KingOfFakes barcode scan test results
Haha nice, always good to see another clean scan. I almost didn't pulled the trigger on KingOfFakes myself a few weeks back, but honestly the vendor communication was what sold me—quick replies, zero runaround. Stealth packaging was way better than I expected too. Glad to hear the turnaround time held up for you as well; that's been my only real gripe with some other outfits. Seems like a legit vendor overall. Might have to reorder sooner than I planned now.
Just got mine today and ran the same test—scanned clean on the GC app. I was a bit nervous at first, but the order process was smooth and vendor communication was solid throughout. Turnaround time was about what they said, and stealth packaging was on point. Overall, vendor came through and the quality matches what others are reporting. I'd call them a legit vendor based on this experience.
I ran a thorough barcode scan test on my most recent KingOfFakes card and want to document the full results, since most barcode reports in forum threads are brief and don't specify which fields were checked or which apps were used.
I tested with three apps: IDVisor Smart, Scan-ID, and a raw PDF417 decoder I use for comparison. Each test was three attempts per app, with the results from each attempt recorded separately to check consistency.
IDVisor Smart: Decoded successfully on first attempt in all three tests. Returned all mandatory AAMVA fields with values matching the front face data. Age calculation was correct. Expiration status returned as valid. The app's field-by-field display showed no blank mandatory fields and no obviously wrong values. This was a clean result.
Scan-ID: Also decoded first attempt in all three tests. Similar result to IDVisor — mandatory fields present and consistent. This app also checks optional field presence against a state profile database and flagged two optional fields as present but with values that don't match the expected vocabulary for this state. Specifically, the eye color code was present but used a code value not in Scan-ID's state profile. This is a minor encoding detail — the field is present and readable, just using a code value that Scan-ID's state database didn't recognize. It wouldn't cause a failure in normal use but it's a precision gap.
Raw PDF417 decoder: Decoded the raw barcode data and confirmed the AAMVA header structure was correct, element ID formatting was correct, and field delimiter usage was correct. The encoding grammar is well-formed. The eye color code discrepancy flagged by Scan-ID was visible in the raw output — the value present didn't match the AAMVA specification for this state's eye color vocabulary.
Summary: KingOfFakes barcode quality is good. All mandatory fields present and correct. One optional field uses a non-standard value that precise scanners may flag. For any scanning scenario short of a specialized ID verification system with deep state-profile validation, this card performs correctly.