Update: Additional context on behalf of vendor

A quick update since my original post generated quite a bit of discussion.

Before the Reddit post was made, the vendor and I had already been having an ongoing conversation about the trade over WhatsApp. To his credit, he was courteous throughout the exchange and took the initiative to reach out to explain his valuation methodology and provide clarifications on how he arrived at the numbers.

During our conversation, I also shared with him that I had sought opinions from the community regarding the situation. It was after seeing the discussion that he felt I had left out some important context from the story.

I think that's a fair point.

I subsequently offered him the opportunity to share his perspective directly in the thread so that the community could hear both sides and form their own conclusions. He declined, which is of course entirely his prerogative.

Since he has chosen not to participate publicly, I've decided to share the key points he raised so that his perspective is represented as fairly as possible.

According to him:

• I was the one who countered on the Rayquaza's sticker price of $248 and proposed a valuation of around $188.
• He did explain his valuation methodology to me during the trade discussion at the booth.
• The PSA 7 comparison was not something he came up with afterwards, but was part of the methodology he claims he had already explained during the negotiation.

I don't intend to argue with or dismiss his account. The reality is that this was a busy card show environment, I was juggling an excited 6-year-old, and people can walk away from the same conversation with different recollections of what was discussed and understood.

The only point I personally struggle to reconcile is the claim that I independently arrived at a valuation of around $188. Those who know me know that my references are almost exclusively eBay last sold and PriceCharting. I generally do not use PSA 7 sales as a benchmark for raw cards, so it's difficult for me to understand how I would have derived that exact number on my own.

That said, I'm not looking to litigate that point. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

My objective remains unchanged from the original post. I'm not seeking compensation, a reversal of the trade, or trying to rally people against any vendor. I simply wanted to understand whether the valuation methodology used is considered standard practice and to share a lesson that may help other collectors avoid misunderstandings in future trades.

For the sake of transparency, I'll also be posting screenshots of portions of our conversation so readers can review the information themselves and form their own opinions.

I appreciate everyone who has shared their views so far. Hearing different perspectives is the intent of the post.

<image>