I’m curious why you need more proof? The seller was in possession of the card before it was purchased by Dyl. They have an instagram post of it from over 8 weeks ago.
Their story also seems pretty credible. IMO the “smoking gun” would be Dyl verifying they purchased the card on April 11th from the seller. I don’t really need to see the peeled lamination.
There’s more proof that the card is a peeled lamination than an obstruction IMO.
More proof? There’s no proof lol. Yes @dyl bought it from this seller that’s clear but that’s not the issue. It’s if it’s an error or not that’s the issue. Hopefully @dyl will be with us soon to help sort this asap.
Them owning it doesn’t prove anything. It seems weird to me to accuse someone of having a fake error and saying it was laminated yet they have no pictures of the card when it was laminated or after the lamination was removed…
Well this is not how I imagined my Thursday going.
I have a few comments:
Yes, I did purchase the card from him.
No, I do not believe that the card is worth $100,000. I listed it to draw attention to the unique error and to keep it safe at my vault.
I have yet to see proof of his claims. I stand behind CGC’s evaluation of the card (i.e., a third party company that has no skin in the game). I have to imagine that CGC has the imaging techniques to discern between pre-print and post-print manipulation, including the removal of an adhesive or other substance stuck to the surface of the card.
Cool let’s sort this out asap coz it’s not nice I’d want it all cleared up either way if it was me. Has the seller messaged you?
The fact that rattle of all people is the person immediately tagged makes me raise my eyebrows. I want to think that this person is being honest but posting this kind of claim with 0% proof just feels odd to me. Also knowingly selling an altered card is weird for the seller to do.
Right now with no proof of it being laminated all I can think of is My source is that I made it the F@#& up - YouTube
If the seller comes up with no proof then some tests can be done to see if laminating holds up or looks way off.
I’m honestly surprised you’re still saying it’s an error card.
Arguments that the card is not an error & timeline:
Arguments that the card is an error:
Who has skin in the game?
I’ll let y’all make up your mind about this. Personally, I don’t need to see any more proof.
They just replied on Instagram:
But what would be the point of going through all this? What do I gain lol
I would think if you’re going to accuse a company of falsely authenticating a card you would have some sort of proof. Why go to all the trouble to just open yourself up to a defamation case? Just seems very odd to me…
I’ve just caught up lol. Im not sure what to do from this point. Stand aside is the easy option.
But on the other hand the seller was NOT transparent about them peeling lamination off of the card.
For a trusted seller surely they would be up front about ALTERING a card, no? That’s just scummy from every angle, and I don’t think you can argue around that.
There is zero evidence that the card was laminated. Just saying it was in a post is the same credibility as the person that cracked a PSA 8 Moonbreon and showed the PSA label next to the new Black Label BGS slab. There is no proof of either event being true.
No need to blast @Dyl on this when the claim just happened. Give some time for more information
For transparency:
If I was Dyl I would at least be agnostic about the whole thing. That’s the thing that’s rubbing me the wrong way at this point. And again, there’s more evidence that it’s not an error other than the anecdote.
It’s a PSA 1… Why would you need to justify why a PSA 1 is a PSA 1…
Does anyone have a laminator to test on holos? If the seller can’t find anything from the past it’s going to be the only thing that’s left to try and even then it may be unsolved.
We need a laminator and 20+ years lol. Adhesive changes so much year over year. We see that with sealed theme decks, etc.
I have a feeling most people would think it’s an error if we used a laminator on a card and it didn’t produce the same effects.
I don’t think you all understand. The burden of proof is on the error card. And you need extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. We’ve never seen this error before. You need to be 100% sure it’s an error to call it an error. CGC does not follow this line of reasoning but I personally do.
I think the variable that would be missing with a recreation test would be time. A card laminated for 20 years is going to yield different results than a card laminated and then immediately separated.
When I use the laminator at work it’s usually simple and clean to remove the paper from the plastic seal as long as you cut along a seam. But a card compressed in lamination for 20 years? Who knows how that would come out.
Well for this specific card since it looks so unique I think it’s fair to expect the person to be up front about it when they’re the one who altered the card.
It’s no coincidence that the card sold for 30% more than the other PSA 1 listings at the time… It sold for that price because of how unique it is. So the seller definitely made money off of it
I think it has to scrutinized as best as it can be. Like I said it may still be unsolved or could give some good results we won’t know if we don’t try.