Hmm, challenging to say for sure. It's a lot lighter in colour than one would expect, so perhaps it still has some hardening to do. Was the photo taken with flash? If so, some of the colour may be washed out a little, making the features harder to see.
Honestly, the best bet is to wait for her to moult so you have an exuvia to work with.
@Olan Yes, but the other angle (which is now removed) seemed to show them. It could very well be B. smithi, especially since the seller sold it as such, but I'm not sold either way from only the photos presented.
It looks like B. smithi to me as well, especially, as Olan noted, with the lack of stripes on the chelicerae. Now the stripes don’t always show up in every photo, but I think there should be some sign of them from this angle. Also, are the forward printing setae above/behind the eyes indicative? I believe I recall them pointed out by @Exoskeleton Invertebrates in their post on the differences between B. hamorii and B. smithi.
@ErinM31 Those setae/spines aren't noted in the paper published by Mendoza and Francke as a distinguishing feature, no.
I agree that the banding should be visible from this angle, was just concerned that since the chelicerae are so lightly coloured as a whole, the brightness of the image may have washed out the borders between the band and other setae.
Great, many thanks for your efforts! Sorry that I deleted the other angle (first image), but I have big problems with the image management/gallery of this forum. It is a pity that only ONE image can be uploaded directly and the following images need a direct internet link.