Could not agree more.
And not that it needs any more evidence, but I have very little doubt that what
@yarbs sent
@Bigbluff81 is exactly what he says he sent.
@AWenger ’s analysis looks pretty spot on to me, especially now that
@Stackme has posted clearer pictures. For example, note the unique spot circled on the third chip in
@yarbs ’s original photo:
View attachment 1160904
Hard to see from
@Bigbluff81 ’s original low res photos but it looks like this is the same chip, with the circled unique spot:
View attachment 1160903
And now that we have higher res photo’s from
@Stackme , check out the third chip in
@Stackme ’s photo, circled below:
View attachment 1160905
Looks like the same chip to me, especially when you also look at the somewhat smashed spot on chip five (indicated with the arrow). That appears to be in the exact same place on the original photo
@yarbs sent you. These look like the same chips to me.
I think
@yarbs went above and beyond here, bidding more than
@Bigbluff81 paid him in order to remedy a problem that doesn’t appear to have ever even existed.
Personally, I think it’s poor form to publicly post that this transaction was your “worst pcf purchase ever” essentially accusing him of not sending you the chips you bought, without any evidence of such conduct other than an initial image with poor resolution.