Good thread, with a lot of interesting points of view.
I don't expect the auction house to list every single potential part of the "98" definition or any other for that matter. If a coin was merely damaged due to some rim cuts why the heck would you toss in the word "tooling" to confuse the issue and potentially hinder the coin's value. Better to just call it a "98 genuine." I'm not surprised if the auction missed the tooling entirely. Not everyone is an expert on all series, varieties, methods of repairs, etc....not even the TPG's. Not every damaged coin is picked up on every submission. While the OP could have done more research on this coin, imagine looking at every single piece of available auction/internet information on every single coin one ever bids on...starting with the large images. You'd be at the computer for hours on end every day.
I don't know if I'd work any lower at Heritage than with Greg Rohan, Steve Ivy, Jim Halperin, or Todd Imhoff. Those are the guys that can get it done. Greg reads this forum from time to time as well. And from what I've seen has done a good job in settling problems like this to both party's satisfaction.
<< <i>QN, again great comparison shots there, I had no idea where the tooling was or what was removed, what a numismatic knuclehead who removed the absolutely cool cud! >>
The cud may have been removed in 1800 by a non-numismatist.
I feel pretty certain that Heritage, like so many others including the OP, totally missed the tooling. I think they would have described it if seen. Which is the basis for my belief that you need to draw your own conclusions about why a coin gets the "genuine" label. --jerry
This is a very interesting thread and I'm glad I spent the time reading it.
I agree with Realone. And I have little doubt that if this were brought before a court of law, the fact that the tooling was disclosed in the first sale and the same company sold it later without disclosure, Ankur would win, mitigating factors not withstanding. (Quarternut, you are a gem!)
HA blew it by guessing the reason(s) for the BB. This was misleading, intentional or otherwise. Lance.
<< <i>This is a very interesting thread and I'm glad I spent the time reading it.
I agree with Realone. And I have little doubt that if this were brought before a court of law, the fact that the tooling was disclosed in the first sale and the same company sold it later without disclosure, Ankur would win, mitigating factors not withstanding. (Quarternut, you are a gem!)
HA blew it by guessing the reason(s) for the BB. This was misleading, intentional or otherwise. Lance. >>
I believe that in a court of law, the terms of sale, which the bidder agreed to, would strongly favor Heritage.
Among them:
"38. NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THIS AUCTION OR ANY SECOND OPINE. Any description of the items or second opine contained in this Auction is for the sole purpose of identifying the items for those Bidders who do not have the opportunity to view the lots prior to bidding, and no description of items has been made part of the basis of the bargain or has created any express warranty that the goods would conform to any description made by Auctioneer......"
And:
"41. Auctioneer disclaims all liability for damages, consequential or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with the sale of any Property by Auctioneer to Bidder. No third party may rely on any benefit of these Terms and Conditions and any rights, if any, established hereunder are personal to the Bidder and may not be assigned. Any statement made by the Auctioneer is an opinion and does not constitute a warranty or representation. No employee of Auctioneer may alter these Terms and Conditions, and, unless signed by a principal of Auctioneer, any such alteration is null and void."
<< <i>This is a very interesting thread and I'm glad I spent the time reading it.
I agree with Realone. And I have little doubt that if this were brought before a court of law, the fact that the tooling was disclosed in the first sale and the same company sold it later without disclosure, Ankur would win, mitigating factors not withstanding. (Quarternut, you are a gem!)
HA blew it by guessing the reason(s) for the BB. This was misleading, intentional or otherwise. Lance. >>
I believe that in a court of law, the terms of sale, which the bidder agreed to, would strongly favor Heritage.
Among them:
"38. NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THIS AUCTION OR ANY SECOND OPINE. Any description of the items or second opine contained in this Auction is for the sole purpose of identifying the items for those Bidders who do not have the opportunity to view the lots prior to bidding, and no description of items has been made part of the basis of the bargain or has created any express warranty that the goods would conform to any description made by Auctioneer......"
And:
"41. Auctioneer disclaims all liability for damages, consequential or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with the sale of any Property by Auctioneer to Bidder. No third party may rely on any benefit of these Terms and Conditions and any rights, if any, established hereunder are personal to the Bidder and may not be assigned. Any statement made by the Auctioneer is an opinion and does not constitute a warranty or representation. No employee of Auctioneer may alter these Terms and Conditions, and, unless signed by a principal of Auctioneer, any such alteration is null and void." >>
All companies do this, that is not what is important. Mark so tell me this. If an auction house said: " this coin has not been tooled in any way what so ever" the result would be the same, nothing they say could hold them accountable or be relied upon, but there also is something called intent and reasonableness and fairness and honesty which overrides anything that they may put in their catalog to deflect any and all liabilities. If you mislead with the result of injuring a party who will lose no matter what you may write in your fine print, period. And that is simply why they should not opine and just state what is on the holder and nothing more.
Their disclaimer basically says they can say anything they want and not be held accountable, which is ridiculous in many respects as stated above and unenforceable imho.
Please understand I am on the auction House's side,, I want auction sales to be viable, I want all sales to be final and not returnable, but at the same time descriptions cannot mislead and if they do then the sale can be overturned. You can't have it both ways if you lie you pay, if you make a serious mistake you pay, just don't do either and everything will be ok, it is that way in any buisness. Just state what is on the holder, less is more in a description and all parties will be fine. Yes buyers beware , they are on their own, don't attempt ti influence the outcome in any way, let the chips fall where they may! >>
I wont reply to the above in this thread. I don't want to encourage someone to continue to say one thing and then do another.
I hate to say it but i think the heritage description is accurate in that the coin was cleaned IMO. What is left out was it was also tooled that the pics show well enough.
Hate to see anyone buy something and get stuck like this though. That tooling looks like what my dentist does.
<< <i>In a nutshell, they do not feel that they missed anything or that they made a mistake >>
Moral: Use Heritage auction descriptions only for entertainment value - do not believe anything they say. >>
I would say that ANY seller's description, oral or written, should be used only for entertainment value. As a prospective buyer, your nickel is on the line, so treat each buying/bidding opportunity as a cold-blooded business transaction. Act prudently, and don't buy a coin if you don't understand it, especially if you aren't absolutely sure that you can get your money back if you don't like it.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>I would say that ANY seller's description, oral or written, should be used only for entertainment value >>
There are some sellers descriptions, such as Sheridan Downey's mail bid auctions, that are accurate and can be trusted. Sheridan will frequently disagree with the TPG's grade, and the price realized will reflect Sheridan's grade and description. The difference is that Sheridan Downey has integrity and can be trusted.
BTW - Lot 2182 of the Russ Logan auction 10/02 had pitting on the coin (1805 O-104) not described or visible in photo. I sent the coin back, Bowers and Merena gave me the option of keeping the coin less 15% commission, or returning for a full refund.
It is always best to view the coin yourself, or have a trusted rep examine it.
typo edit
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
I think Heritage went beyond mere puffery with it's commentary. But, I don't think their misrepresentation by omission is actionable. (Not a viable approach given the amount in controversy.) They should be embarrassed. This is the inversion of damning with faint praise. What we have is praising with faint damning. Here, less would certainly have been more.
In my day job, I consider myself an expert of sorts and hold myself to a higher standard. HA apparently has gotten too big to see the forest for the trees.
This issue is damge control. If I was the aggrieved bidder/winner, I would admit my role in the mistake but I would routinely bring up Heritage's faux pas repeatedly. When I am wronged, I tell people often. I remember early on learning that for every one who complains about an issue to me, ten more are telling their friends. Not good for business.
For those who know the varieties, the removed cud probably jumped right out. I don't and I missed it altogether. Should Heritage have caught it? Only if they weigh in with an assessment of the coin. They weighed in and did not disclose.
Realone's early comments were spot on. (did not read them all) I am at odds with TomB and Barndog on this though I respect those two gents immensely. Suggestions of sharing the pain of this speak to equity as there is blame on both sides. Heritage took the low road to begin with and the OP responded in kind. That left HA to decide to manage this with a service recovery, equitable proposal or to tell OP to pound sand. In that regard, Barndog was prophetic!
I am an incidental beneficiary of this mess as I will never look at HA descriptions the same.
Courts have shown us time and again that disclaimers, waivers, releases, etc. mean little when it comes to errors that fly in the face of good reason and common sense. Heritage's fine print doesn't cut it, IMO. They misdirected or misled. Critical information known and presented in sale #1 was withheld in sale #2. Instead, musings and supposition led bidders to believe problems were less significant than the fatal ones they were.
This is sophomoric because I doubt it will be tested in court. But I am on Ankur's side and I too am very disappointed in Heritage. Lance.
<< <i>I cant say what the solution offered was, but I did reject it last night. >>
You can't or you won't? There's a difference.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I still say that heritage does a good job providing helpful info but accidentally omitted info is not grounds for a return. Auctions are different than retail. That is why some buyers prefer to pay more at retail than take their chances at auctions. Auction lots are available for viewing either in person on if you are comfortable with the photos, for a long period before the auction. Based on the pic posted in this thread, the tooling was clear on the heritage pic so the OP could have seen it himself. If you had bought this coin from a retailer who bought it from Heritage, then I would have a different opinion. That is a different situation.
It is well a well established and well understood in the business that it is the buyer's responsibility to inspect the coins and make their own decisions. Unless there is some belief that Heritage intentionally left out info, which I don't think anyone believes and if suggested would be immediately dismissed by the almost unanimously happy Heritages customers here, then I don't think there is any reason to complain.
I don't have a problem asking heritage about the omission but I think their reply should be accepted. If they offered you something out of goodwill then Bravo for them.
Like I said before. You don't win them all. Either learn to like the coin with the tooling you probably would have never seen without this thread or sell it and move on. You have more winners than losers.
Why do you feel heritage knew it was tooled? I have dealt with heritage on coins that were holdered that had problems (verdigris, microporosity, tolling), etc etc- Their numismatists and cataloguers evaluate every coin but they do not put every coin under a microscope and analyze- Their job is not to explain why the coin was bagged- Their job is to auction the coin off- It is the Buyers responsibility to do their DUE DILIGENCE! Heritage is a very solid company and they do right- However, on this point you are the one who is wrong. You bought the coin with the idea of crossing it to NGC or Possible re-submitting it to PCGS and then selling it for potentially double what you paid- We have seen you do it before- It is very simple- You did not do your homework and now your are getting burnt- This is not Heritages fault- You want fault? Look in the mirror.
Why do you feel heritage knew it was tooled? I have dealt with heritage on coins that were holdered that had problems (verdigris, microporosity, tolling), etc etc- Their numismatists and cataloguers evaluate every coin but they do not put every coin under a microscope and analyze- Their job is not to explain why the coin was bagged- Their job is to auction the coin off- It is the Buyers responsibility to do their DUE DILIGENCE! Heritage is a very solid company and they do right- However, on this point you are the one who is wrong. You bought the coin with the idea of crossing it to NGC or Possible re-submitting it to PCGS and then selling it for potentially double what you paid- We have seen you do it before- It is very simple- You did not do your homework and now your are getting burnt- This is not Heritages fault- You want fault? Look in the mirror.
John >>
They auctioned the coin last year and at that time said there was tooling.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>I cant say what the solution offered was, but I did reject it last night. >>
You can't or you won't? There's a difference. >>
Cant/ promised not to. >>
I think at this point the thread largely dies since critical information cannot be shared. Of course, one member here might beat this already dead horse over and over and over again, but he apparently has no self restraint.
As I read this thread, frankly I started off squarely in the Heritage camp...until I saw that it had been auctioned before with the tooling properly noted at that time. Was the omission an honest oversight? IMO, it undoubtedly was. Different cataloguer, someone dropped the ball, it happens. That's why Heritage has disclaimers-they aren't perfect and can't be all things to all people. Heritage isn't going to purposely omit salient info and risk a multimillion dollar reputation just to make an extra grand on a $4000 deal.
But- disclaimers notwithstanding, the RIGHT thing to do is to attempt to make things square with the OP...and, as the stand-up firm I know them to be, it appears that Heritage did indeed try to make things right... but their offer was rejected. (Not quite sure why said offer needs to remain top secret, but I digress.)
At any rate, they tried to make it right so IMO once said compromise was rejected, both the complaint and this thread became moot at that point. (And before people start throwing around wild hypotheticals like "What if their compromise was 12 cents on the dollar" or some other silliness, we all know better than that.)
It seems silly to me that both parties cannot reach an agreeable solution. In the case of Heritage, these kinds of things are very infrequent on the forum. And this one is at most for a couple of thousand dollars. Heck, AnkurJ would probably have spent tens of thousands with Heritage down the road.
<< <i>It seems silly to me that both parties cannot reach an agreeable solution. In the case of Heritage, these kinds of things are very infrequent on the forum. And this one is at most for a couple of thousand dollars. Heck, AnkurJ would probably have spent tens of thousands with Heritage down the road.
roadrunner[/
I already have actually. I spoke to a very high up person, and yes, they did say no mistake was made by them by omitting tooling in the description. All I can say about the resolution is that it involved SELLING the coin.
Again, they feel no mistake was made by them.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
So I spoke to Todd Imhof at Heritage and he has offered me an acceptable resolution. I won’t disclose the specifics, but suffice to say that I understand their point of view and I am completely satisfied with the resolution. I appreciate the words of support some of you gave me but In retrospect, I regret making my grievance so public before giving the Heritage brass a chance to address my complaint.
Ankur
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
I am very glad that Heritage offered a resolution that you are satisfied with. I am also glad that you posted the coin, allowing the alteration to be clearly described and illustrated by members here.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
I don't expect the auction house to list every single potential part of the "98" definition or any other for that matter. If a coin was merely damaged due to some rim cuts why the heck would you toss in the word "tooling" to confuse the issue and potentially hinder the coin's value. Better to just call it a "98 genuine." I'm not surprised if the auction missed the tooling entirely. Not everyone is an expert on all series, varieties, methods of repairs, etc....not even the TPG's. Not every damaged coin is picked up on every submission. While the OP could have done more research on this coin, imagine looking at every single piece of available auction/internet information on every single coin one ever bids on...starting with the large images. You'd be at the computer for hours on end every day.
I don't know if I'd work any lower at Heritage than with Greg Rohan, Steve Ivy, Jim Halperin, or Todd Imhoff. Those are the guys that can get it done. Greg reads this forum from time to time as well. And from what I've seen has done a good job in settling problems like this to both party's satisfaction.
roadrunner
<< <i>QN, again great comparison shots there, I had no idea where the tooling was or what was removed, what a numismatic knuclehead who removed the absolutely cool cud!
The cud may have been removed in 1800 by a non-numismatist.
I feel pretty certain that Heritage, like so many others including the OP, totally missed the tooling. I think they would have described it if seen. Which is the basis for my belief that you need to draw your own conclusions about why a coin gets the "genuine" label. --jerry
I agree with Realone. And I have little doubt that if this were brought before a court of law, the fact that the tooling was disclosed in the first sale and the same company sold it later without disclosure, Ankur would win, mitigating factors not withstanding. (Quarternut, you are a gem!)
HA blew it by guessing the reason(s) for the BB. This was misleading, intentional or otherwise.
Lance.
<< <i>This is a very interesting thread and I'm glad I spent the time reading it.
I agree with Realone. And I have little doubt that if this were brought before a court of law, the fact that the tooling was disclosed in the first sale and the same company sold it later without disclosure, Ankur would win, mitigating factors not withstanding. (Quarternut, you are a gem!)
HA blew it by guessing the reason(s) for the BB. This was misleading, intentional or otherwise.
Lance. >>
I believe that in a court of law, the terms of sale, which the bidder agreed to, would strongly favor Heritage.
Among them:
"38. NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY
DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THIS AUCTION OR ANY SECOND OPINE. Any description
of the items or second opine contained in this Auction is for the sole purpose of identifying
the items for those Bidders who do not have the opportunity to view the lots prior to bidding,
and no description of items has been made part of the basis of the bargain or has created any
express warranty that the goods would conform to any description made by Auctioneer......"
And:
"41. Auctioneer disclaims all liability for damages, consequential or otherwise, arising out of or
in connection with the sale of any Property by Auctioneer to Bidder. No third party may rely
on any benefit of these Terms and Conditions and any rights, if any, established hereunder are
personal to the Bidder and may not be assigned. Any statement made by the Auctioneer is an
opinion and does not constitute a warranty or representation. No employee of Auctioneer may
alter these Terms and Conditions, and, unless signed by a principal of Auctioneer, any such
alteration is null and void."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This is a very interesting thread and I'm glad I spent the time reading it.
I agree with Realone. And I have little doubt that if this were brought before a court of law, the fact that the tooling was disclosed in the first sale and the same company sold it later without disclosure, Ankur would win, mitigating factors not withstanding. (Quarternut, you are a gem!)
HA blew it by guessing the reason(s) for the BB. This was misleading, intentional or otherwise.
Lance. >>
I believe that in a court of law, the terms of sale, which the bidder agreed to, would strongly favor Heritage.
Among them:
"38. NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY
DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THIS AUCTION OR ANY SECOND OPINE. Any description
of the items or second opine contained in this Auction is for the sole purpose of identifying
the items for those Bidders who do not have the opportunity to view the lots prior to bidding,
and no description of items has been made part of the basis of the bargain or has created any
express warranty that the goods would conform to any description made by Auctioneer......"
And:
"41. Auctioneer disclaims all liability for damages, consequential or otherwise, arising out of or
in connection with the sale of any Property by Auctioneer to Bidder. No third party may rely
on any benefit of these Terms and Conditions and any rights, if any, established hereunder are
personal to the Bidder and may not be assigned. Any statement made by the Auctioneer is an
opinion and does not constitute a warranty or representation. No employee of Auctioneer may
alter these Terms and Conditions, and, unless signed by a principal of Auctioneer, any such
alteration is null and void." >>
All companies do this, that is not what is important. Mark so tell me this. If an auction house said: " this coin has not been tooled in any way what so ever" the result would be the same, nothing they say could hold them accountable or be relied upon, but there also is something called intent and reasonableness and fairness and honesty which overrides anything that they may put in their catalog to deflect any and all liabilities. If you mislead with the result of injuring a party who will lose no matter what you may write in your fine print, period. And that is simply why they should not opine and just state what is on the holder and nothing more.
Their disclaimer basically says they can say anything they want and not be held accountable, which is ridiculous in many respects as stated above and unenforceable imho.
Please understand I am on the auction House's side,, I want auction sales to be viable, I want all sales to be final and not returnable, but at the same time descriptions cannot mislead and if they do then the sale can be overturned. You can't have it both ways if you lie you pay, if you make a serious mistake you pay, just don't do either and everything will be ok, it is that way in any buisness. Just state what is on the holder, less is more in a description and all parties will be fine. Yes buyers beware , they are on their own, don't attempt ti influence the outcome in any way, let the chips fall where they may! >>
I wont reply to the above in this thread. I don't want to encourage someone to continue to say one thing and then do another.
Hate to see anyone buy something and get stuck like this though.
In a nutshell, they do not feel that they missed anything or that they made a mistake.
Thats pretty much it.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>In a nutshell, they do not feel that they missed anything or that they made a mistake >>
Moral: Use Heritage auction descriptions only for entertainment value - do not believe anything they say.
...until tomorrow AM.
<< <i>
<< <i>In a nutshell, they do not feel that they missed anything or that they made a mistake >>
Moral: Use Heritage auction descriptions only for entertainment value - do not believe anything they say. >>
I would say that ANY seller's description, oral or written, should be used only for entertainment value.
As a prospective buyer, your nickel is on the line, so treat each buying/bidding opportunity as a cold-blooded
business transaction. Act prudently, and don't buy a coin if you don't understand it, especially
if you aren't absolutely sure that you can get your money back if you don't like it.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>I would say that ANY seller's description, oral or written, should be used only for entertainment value >>
There are some sellers descriptions, such as Sheridan Downey's mail bid auctions, that are accurate and can be trusted. Sheridan will frequently disagree with the TPG's grade, and the price realized will reflect Sheridan's grade and description. The difference is that Sheridan Downey has integrity and can be trusted.
BTW - Lot 2182 of the Russ Logan auction 10/02 had pitting on the coin (1805 O-104) not described or visible in photo. I sent the coin back, Bowers and Merena gave me the option of keeping the coin less 15% commission, or returning for a full refund.
It is always best to view the coin yourself, or have a trusted rep examine it.
typo edit
In my day job, I consider myself an expert of sorts and hold myself to a higher standard. HA apparently has gotten too big to see the forest for the trees.
This issue is damge control. If I was the aggrieved bidder/winner, I would admit my role in the mistake but I would routinely bring up Heritage's faux pas repeatedly. When I am wronged, I tell people often. I remember early on learning that for every one who complains about an issue to me, ten more are telling their friends. Not good for business.
For those who know the varieties, the removed cud probably jumped right out. I don't and I missed it altogether. Should Heritage have caught it? Only if they weigh in with an assessment of the coin. They weighed in and did not disclose.
Realone's early comments were spot on. (did not read them all) I am at odds with TomB and Barndog on this though I respect those two gents immensely. Suggestions of sharing the pain of this speak to equity as there is blame on both sides. Heritage took the low road to begin with and the OP responded in kind. That left HA to decide to manage this with a service recovery, equitable proposal or to tell OP to pound sand. In that regard, Barndog was prophetic!
I am an incidental beneficiary of this mess as I will never look at HA descriptions the same.
This is sophomoric because I doubt it will be tested in court. But I am on Ankur's side and I too am very disappointed in Heritage.
Lance.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Before this thread continues, I was offered a solution, but as I said, they did not feel they made an error or missed something. >>
Are you not comfortable sharing with us the details of that solution?
<< <i>Before this thread continues, I was offered a solution, but as I said, they did not feel they made an error or missed something. >>
Are you going to share the solution? Was the solution offered by the time you posted last night?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>I cant say what the solution offered was, but I did reject it last night. >>
Resell at a prorated commission?
<< <i>I cant say what the solution offered was, but I did reject it last night. >>
You can't or you won't? There's a difference.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>So I spoke to someone in the higher ups in Heritage.
In a nutshell, they do not feel that they missed anything or that they made a mistake.
Thats pretty much it. >>
To whom did you speak? Did he say the coin wasn't tooled, or that the omission of that wasn't a mistake?
It is well a well established and well understood in the business that it is the buyer's responsibility to inspect the coins and make their own decisions. Unless there is some belief that Heritage intentionally left out info, which I don't think anyone believes and if suggested would be immediately dismissed by the almost unanimously happy Heritages customers here, then I don't think there is any reason to complain.
I don't have a problem asking heritage about the omission but I think their reply should be accepted. If they offered you something out of goodwill then Bravo for them.
Like I said before. You don't win them all. Either learn to like the coin with the tooling you probably would have never seen without this thread or sell it and move on. You have more winners than losers.
--Jerry
Maybe I missed it in reading this book-
Why do you feel heritage knew it was tooled? I have dealt with heritage on coins that were holdered that had problems (verdigris, microporosity, tolling), etc etc- Their numismatists and cataloguers evaluate every coin but they do not put every coin under a microscope and analyze- Their job is not to explain why the coin was bagged- Their job is to auction the coin off- It is the Buyers responsibility to do their DUE DILIGENCE! Heritage is a very solid company and they do right- However, on this point you are the one who is wrong. You bought the coin with the idea of crossing it to NGC or Possible re-submitting it to PCGS and then selling it for potentially double what you paid- We have seen you do it before- It is very simple- You did not do your homework and now your are getting burnt- This is not Heritages fault- You want fault? Look in the mirror.
John
<< <i>
<< <i>I cant say what the solution offered was, but I did reject it last night. >>
You can't or you won't? There's a difference. >>
Cant/ promised not to.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>My question-
Maybe I missed it in reading this book-
Why do you feel heritage knew it was tooled? I have dealt with heritage on coins that were holdered that had problems (verdigris, microporosity, tolling), etc etc- Their numismatists and cataloguers evaluate every coin but they do not put every coin under a microscope and analyze- Their job is not to explain why the coin was bagged- Their job is to auction the coin off- It is the Buyers responsibility to do their DUE DILIGENCE! Heritage is a very solid company and they do right- However, on this point you are the one who is wrong. You bought the coin with the idea of crossing it to NGC or Possible re-submitting it to PCGS and then selling it for potentially double what you paid- We have seen you do it before- It is very simple- You did not do your homework and now your are getting burnt- This is not Heritages fault- You want fault? Look in the mirror.
John >>
They auctioned the coin last year and at that time said there was tooling.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I cant say what the solution offered was, but I did reject it last night. >>
You can't or you won't? There's a difference. >>
Cant/ promised not to. >>
I think at this point the thread largely dies since critical information cannot be shared. Of course, one member here might beat this already dead horse over and over and over again, but he apparently has no self restraint.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Well that was harsh. >>
I don't think that was aimed at you.
Was still harsh though.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Well that was harsh. >>
It was honest.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
But- disclaimers notwithstanding, the RIGHT thing to do is to attempt to make things square with the OP...and, as the stand-up firm I know them to be, it appears that Heritage did indeed try to make things right... but their offer was rejected. (Not quite sure why said offer needs to remain top secret, but I digress.)
At any rate, they tried to make it right so IMO once said compromise was rejected, both the complaint and this thread became moot at that point. (And before people start throwing around wild hypotheticals like "What if their compromise was 12 cents on the dollar" or some other silliness, we all know better than that.)
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
roadrunner
<< <i>It seems silly to me that both parties cannot reach an agreeable solution. In the case of Heritage, these kinds of things are very infrequent on the forum. And this one is at most for a couple of thousand dollars. Heck, AnkurJ would probably have spent tens of thousands with Heritage down the road.
roadrunner[/
I already have actually. I spoke to a very high up person, and yes, they did say no mistake was made by them by omitting tooling in the description. All I can say about the resolution is that it involved SELLING the coin.
Again, they feel no mistake was made by them.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Ankur
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
I am very glad that Heritage offered a resolution that you are satisfied with. I am also glad that you posted the coin, allowing the alteration to be clearly described and illustrated by members here.
I don't think they deserve adulation for doing the right thing.
Lance.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......