I agree the description was what it was but you could see the scratches on the surface (case or card? Impossible to tell) and the slight whitening on multiple points of the edges. From the back scan if you open the pic from your pc and look with just the regular eBay zoom you can see the damage but having no angle pic it’s hard to tell how severe it is.
Would be hard to argue it’s not a 9 overall as much as the opposite and could totally see PSA fighting a case like this to the death.
Combined with how hard it is to get them to stick to their financial guarantee in general I wouldn’t have high hopes going that route.
As for custom it depends on each country’s laws so it’s sort of a rabbit hole there too but since it might potentially make a 5 figures difference (or risk losing the package) I’d definitely make sure to sort it before hand.
Yeah I think this thread has run its course. I have more than a good idea of peoples’ opinions on the matter and I’ve already received enough unwanted attention. I understand people on the internet jump to assumptions and and are quick to judge, but if people feel the need to personally insult me, please have the courage to do do so to me publicly and directly and not behind my back. Can a mod please lock this thread? Thanks all for the discussion.
I know what you meant. What I was trying to get across is this:
If a PSA 9 don’t meet the criteria of a PSA 9, then it is not a PSA 9, and you need to advertise as such when you’re selling, i.e “Misgraded PSA 9” or “damaged PSA 9” etc etc.
By choosing to use the phrase “PSA 9”, which is a specific term referring to a specific article with a specific set of requirements, you make yourself liable, should an issue arise from whatever intrinsic value is missing from the actual product promised by the used term.
In short, by using “PSA 9” without any further explanation, you’ve already promised your customer a “mint” card (i.e without things like creasing in this case), regardless of using the term “mint” or not.