems you got are "seconds" meaning they are the defective ones that the Company instead of throwing away sells at 80% discounts to retailers....The problem is that the seller did not notify you of the status of these cards.
I once bought a lot of "BEES" that were seconds because all the decks had the Ace of Diamonds printed too close to the edge. The lot was 100 decks.....I paid $25 for the lot....get the picture?
Report that seller for false advertising. He sold you a defective product and passed it off as "new". |
If that was the only problem with the card, I would believe that.. but the saturation of the print.. wrong paper, the 800# missing.. too many things wrong with it to be considered a 2nd's..
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:22 pm GMT by ott
| adidino wrote: |
If that was the only problem with the card, I would believe that.. but the saturation of the print.. wrong paper, the 800# missing.. too many things wrong with it to be considered a 2nd's.. |
1st of all, Kems are not made from "wrong paper". They're plastic cards. To be precise, cellulose acetate. 2nd, 800# missing, the ones you claim are fake are made on March 1990. The other set was made on November 2002. That's quite a difference of time between when each set was made. I would've hope Kem's quality would improve over time in that 12 year period. The formulation of their "plastic" cards could've changed in that period of time. Look at the USPC version of Kems. They are also slightly different from Kems when they were still making them.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:42 pm GMT by adidino
| ott wrote: | | adidino wrote: |
If that was the only problem with the card, I would believe that.. but the saturation of the print.. wrong paper, the 800# missing.. too many things wrong with it to be considered a 2nd's.. |
1st of all, Kems are not made from "wrong paper". They're plastic cards. To be precise, cellulose acetate. 2nd, 800# missing, the ones you claim are fake are made on March 1990. The other set was made on November 2002. That's quite a difference of time between when each set was made. I would've hope Kem's quality would improve over time in that 12 year period. The formulation of their "plastic" cards could've changed in that period of time. Look at the USPC version of Kems. They are also slightly different from Kems when they were still making them. |
So you think it's just an older deck? That would make this deck 15 yrs old.. I don't think that's likely.. I would venture to say that it was copied from a 15 yr old deck..
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:42 pm GMT by Always_Bored
| ott wrote: | | adidino wrote: |
If that was the only problem with the card, I would believe that.. but the saturation of the print.. wrong paper, the 800# missing.. too many things wrong with it to be considered a 2nd's.. |
1st of all, Kems are not made from "wrong paper". They're plastic cards. To be precise, cellulose acetate. 2nd, 800# missing, the ones you claim are fake are made on March 1990. The other set was made on November 2002. That's quite a difference of time between when each set was made. I would've hope Kem's quality would improve over time in that 12 year period. The formulation of their "plastic" cards could've changed in that period of time. Look at the USPC version of Kems. They are also slightly different from Kems when they were still making them. |
very good points. Maybe they arent fake, they are just old.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:52 pm GMT by TheNuts
Where does one see Born On Date??  
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:56 pm GMT by Always_Bored
the 390 and the 1102
i dont know for sure if they are dates but that is possible.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:10 pm GMT by ott
| Always_Bored wrote: | the 390 and the 1102
i dont know for sure if they are dates but that is possible. |
Those are manufacture dates.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:14 pm GMT by ott
| TheNuts wrote: | | Where does one see Born On Date?? |
The date of manufacture is on the Ace of Spades. The last two numbers are year (00 for 2000, 90 for 1990). The number(s) preceding the last two are the month (3 = March, 11 = November).
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:21 pm GMT by ott
| adidino wrote: |
So you think it's just an older deck? That would make this deck 15 yrs old.. I don't think that's likely.. I would venture to say that it was copied from a 15 yr old deck.. |
That is an older deck. Kem had been making cards for 60 years. It's not like you got a deck from WW2 era.
If you want to keep on believing your deck is fake, go ahead and inform the buyer that what you think and return it.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:29 pm GMT by adidino
I suppose it sounds reasonable.. I had no intention of reporting this to the buyer either way. The differences on the deck just struck me. The missing 800#, the saturated print, the off centered print, lack of detail on the ace of spades, all of it. But I suppose it's possible that they were printed like that 15 yrs ago. If anything, the seller should be stating on his auction that they are old decks and 2nd's.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:31 pm GMT by adidino
Does anyone own a deck of KEMS from the early 90's and post could possibly post a pic of the ace? that would answer some questions.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:43 pm GMT by TheNuts
Sweet thanks for the info..... Gotta check out my Kems when I get home. If I have a deck from the early 90's I'll post a pic of the Ace of Spades to compare.
| ott wrote: | | TheNuts wrote: | | Where does one see Born On Date?? |
The date of manufacture is on the Ace of Spades. The last two numbers are year (00 for 2000, 90 for 1990). The number(s) preceding the last two are the month (3 = March, 11 = November). |
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:46 pm GMT by Iron Butt
Wow. Yeah, I'd guess they were fakes... the Kem girl looks like a bad photocopy to me and the Kem plastic is very distinctive and wrong on the bad deck.
Re possible changes, I thought they had been using their same process for plastic cards all along and I've never seen that version of the Kem girl. Also as noted the print quality is just overall worse, commercial printing has been better than that for at least the last 50 years, wouldn't necessarily have to be worse printing if it was older. Also on the bad one, doesn't that say "CARDS. INC." rather than "CARDS, INC."? A typo that would be easy to make but I bet you'd not see it on the real thing
There was kinda a Kem online museum that would likely have some pics of old Kems, can't find it... anyone?
I guess it was inevitable once you get people paying $40 for 104 little plastic rectangles LOL.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:37 pm GMT by douper
I got red arrows from PSO... date is 3/93. They are also missing the 1-800 number, and the surfance has a thatch pattern. I have a newer deck I got from PSO as well, dated 8/02 it has the wavy grain pattern left to right on the card.
The old ones seem to be a little bit stiffer. It's possible they changed there manufacturing process, and started printing the 1-800 number after 93... but we'll see.
I'll post pics if anyone is interested.
Edit: both of my decks are poker size, regular index, and the pic of the girl is wider on the 93 version.
802 = "Cards, "
393 = "Cards. "
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:50 pm GMT by adidino
Thanks for the info Douper.. Please post pics when you have some time. If they are just different because of manuf date, then good for me and anyone else who bought from this ebay guy.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm GMT by douper
ooo new development... my new cards are about 1/32" wider than the older ones...
I'll post some pics in a minute.
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:12 pm GMT by douper
here we are:
you can see the wavy pattern in the first picture and the thatch patern in the second one.
I can take better pictures than this, but this was the only way I could get the surface pattern on the card to show up
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:18 pm GMT by adidino
OK.. I'm convinced. Looks like it's just lousy printing in the early 90's. Thanks everyone...
Posted Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:51 am GMT by Prettey Toney
I actually bought some of the casino "seconds" from Kardwell. They were cheap, and were replacements for the crappy one's that I sent back elsewhere.
The cards themselves hold up and are definately "kem".
There is some bleeding, and bad printing with too much red, sometimes making the royals look sunburnt or "drunk", but the cards are good.
However, casinos probably nit pick the slightest detail such as a slightly off center cut, or a little dye mark here and there. I went through them all and weeded out the obvious, and they are holding up and are just fine for our big tourneys.
However, after playing with dal negro and some of the other brands, I am beginning to feel that all the speculation and what not isn't worth it, go get some other brands untill the "kem' conspiracy straightens out.
Posted Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:10 am GMT by JohnnyCache
| ott wrote: | | adidino wrote: |
If that was the only problem with the card, I would believe that.. but the saturation of the print.. wrong paper, the 800# missing.. too many things wrong with it to be considered a 2nd's.. |
1st of all, Kems are not made from "wrong paper". They're plastic cards. To be precise, cellulose acetate. 2nd, 800# missing, the ones you claim are fake are made on March 1990. The other set was made on November 2002. That's quite a difference of time between when each set was made. I would've hope Kem's quality would improve over time in that 12 year period. The formulation of their "plastic" cards could've changed in that period of time. Look at the USPC version of Kems. They are also slightly different from Kems when they were still making them. |
Cellulose acetate is a laminate hybrid, it's only very nominally a 'plastic'. It's made from wood pulp and will biodegrade.
Posted Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:04 pm GMT by ott
| JohnnyCache wrote: |
Cellulose acetate is a laminate hybrid, it's only very nominally a 'plastic'. It's made from wood pulp and will biodegrade. |
I don't want to get into semantics. Some of those clay chips aren't 100% clay either. :D
Posted Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:39 pm GMT by tepp
All this speak for older-style kem cards.
That's funny because I have older-styled kem cards (pre-2002) and later ones and the ones i prefer are the older ones : the corners are rounder, the ink is not fading and not faded (dark in new ones looks like grey !), they are thinner and easier to manipulate, they are better at being bent and becoming flat again, they smell less. Oh and I prefer the AoS face from the older kem cards. it is far more impressing than the newer drawing.
Most of the people playing with me agree to prefer old style kem cards. You can tell easily if you deal with older styled cards or new ones by figuring :
- the 1-800 number on the newer ones
- the more rounded corners of the older ones
- printed "JOKER" for new cards and "J0KER" for older ones
- faded printing on newer cards - black looks grey
Posted Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:41 pm GMT by Pinnacle
I played with a new set of USPC made Kem Arrows and I must say that they feel more like Royal Plastic Cards than original Kems. They were extremely thin and had a much rougher texture than my original Arrows.
To sum it up, they really sucked!
Posted Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:38 pm GMT by pocket snowmen
| Pinnacle wrote: | I played with a new set of USPC made Kem Arrows and I must say that they feel more like Royal Plastic Cards than original Kems. They were extremely thin and had a much rougher texture than my original Arrows.
To sum it up, they really sucked! |
are you sure they are the new KEMS? where did you get them?? What is the price??? Are they as flexible?? Do they have as good of a "memory"??
Posted Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:07 pm GMT by Pinnacle
They are not mine, but they are flexible. I know he payed $27 for 2 decks, but definitely got ripped off. The memory on them is not very good.
On second thought, I'm not 100% sure they are USPC made.
Posted Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:44 am GMT by pocket snowmen
why did you think that they were?? they were the arrow design though....?
Posted Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:24 pm GMT by Pinnacle
Definitely Arrow design.
|
|
