Okay so I got a crystal Ho-Oh in a lot recently and sent it to PSA, but before I sent it I noticed that it had a small scratch on the bottom right just above the thin yellow line. Anyways I just noticed that Budget posted a crystal Ho-Oh in his collection with a small scratch in the exact same place at the same angle as mine, weird but not unheard of. Did some searching on ebay and I found a total of 4 listings with an identical scratch, same placement and angle and everything. At this point it seems too abnormal to be a coincidence and I’m wondering if it may be a factory misprint? Here are some links to the listings! Maybe I’m just being silly haha, lmk what y’all think!
Okay I used the wrong terminology, it wasn’t “printed”, I guess I meant a factory error? #SaveItForTheSemanticsDome
You call it semantics, I call it overuse of the word. The reality is everyone thinks they have some kind of factory misprint these days.
I think it’s likely one of two things;
not a scratch, just a marking in the print or foiling process, hence being able to find multiple copies
a freaky coincidence with multiple copies being scratched in a similar fashion
Mine was definitely a scratch, or maybe just the absence of ink in that linear spot, which would be be indistinguishable from a scratch haha. Maybe it’s a freaky coincidence, but six instances of a freaky coincidence on cards that for the most part have no other surface wear seems unlikely to me? I’m not trying to say it’s some crazyyyy misprint, I’m just saying that because of the prevalence maybe this imperfection is somehow attributed to the factory, I don’t claim to have any idea how, just seems odd to me.
Also overuse of the (wrong) word would still be filed under a semantical argument, whereas overuse of the (correct) word isn’t a thing because it’s the correct word in the given context and therefore it’s being used just the right amount. But I’ll #SaveItForTheSemanticsDome