>inb4 it's like a $15 card you frugal fuck>>51088574Well shit... you've got a good point. I'd consider the front as NM so I would agree with you that they'd have a leg to stand on with that argument. Rationally thinking, I know I'm never going to look at the back of this card when flipping through my binder but for some reason it still somehow rustles my jimmies paying for a NM card and not getting both sides of the card in that condition. Thanks anon. I'll shoot my shot and see what happens.
>>51088587Wasn't aware they changed things up but explains a lot now. That no more than 3 dings would be a pretty good counter argument to use but it might be an uphill battle.
>>51088626Good to know and explains what I've been experiencing lately. I've had much more accurate card conditions coming from small sellers with low number of sales and good reviews on TCG player in the last couple of months then from buying from TCG player direct and getting horribly off center cards or cards with lots of edge wear.
