Long story short: - Purchased a record described as "mint" for both sleeve and record. - Seller has opened the album and shipped records outside the outer sleeve as requested to avoid seam splits. - The sleeve has a small seam split on the bottom edge - photo below. - Seller contacted re: this discrepancy, I indicate in my initial contact that I am amenable to a partial refund. This was his response: It’s likely by the picture that this crease was formed when the record was originally stored inside. It has the makings of the beginnings of a seam split, doesn’t it? If this is a replica set of atoms to the copy in my photograph then it represents a deviation hitherto to me unconscious of, prior to this communication, owing to neglect of the bottom sleeve. (“Who checks the bottom sleeve?” Is the position I’m taking. A light fracture. A skeletal recognition of the pulp beneath the art). You asked for my suggestion on a plan of action. I suggest that you approach me with a convincing valuation of the financial reparation that you seek. To me. Insignificant. You jest. I play along and say, sincerely, 0.2% of the record’s value is lost in that crease. The number is neither here nor there. It falls within a symbolic field we might mark as trivial were we to assign qualifications to our valuations. Which I just did. I lived in Japan for seven years Aaron My sense of aesthetics were vastly improved by a newfound appreciation for imperfection. One man’s crease is another man’s historical reference. I’d like to hear your take on this mate? I find these kind of conversations fascinating. This was a new one to me. On one hand one part of me says "described as X, purchased on basis of description, does not match description, case closed", on the other hand I think he has a point, albeit a somewhat nebulous/fluffy one. What does everyone else think?