Embossed Prepaid Mastercards

savagej

Does anyone know other than the Cashplus Mastercard if any other's are embossed as opposed to flat like the Virgin Prepaid card. I know Maestro cards are embossed.

I am particularly interested in this one:

http://www.rationaltravelmoneycard.com/default.aspx

and one called ICE, i think, again it comes in different denominations.

stephane_2

embossed or not does not really make any difference...just make the card look a bit more real...what is important are the charges you have to pay for loading money onto it, charges for paying for items etc...and for that the virgin pre-paid is one of the best

ElkyElky

stephane wrote: »

embossed or not does not really make any difference...just make the card look a bit more real...what is important are the charges you have to pay for loading money onto it, charges for paying for items etc...and for that the virgin pre-paid is one of the best

It does make a difference.. huge infact. I had a debit card that wasn't embossed and over time, the ink used for the card number started wearing off. It eventually got near impossible to read the card number.

The ink on embossed cards does wear off also but it is easier to read the number when it happens.

savagej

Thanks, I know the Virigin card is good value. I was just wanting one that if I go to the back of beyond and all they have is an old imprinter I can still use the card.

Apart from the ones I have mentioned I have seen another called "Caxton FX"?

gnats_chuff

I have a Caxton FX card - and yes, it's fully embossed with a chip and pin. I've not heard of rational before - I have heard that most companies that offer currency are not regulated by the FSA - but I chose Caxtonfx because it is - and also because they have been around for some time. Does anyone know if rational regulated?

savagej

Cheers, I think the Caxton card is issued by Newcastle BS so I would imagine all of the Mastercards they issue are embossed??

bert&ernie

I would assume that pre-paid issuers don't tend to emboss the cards because that would expose them to a slightly higher risk of receiving un-authorised transactions on the account.

By not embossing the card, they saying that the card is effectively electronic use only, meaning they have more control over authorisations.

never-in-doubt

bert&ernie wrote: »

I would assume that pre-paid issuers don't tend to emboss the cards because that would expose them to a slightly higher risk of receiving un-authorised transactions on the account.

By not embossing the card, they saying that the card is effectively electronic use only, meaning they have more control over authorisations.

Exactly, for instance if you get yourself an embossed card and went to the USA/Aus and wanted to hire a car - they would use manual swipe on the old manual paper versions. Especially in certain out-of-town area's they still only use swipes and as such, you could hire a car every day using an embossed card! I mean steal instead of hire :beer:

bert&ernie

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Exactly, for instance if you get yourself an embossed card and went to the USA/Aus and wanted to hire a car - they would use manual swipe on the old manual paper versions. Especially in certain out-of-town area's they still only use swipes and as such, you could hire a car every day using an embossed card! I mean steal instead of hire :beer:

Yeah, I can see the benefit for a card-holder.

Having thought about it though, I don't see it creating much extra risk for the card issuer. In your example, if the hire company didn't get a pre-auth, then the issuer could chargeback any amount over the floor limit.

If I were a merchant, I wouldn't hold to much trust in the value of an imprinted voucher that I didn't have an auth code for.

bert&ernie

It would be interesting to get some views on how often imprints are taken.

For me, the last time was when I was on holiday a few months ago. The tour rep made an imprint of my card by rubbing it with a pen. The charge took over two weeks to hit my account.

Anybody else?