with a blow-up like this, I think you should have seen any problems and be happy with your purchase
you give PCGS and Heritage too much credit - it took PCGS about 3-5 seconds to see all the crap/graffiti around the date and decide damage the crew at Heritage can't spend hours drooling over every coin - especially with their volume
so you are saying that there should be a cud by the T and someone repaired it? I do not know series or coin or Breen numbers or BD numbers - is it possible this was a patch job on the die and you are seeing polish - and a new variety?
The coin was sold almost a year ago by Heritage in an NCS EF Details holder with only a notation of "improperly cleaned" on the holder. Looks like NCS blew it as well...
However, Heritage did properly describe the tooling in the lot description for that auction...seems like they are capable only when they want to be...
and I just remembered some people get their catalogs which are generally very good and busy professionals/collectors would probably be flipping through that while ?? (sitting on plane/airport/commuting/scrubbing for surgury/sitting in boring meeting/waiting for dinner to arrive/....)
but the catalog pictures are much smaller than available at website
and some people just don't like their website
(although it went very fast for me tonight - maybe my one computers browser just hates the place:frown
at the site, you get blow-ups on coin page down below the description/past sales data
shows pic in slab usually - or higher valued stuff just coin -- click on that for even BIGGER pics, like the one I posted/linked from them
edit to add - wow quarternut, they nailed it with that description of same coin in different slab = just conjecture on my part here, but I am assuming they have a staff of catalog writers and it is not just 1 person doing the writing - and those 2 descriptions are written by different people, who saw different things, and probably have different numistmatist skill levels and catalog writing abilities and experience = I am sure it would be a job I would not like for very long
<< <i>edited to add - wow quarternut, they nailed it with that description of same coin in different slab = just conjecture on my part here, but I am assuming they have a staff of catalog writers and it is not just 1 person doing the writing - and those 2 descriptions are written by different people, who saw different things, and probably have different numistmatist skill levels and catalog writing abilities and experience = I am sure it would be a job I would not like for very long >>
I agree, they were most likely two different catalogers. Heritage often uses many remote catalogers of different skill levels and abilities. I just thought it might be prudent to point out that they can get it correct some of the time and therefore they should be held more responsible for their lack of due diligence in this case.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
One of the rare 100+ post threads that have been interesting lately. I'm in the "Heritage dropped the ball" camp on this one, especially since they went through the trouble of attributing the coin, but whether it was intentional or not really can't be determined conclusively. Spending 5 large on a coin in a 98 holder without getting to the bottom of the problem, the OP is not blameless. Less well-established forum members would have been told this was "tuition." In the eventual resolution of this dispute, I would expect both parties to be eating some of the loss when the coin is resold, but that Heritage's share would be bigger, as they were in a much better position to prevent the dispute in the first place.
I also agree that the difference between damage and tooling is sort of like the difference between a 5 and a 15 yard facemask penalty (yeah, I know there's no more 5 yard penalty), and that perhaps PCGS should categorize them separately, making tooling a more heinous offense than the equivalent amount of incidental damage. I'm sure they'll revisit the problem categories over time to see what the market demands.
Had this been in an NGC holder, would the fangs have covered up any of the tooling?
For me it ultimately comes down to buyer beware, and I would think spending 5 large on a coin would inspire one to carefully check the more than generous sized image, which clearly shows the tooling. Heritage will probably do fine by Ankur, since they are pros, but the onus is on him to know what he's buying.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Most guesses, even by Prominent Board Members, were in the EF-AU range. The coin sold for a Net-VF30 price.
Sure, blown up to the size of a dinner plate, most 200 year old coins will look pretty rough. How's it look in hand AnkurJ?
It will find a home... like Barndog said, I would have thought it would be as part of your collection, along with some other "not quite perfect for the grade but full of character" very tough early coins.
Heritage ought to refund your buyers premium and then IMO the coin's a pretty good deal; your underbidders thought so too
Heritage did not provide the most complete description that it might have, but it is the buyer's personal responsibility to know what they are bidding on if they commit to bid. Since the images clearly show this area of disturbance and since the coin was sold previously via Heritage with a different description, it would appear to me that the bidder had not only had no business bidding on something he did not understand, but he did not even use the tools that are in place for evaluation of price, relative condition or scarcity that are provided for free by Heritage.
Heritage might come through with financial help for the bidder, but this issue is squarely on the shoulders of the bidder. Another example of shifting personal responsibility when the outcome is not as desired. We need less of that and need more acceptance of personal responsibility.
AnkurJ, Heritage does their best to describe a coin and their catalogers provide a lot of helpful info. But they can't spend hours on each coin. It is always a good idea to see a coin in hand or have an agent see it in hand...oh yeah, that has been said before.
But I will add that when buying a coin that is in a problem holder I would triple check it to figure out what PCGS saw. Given Barndog's description of how you get nice coins at nice prices with minor problems I would think you'll have to realize there will occasionally be mistakes (win some, lose some). So I would chalk this one up as a loss and focus on some of my wins.
I wouldn't blame heritage. I would call it my own responsibility to figure out why the coins it coded 98.
Dentils and stars are the hardest things to notice on a coin. Kudo's to PCGS for catching this.
I haven't replied to this thread but have enjoyed it!
Here's my 2 cents... IMHO all early gold even if in a non problem TPG slabs really needs to thoroughly view it in person prior to placing a bid. If your getting ready to spend $5K+ on a coin based on an auction image and description on this series it's almost like buying sight unseen. This just isn't an area to consider unless your willing to book a seat on Value-Jet, and if you get bonked for doing so from your armchair no one else is to blame.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
In this case you can't blame one party and not the other party.
Blame on Ankur: because with the PCGS code and the close-up pictures, one could easily locate the 'tooled' areas.
Blame on Heritage; because I find it odd that they indicate tooling possibility on a 'cleaned' coin (first auction 5 years ago), then indicate possible cleaning marks on a supposedly 'tooled' PCGS graded coin (current auction). This doesn't sit right with me.
My conclusion is blame is split evenly 50/50.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"6. I would not be surprised if Heritage takes the coin back, but they send a dangerous precedent if they do."
And exactly what precedent would that be? That they will correctly refund customers who buy coins from their auctions which were described inaccurately by Heritage's own cataloguers?
I believe the blame splits 70/30, with Heritage more culpable. I believe Heritage's errors are twofold: The first is one of unintentional omission - whoever catalogued the coin missed the tooling. The second Heritage error is intentional and much more egregious - they tried to interpret the PCGS grading and in doing so made the coin sound better than it is (may have been cleaned and has a lot of marks). The buyer's error is in bidding in an auction on a known problem coin, hoping for better results, and then suffering buyer's remorse and suggesting the seller is the problem. Re-read the thread closely. The buyer didn't see the tooling either until prompted to keep looking.
I understand about the complexities of the consignor "selling" the coin only to be told later that the coin was returned. However, perhaps Heritage themselves need to "eat" this glaring mistake, which is actually more serious as its an obvious ommission of the KNOWN conditional problems of a coin. As you stated, once Heritage decides to go into DETAIL on the problems this coin exhibits, its then an all or nothing exercise. Had they listed the coin with a photograph, and a mention that its in a genuine holder, then all the responsibility falls on the buyer. As soon as they begin to speculate/list the exact problems with the coin, but deceptively omit from the description the most serious offending problem, that becomes more of a lie than anything else. Its a very deceptive way to run a business in my opinion. The blame now falls squarely on the auction company. A refund is in order, even if it has to come at Heritage's expense.
Ok, so I looked at the auction history for the last 4-5 problem coins. I was also looking at another example that had a few deep scratches, I passes on that one.
In previous auction records, the coins with issues sold in the $3800 to $5500 or so. I also consulted a few friends/dealers about this type of coin with issues.
Lastly, since I have spent thousands with Heritage with no problems, I looked at the pics and description and put in a bid. For those saying I went in blind or had no business biddinf on the coin, I did research on the type and put inan educated guess.
Yes, I DID miss the tooling, as did everyone else who replied on the first page. Bailey was the first to spot it.
As for Heritage. Through my contact, I was able to escalte this to the VP of the company.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do >>
Your point is needle sharp and follows the natural laws of logic perfectly.
<< <i>A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do >>
Your point is needle sharp and follows the natural laws of logic perfectly. >>
I have heard dull points are more dangerous than sharp ones
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
<< <i>Ok, so I looked at the auction history for the last 4-5 problem coins. I was also looking at another example that had a few deep scratches, I passes on that one.
In previous auction records, the coins with issues sold in the $3800 to $5500 or so. I also consulted a few friends/dealers about this type of coin with issues.
Lastly, since I have spent thousands with Heritage with no problems, I looked at the pics and description and put in a bid. For those saying I went in blind or had no business biddinf on the coin, I did research on the type and put inan educated guess.
Yes, I DID miss the tooling, as did everyone else who replied on the first page. Bailey was the first to spot it. Y As for Heritage. Through my contact, I was able to escalte this to the VP of the company. >>
Denticle problems, as I said earlier, are very easy to miss. You shouldn't feel bad and it didn't cost you much. I'm sure the cataloger is taking a shot for this and heritage will be careful not to repeat this. I think it is appropriate for them to try to interpret grades as a grade is an opinion and heritage employs their own experts. But even experts make mistakes. Do you verify varieties on attributed coins before bidding? I do. Jerry
<< <i>A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do >>
<< <i>Do you want the auction house to act like an auction house or like a grading company which they are not and render opinions without any consequences? >>
Auction houses have been providing opinions without consequences for many decades now -- not saying that's right or wrong, but rather it is so.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Heritage has a ad on page 15 in the March 23, 2010 Newsmatic News on 12 easy steps for them to be a leader.
#9 Provide a TRUSTED internet bidding platform like interactive internet TM where clients regularly bid tens of thousands of dollars on coins and notes they have not personally examined.
If you take internet sales out of the equation a lot of companies would go down the tubes. Heritage needs internet buyers. If they start running descriptions that are deceptive that could bite them over time. That said i think this is just a mistake on their part and now how can it be corrected to ALL involved. A company the size of heritage and the volume with have some issues from time to time to resolve.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i><< A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do >>
If I was Heritage I would offer to give back the commissions they charged to the OP (15%). That would put the cost near what it went for a few years back when they had it correctly ID'd. I'm sure the OP would still not be happy but neither would Heritage. That seems fair.
After reviewing the entire thread, I believe that Heritage should accept the return.
Many folks are aware that some genuine coins are in actuality "Questionable" and possibly "salvagable"depending upon WHY the coin was given the genuine label.
IMO, Tooling is not something that has any future or possibilities and this coin was obviously altered via tooling.
Heritage should learn from this that if they are going to include "possibilities" in a coins description then they should also reveal all the "facts" regarding the coin which are readily available on the cert number lookup.
And, In reality Ankur should have looked it up as well especially for such a large purchase price.
Hopefully, this will get worked out to benefit both parties.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Thought it would be a good exercise to put up pictures of what the coin looked like before the tooling (this is not the same coin, but the same die marriage and similar die stage), in comparison to what was done to it.
It is really sad to see what was actually tooled away. Who ever did this was an absolute idiot and completely ruined the coin by taking away the coolest feature it contained...of course that is just IMHO.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>Heritage should learn from this that if they are going to include "possibilities" in a coins description then they should also reveal all the "facts" regarding the coin which are readily available on the cert number lookup. And, In reality Ankur should have looked it up as well especially for such a large purchase price. Hopefully, this will get worked out to benefit both parties. >>
I don't follow this. I don't think the cert number lookup gives you details about why the coin got the genuine grade. --Jerry
Comments
you give PCGS and Heritage too much credit - it took PCGS about 3-5 seconds to see all the crap/graffiti around the date and decide damage
the crew at Heritage can't spend hours drooling over every coin - especially with their volume
so you are saying that there should be a cud by the T and someone repaired it?
I do not know series or coin or Breen numbers or BD numbers - is it possible this was a patch job on the die and you are seeing polish - and a new variety?
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
However, Heritage did properly describe the tooling in the lot description for that auction...seems like they are capable only when they want to be...
Link
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
and I just remembered some people get their catalogs which are generally very good
and busy professionals/collectors would probably be flipping through that while
?? (sitting on plane/airport/commuting/scrubbing for surgury/sitting in boring meeting/waiting for dinner to arrive/....)
but the catalog pictures are much smaller than available at website
and some people just don't like their website
(although it went very fast for me tonight - maybe my one computers browser just hates the place:frown
at the site, you get blow-ups on coin page down below the description/past sales data
shows pic in slab usually - or higher valued stuff just coin -- click on that for even BIGGER pics, like the one I posted/linked from them
edit to add - wow quarternut, they nailed it with that description of same coin in different slab = just conjecture on my part here, but I am assuming they have a staff of catalog writers and it is not just 1 person doing the writing - and those 2 descriptions are written by different people, who saw different things, and probably have different numistmatist skill levels and catalog writing abilities and experience = I am sure it would be a job I would not like for very long
<< <i>edited to add - wow quarternut, they nailed it with that description of same coin in different slab = just conjecture on my part here, but I am assuming they have a staff of catalog writers and it is not just 1 person doing the writing - and those 2 descriptions are written by different people, who saw different things, and probably have different numistmatist skill levels and catalog writing abilities and experience = I am sure it would be a job I would not like for very long >>
I agree, they were most likely two different catalogers. Heritage often uses many remote catalogers of different skill levels and abilities. I just thought it might be prudent to point out that they can get it correct some of the time and therefore they should be held more responsible for their lack of due diligence in this case.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
I cant believe they tried selling the coin before and listed the tooling!!
Realone and QN...thanks SO much!
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
I also agree that the difference between damage and tooling is sort of like the difference between a 5 and a 15 yard facemask penalty (yeah, I know there's no more 5 yard penalty), and that perhaps PCGS should categorize them separately, making tooling a more heinous offense than the equivalent amount of incidental damage. I'm sure they'll revisit the problem categories over time to see what the market demands.
Had this been in an NGC holder, would the fangs have covered up any of the tooling?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Sure, blown up to the size of a dinner plate, most 200 year old coins will look pretty rough. How's it look in hand AnkurJ?
It will find a home... like Barndog said, I would have thought it would be as part of your collection, along with some other "not quite perfect for the grade but full of character" very tough early coins.
Heritage ought to refund your buyers premium and then IMO the coin's a pretty good deal; your underbidders thought so too
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I side 80/20 with Heritage on this one. They are not blameless, but you have some fault too.
Heritage might come through with financial help for the bidder, but this issue is squarely on the shoulders of the bidder. Another example of shifting personal responsibility when the outcome is not as desired. We need less of that and need more acceptance of personal responsibility.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Heritage does their best to describe a coin and their catalogers provide a lot of helpful info. But they can't spend hours on each coin. It is always a good idea to see a coin in hand or have an agent see it in hand...oh yeah, that has been said before.
But I will add that when buying a coin that is in a problem holder I would triple check it to figure out what PCGS saw. Given Barndog's description of how you get nice coins at nice prices with minor problems I would think you'll have to realize there will occasionally be mistakes (win some, lose some). So I would chalk this one up as a loss and focus on some of my wins.
I wouldn't blame heritage. I would call it my own responsibility to figure out why the coins it coded 98.
Dentils and stars are the hardest things to notice on a coin. Kudo's to PCGS for catching this.
--Jerry
Here's my 2 cents... IMHO all early gold even if in a non problem TPG slabs really needs to thoroughly view it in person prior to placing a bid. If your getting ready to spend $5K+ on a coin based on an auction image and description on this series it's almost like buying sight unseen. This just isn't an area to consider unless your willing to book a seat on Value-Jet, and if you get bonked for doing so from your armchair no one else is to blame.
Blame on Ankur: because with the PCGS code and the close-up pictures, one could easily locate the 'tooled' areas.
Blame on Heritage; because I find it odd that they indicate tooling possibility on a 'cleaned' coin (first auction 5 years ago), then indicate possible cleaning marks on a supposedly 'tooled' PCGS graded coin (current auction). This doesn't sit right with me.
My conclusion is blame is split evenly 50/50.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
"6. I would not be surprised if Heritage takes the coin back, but they send a dangerous precedent if they do."
And exactly what precedent would that be? That they will correctly refund customers who buy coins from their auctions which were described inaccurately by Heritage's own cataloguers?
I believe Heritage's errors are twofold:
The first is one of unintentional omission - whoever catalogued the coin missed the tooling.
The second Heritage error is intentional and much more egregious - they tried to interpret the PCGS grading and in doing so made the coin sound better than it is (may have been cleaned and has a lot of marks).
The buyer's error is in bidding in an auction on a known problem coin, hoping for better results, and then suffering buyer's remorse and suggesting the seller is the problem.
Re-read the thread closely. The buyer didn't see the tooling either until prompted to keep looking.
is much different than an item bought at a major auction with viewing times over a couple days
how many words in the lot description swayed purchase decision and were inaccurate?
I do not know Heritages business model for workers/contract workers
but it could be possible the catalog writer did not even see the coin and wrote it 1000 miles away from Texas
Nothing more and nothing less.
Example:
if PCGS has the coin graded Genuine with the '94' code,
then Heritage should state "94 Altered Surfaces - whizzed, harsh cleaning, thumbed over.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
looking at another example that had a few deep scratches, I passes on that one.
In previous auction records, the coins with issues sold in the $3800 to $5500 or so. I also consulted
a few friends/dealers about this type of coin with issues.
Lastly, since I have spent thousands with Heritage with no problems, I looked at the pics and description
and put in a bid. For those saying I went in blind or had no business biddinf on the coin,
I did research on the type and put inan educated guess.
Yes, I DID miss the tooling, as did everyone else who replied on the first page. Bailey was the first to spot it.
As for Heritage. Through my contact, I was able to escalte this to the VP of the company.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do
Your point is needle sharp and follows the natural laws of logic perfectly.
<< <i>
<< <i>A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do
Your point is needle sharp and follows the natural laws of logic perfectly. >>
I have heard dull points are more dangerous than sharp ones
<< <i>Ok, so I looked at the auction history for the last 4-5 problem coins. I was also
looking at another example that had a few deep scratches, I passes on that one.
In previous auction records, the coins with issues sold in the $3800 to $5500 or so. I also consulted
a few friends/dealers about this type of coin with issues.
Lastly, since I have spent thousands with Heritage with no problems, I looked at the pics and description
and put in a bid. For those saying I went in blind or had no business biddinf on the coin,
I did research on the type and put inan educated guess.
Yes, I DID miss the tooling, as did everyone else who replied on the first page. Bailey was the first to spot it.
Y
As for Heritage. Through my contact, I was able to escalte this to the VP of the company. >>
Denticle problems, as I said earlier, are very easy to miss. You shouldn't feel bad and it didn't cost you much. I'm sure the cataloger is taking a shot for this and heritage will be careful not to repeat this. I think it is appropriate for them to try to interpret grades as a grade is an opinion and heritage employs their own experts. But even experts make mistakes. Do you verify varieties on attributed coins before bidding? I do. Jerry
<< <i>A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do
Thank you.
<< <i>Do you want the auction house to act like an auction house or like a grading company which they are not and render opinions without any consequences? >>
Auction houses have been providing opinions without consequences for many decades now -- not saying that's right or wrong, but rather it is so.
Heritage has a ad on page 15 in the March 23, 2010 Newsmatic News on 12 easy steps for them to be a leader.
#9 Provide a TRUSTED internet bidding platform like interactive internet TM where clients regularly bid tens of thousands of dollars on coins and notes they have not personally examined.
If you take internet sales out of the equation a lot of companies would go down the tubes. Heritage needs internet buyers. If they start running descriptions that are deceptive that could bite them over time. That said i think this is just a mistake on their part and now how can it be corrected to ALL involved. A company the size of heritage and the volume with have some issues from time to time to resolve.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i><< A friend brought it to my attention that I have made my point and that continuously replying to those who don't agree makes me look like I am losing it, so i will stop repeating myself and refrain from pointing out my points so pointedly because i don't want them to appear pointless, get the point, I do >>
Thank you. >>
Dang, I guess we won't hit 200 now....
Many folks are aware that some genuine coins are in actuality "Questionable" and possibly "salvagable"depending upon WHY the coin was given the genuine label.
IMO, Tooling is not something that has any future or possibilities and this coin was obviously altered via tooling.
Heritage should learn from this that if they are going to include "possibilities" in a coins description then they should also reveal all the "facts" regarding the coin which are readily available on the cert number lookup.
And, In reality Ankur should have looked it up as well especially for such a large purchase price.
Hopefully, this will get worked out to benefit both parties.
The name is LEE!
It is really sad to see what was actually tooled away. Who ever did this was an absolute idiot and completely ruined the coin by taking away the coolest feature it contained...of course that is just IMHO.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>Heritage should learn from this that if they are going to include "possibilities" in a coins description then they should also reveal all the "facts" regarding the coin which are readily available on the cert number lookup. And, In reality Ankur should have looked it up as well especially for such a large purchase price. Hopefully, this will get worked out to benefit both parties. >>
I don't follow this. I don't think the cert number lookup gives you details about why the coin got the genuine grade. --Jerry