<< <i>I would have gone for something else if Heritage mentioned the coin was tooled. >>
Heritage gave a misleading and erroneous discription, they attributed the variety and with the coin in hand should have detected the re-engraved dentils. IMO Heritage should give you a full refund because of the error in the desciption, if you do not want the coin.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i> am thinking about this. With the tooling, what would the coin be worth? I paid about 5k for it... >>
AnkurJ,
It is hard to place a value on a coin like this. I would check the Heritage archives for tooled early half eagles. I would think $3000-$3500, if accurately described with the cuds tooled into fake dentils. I would not want the coin, I have some cleaned coins but cannot stand coins that are tooled.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
So I spoke to someone at Heritage today. They were a little puzzled about what I told them. I was asked to send an email (to the person I spoke to), and they will follow up with their higher ups. So I hope we can work something out.
My biggest regret is that I did not see the damage, and I did not win any other coins as I passed on them for this one.
Will keep the thread updated.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
A fascinating read, and a great display of the extensive knowledge possessed by members of this forum. I hope things work out to your satisfaction, Ankur.
Heritage has denied a return stating they are not responsible for stating every defect a coin has. Basically like ebay auctions that say see the pic and decide for yourself. I was told that they have enough disclaimers in their auction that they do not have to list every defect. Truly amazing that suck a big auction company can do this, and not accept returns even though they have made a mistake.
The person who spoke to me was the "Cheif Cataloger". The way I was spoken to was very disrespectful. Needless to say, this will be the last time I do any business with Heritage.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Heritage said that PCGS may have considered the 2-3 small hits in the right field as damage. Or the scratches above the date. I have to say though, I have seen MUCH worse in graded PCGS holders. Heritage has denied a return stating they are not responsible for stating every defect a coin has. Basically like ebay auctions that say see the pic and decide for yourself. I was told that they have enough disclaimers in their auction that they do not have to list every defect. Truly amazing that suck a big auction company can do this, and not accept returns even though they have made a mistake. >>
I'm sorry, I don't see the "mistake" that Heritage made. They said PCGS may have considered the small hits in the field or the scratches on the date as damage. Did they ever say "this coin has not been tooled?" The coin is Code 98 - damage or tooling. You knew you were bidding on a damaged or tooled coin and that's what you got. What's the issue?
Edit: I just checked the Heritage Archives and see that they go on and on about the possible damage, but nothing about the tooling. I guess I can see how you'd be ticked. Do you think they intentionally didn't mention it or they overlooked it?
Also, I just discovered that PCGS lists Code 98 as "damage" when you look at their grading standards, but when you do a cert look up of this coin it says, "Code 98 - Damage or tooling.
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
<< <i>Heritage said that PCGS may have considered the 2-3 small hits in the right field as damage. Or the scratches above the date. I have to say though, I have seen MUCH worse in graded PCGS holders. Heritage has denied a return stating they are not responsible for stating every defect a coin has. Basically like ebay auctions that say see the pic and decide for yourself. I was told that they have enough disclaimers in their auction that they do not have to list every defect. Truly amazing that suck a big auction company can do this, and not accept returns even though they have made a mistake. >>
I'm sorry, I don't see the "mistake" that Heritage made. They said PCGS may have considered the small hits in the field or the scratches on the date as damage. Did they ever say "this coin has not been tooled?" The coin is Code 98 - damage or tooling. You knew you were bidding on a damaged or tooled coin and that's what you got. What's the issue? >>
Tooling was the biggest problem in this coin. It was not listed in the Heritage description. Here is what they wrote:
"1800 $5 Genuine PCGS. Breen-6439, BD-4, R.4. The PCGS number ending in .98 suggests Damage as the reason, or perhaps one of the reasons, that PCGS deemed this coin not gradable. In our opinion, this coin has the details of an AU50 coin and it has been cleaned. This variety is most easily distinguished by the closeness of the last star to the bust of Liberty and the repunched M in AMERICA. The damage referred to by the PCGS number appears to be in the form of a couple of more prominent digs and scratches on the obverse: a dig by star 5, a scratch above the 1 in the date, and a scratch along the jawline of Liberty. Still, the green-gold surfaces retain significant mint luster around the outer devices. The strike is a bit soft in the centers.(Registry values: P2, N2) (#8082) "
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Heritage is not legally required to refund the money, but this is a matter of ethics. Heritage promotes themselves as the world's leading numismatic aution firm, not a used car dealer. The coin has re-engraved dentils that should have been detected and described by any competent cataloger. Early gold is expensive, and not describing a problem as serious as tooling in at least two places on the coin is unexcusable.
Shame on Heritage for ripping off a customer with erroneous cataloging, and then not owning up to it.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
The coin was pictured. It was holdered as a problem coin. You hoped it had a lesser flaw, but were wrong. The description omitted pertinent details, but I suspect that if we scrutinized every coin's description we would find many such occurrences.
DOH: in answer to your question. The word TOOLING sounds really bad. So that is why I am guessing they dont write it in their descriptions. I said it before, and I will say it again. If I know it was tooled, I wouldn't bid on it.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
I think I'm with Heritage on this one. The buyer was on notice that PCGS did not think the coin warranted a numerical grade, due to some type of damage. And based on one or more posts, it seems that he was hoping that the coin might receive a grade if resubmitted or tried elsewhere. Once it was determined that the upside was gone due to a specific problem, Heritage became the bad guy.
Mark, Never did I feel this coin was grade worthy, esp due to the scratches. I was just asking what everyone thought of it. How do you not give information about a coin like Tooling???
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Mark, Never did I feel this coin was grade worthy, esp due to the scratches. I was just asking what everyone thought of it. How do you not give information about a coin like Tooling??? >>
I didn't say you felt it was "grade worthy", I said "And based on one or more posts, it seems that he was hoping that the coin might receive a grade if resubmitted or tried elsewhere".
And that was based on the following posts from you, all in this thread:
<<Well, I might try to cross it to NGC to see if she grades. >>
<< I have to say though, I have seen MUCH worse in graded PCGS holders.>>
<<So after all that we know, is the Genuine grade accurate or would NGC or PCGS give it a proper grade if I resubmit it a few times?>>
<<But out of curiosity, if you send NGC a PCGS coin in a Genuine holder, what are the odds they will slab it with a grade? The best bet would probably be to crack it out no? >>
<< <i>In our opinion, this coin has the details of an AU50 coin and it has been cleaned >>
<< <i>The damage referred to by the PCGS number appears to be in the form of a couple of more prominent digs and scratches on the obverse: a dig by star 5, a scratch above the 1 in the date, and a scratch along the jawline of Liberty >>
<< <i>And based on one or more posts, it seems that he was hoping that the coin might receive a grade if resubmitted or tried elsewhere. Once it was determined that the upside was gone due to a specific problem, Heritage became the bad guy. >>
The description of the coin is erroneous. The coin sold for a value of a cleaned coin, not a tooled coin. Putting a spin on AnkurJ's intentions does not remove the fact that Heritage blew it with the description.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>Heritage is not legally required to refund the money, but this is a matter of ethics. Heritage promotes themselves as the world's leading numismatic aution firm, not a used car dealer. The coin has re-engraved dentils that should have been detected and described by any competent cataloger. Early gold is expensive, and not describing a problem as serious as tooling in at least two places on the coin is unexcusable.
Shame on Heritage for ripping off a customer with erroneous cataloging, and then not owning up to it. >>
Ankur, the cataloger works for the auction house, who works for the SELLER. If an item doesn't sell, the auction house typically doesn't get paid. Some catalogers do artfully dodge the issue by coyly letting the reader know that the cataloger believes that there is an issue with a coin, but others just keep their opinions to themselves. I saw the tooling on the reverse, using the images posted earlier on this thread, and was not surprised by the omission of this in the description of this item. If you buy an item using just an auction guide, and not an actual pair of experienced eyes actually viewing the item, then what happened to you shouldn't be surprising. If you want to buy coins put up for auction, then pay someone 5% to view the lots in question and report back to you. Most dealers who do this do not charge anything for this if you do not post the winning bid.
I agree that there is an ethical responsibility to buyers, but it doesn't extend to a legal one (i.e., no misrepresentation because the no-grade slab was disclosed). If an in-your-face disclosure was made in the lot description, then how many bidders would step up for this item? Very few, or perhaps none.
Toolmarks are a fact of life that any collector of pre-twentieth-century coins will encounter. The tooling of this coin wasn't great, because it was left only partially done (too squared-off and rough). Make an effort to look at lots of tooled coins in hand and images of tooled coins on the internet, if possible, to train your eyes to spot such problems. Call this purchase tuition.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>I have a problem with the description, if you are going to list all the reasons that you thing the coin was bbed then you put yourself in a weak position when you leave out what I believe is the worst or number one reason it was bbed afterall. To me that is misleading, I would ahve been fine if they said it is in a genuine holder for damage or damage and tooling but they wntered a new arena by basically from what I read practically everything that they thought was wrong with the coin and why they felt it was bbed. So to leave out the hashest reason is problematic imho. Either say it all or say nothing but don't sugar coat and make a buyer feel like he has a level of comfort in that he can read exactly what is wrong with the coin and if he can live with those reasons then he is a bidder. Nope i don't like the description, imho it is misleading, once you open the door you got to open all the way and tell it all, period! >>
Ankur, I'm sorry to hear of your frustration, but why didn't you have such a pricey coin examined by someone in-hand before plaing such a large (and potentially diappointing) bid based solely on a picture and written description? This whole thing seems rather self-inflicted and avoidable to me -- and I would expect someone with your experience level to know better. Just wondering...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I didnt know anyone at the Fort Worth show, otherwise I would have. Also I found out today that Heritage can pull a coin and describe it over the phone. I know better for next time.
If Heritage does not cancel the transaction, what does everyone think the coin is worth with all of the damage? I am trying to calculate how much I would lose if I tried selling the coin.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Its not that bad of a coin, cleaned can be way uglier. This coin probably went to the coin doctor for cud surgery ages ago, as cuds were considered major flaws way back when. These are like 20,000 for low grade unc. Make a compromise where you maybe get your buyers fee back and so your in the coin 4200.00 or so-------BigE
See if Heritage will auction it for you for no seller's fee in the next auction, or perhaps they can offer it to the underbidder in this auction, on your behalf? It may minimize any losses, and would be a reasonably equitable solution given all the circumstances.
<< <i>See if Heritage will auction it for you for no seller's fee in the next auction, or perhaps they can offer it to the underbidder in this auction, on your behalf? It may minimize any losses, and would be a reasonably equitable solution given all the circumstances. >>
That would mean Heritage was making 15% and not doing him any favors. Instead, see if they will sell it for you and pay you the 115% of hammer that they will be getting for it.
I think it is not at all a stretch to call this type of tooling not mere tooling, but actually an alteration. After all, the removal of the cuds made the coin imitate a die state it was not. The coin was thus not merely incompletely described, but rather quite misdescribed. I'll have to side on Ankur's side in this case.
<< <i><< See if Heritage will auction it for you for no seller's fee in the next auction, or perhaps they can offer it to the underbidder in this auction, on your behalf? It may minimize any losses, and would be a reasonably equitable solution given all the circumstances. >>
That would mean Heritage was making 15% and not doing him any favors. Instead, see if they will sell it for you and pay you the 115% of hammer that they will be getting for it. >>
I didn't think Heritage was intending on offering him any favors - I'm just throwing out options he may consider to minimize his losses, since the OP doesn't want to keep it, and at this point, Heritage isn't taking it back or offering anything else. If he can negotiate getting 115% of the hammer price, that would be an even better option, but probably unlikely, unless Steve Ivy intervenes to try and make things right.
Pursuing this Steve Ivy fella is probably a good approach. I am deeply disappointed in HA as I think Realone nailed it. Leaves me suspicious that they had actual knowledge of the tooling but chose not to disclose.
Time for Service Recovery from HA. You might want to mention that you will broadcast the resolution and HA has the power to determine if there is a happy ending or not.
As an aside, how sickening it is to think that a cool cud was removed by some ignoramus???!!!
Oddly enough, someone I know very well at Heritage told me the exact thing. We will sell it for free and give 15% over, so 115% of the bid. However, there is no guarantee what it will sell for.
As of now, I am trying to negotiate getting the coin with no buyers premium. If they say no, I will go right to the top.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
I have mixed feelings about this whole issue. Here are some random thoughts...
1. If an auction company fully disclosed the problems and pitfalls of every coin, no coin would ever be sold. Same goes for more descriptive negative language on the holder.
2. The coin does not look that bad to me. Without high magnification, the problem is probably very subtle.
3. I do not think the price was unreasonable.
4. I do wish there was more disclosure.
5. If you hang around with dogs, you are likely to get fleas.
6. I would not be surprised if Heritage takes the coin back, but they send a dangerous precedent if they do.
7. I hope the OP learned a lesson.
I guess, overall, I side with Heritage, but both sides shoulder the blame.
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>I would have gone for something else if Heritage mentioned the coin was tooled. >>
Heritage gave a misleading and erroneous discription, they attributed the variety and with the coin in hand should have detected the re-engraved dentils. IMO Heritage should give you a full refund because of the error in the desciption, if you do not want the coin.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i> am thinking about this. With the tooling, what would the coin be worth? I paid about 5k for it... >>
AnkurJ,
It is hard to place a value on a coin like this. I would check the Heritage archives for tooled early half eagles. I would think $3000-$3500, if accurately described with the cuds tooled into fake dentils. I would not want the coin, I have some cleaned coins but cannot stand coins that are tooled.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
My biggest regret is that I did not see the damage, and I did not win any other coins as I passed on them for this one.
Will keep the thread updated.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
The person who spoke to me was the "Cheif Cataloger". The way I was spoken to was very disrespectful. Needless to say, this will be the last time I do any business with Heritage.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Heritage said that PCGS may have considered the 2-3 small hits in the right field as damage. Or the scratches above the date. I have to say though, I have seen MUCH worse in graded PCGS holders.
Heritage has denied a return stating they are not responsible for stating every defect a coin has. Basically like ebay auctions that say see the pic and decide for yourself. I was told that they have enough disclaimers in their auction that they do not have to list every defect. Truly amazing that suck a big auction company can do this, and not accept returns even though they have made a mistake. >>
I'm sorry, I don't see the "mistake" that Heritage made. They said PCGS may have considered the small hits in the field or the scratches on the date as damage. Did they ever say "this coin has not been tooled?" The coin is Code 98 - damage or tooling. You knew you were bidding on a damaged or tooled coin and that's what you got. What's the issue?
Edit: I just checked the Heritage Archives and see that they go on and on about the possible damage, but nothing about the tooling. I guess I can see how you'd be ticked. Do you think they intentionally didn't mention it or they overlooked it?
Also, I just discovered that PCGS lists Code 98 as "damage" when you look at their grading standards, but when you do a cert look up of this coin it says, "Code 98 - Damage or tooling.
<< <i>
<< <i>Heritage said that PCGS may have considered the 2-3 small hits in the right field as damage. Or the scratches above the date. I have to say though, I have seen MUCH worse in graded PCGS holders.
Heritage has denied a return stating they are not responsible for stating every defect a coin has. Basically like ebay auctions that say see the pic and decide for yourself. I was told that they have enough disclaimers in their auction that they do not have to list every defect. Truly amazing that suck a big auction company can do this, and not accept returns even though they have made a mistake. >>
I'm sorry, I don't see the "mistake" that Heritage made. They said PCGS may have considered the small hits in the field or the scratches on the date as damage. Did they ever say "this coin has not been tooled?" The coin is Code 98 - damage or tooling. You knew you were bidding on a damaged or tooled coin and that's what you got. What's the issue? >>
Tooling was the biggest problem in this coin. It was not listed in the Heritage description. Here is what they wrote:
"1800 $5 Genuine PCGS. Breen-6439, BD-4, R.4. The PCGS number ending in .98 suggests Damage as the reason, or perhaps one of the reasons, that PCGS deemed this coin not gradable. In our opinion, this coin has the details of an AU50 coin and it has been cleaned. This variety is most easily distinguished by the closeness of the last star to the bust of Liberty and the repunched M in AMERICA. The damage referred to by the PCGS number appears to be in the form of a couple of more prominent digs and scratches on the obverse: a dig by star 5, a scratch above the 1 in the date, and a scratch along the jawline of Liberty. Still, the green-gold surfaces retain significant mint luster around the outer devices. The strike is a bit soft in the centers.(Registry values: P2, N2) (#8082) "
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Shame on Heritage for ripping off a customer with erroneous cataloging, and then not owning up to it.
The coin was pictured. It was holdered as a problem coin. You hoped it had a lesser flaw, but were wrong. The description omitted pertinent details, but I suspect that if we scrutinized every coin's description we would find many such occurrences.
(edited to fix spelling and add second paragraph)
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Mark, Never did I feel this coin was grade worthy, esp due to the scratches. I was just asking what everyone thought of it. How do you not give information about a coin like Tooling??? >>
I didn't say you felt it was "grade worthy", I said "And based on one or more posts, it seems that he was hoping that the coin might receive a grade if resubmitted or tried elsewhere".
And that was based on the following posts from you, all in this thread:
<<Well, I might try to cross it to NGC to see if she grades. >>
<< I have to say though, I have seen MUCH worse in graded PCGS holders.>>
<<So after all that we know, is the Genuine grade accurate or would NGC or PCGS give it a proper grade if I resubmit it a few times?>>
<<But out of curiosity, if you send NGC a PCGS coin in a Genuine holder, what are the odds they will slab it with a grade? The best bet would probably be to crack it out no? >>
<< <i>In our opinion, this coin has the details of an AU50 coin and it has been cleaned >>
<< <i>The damage referred to by the PCGS number appears to be in the form of a couple of more prominent digs and scratches on the obverse: a dig by star 5, a scratch above the 1 in the date, and a scratch along the jawline of Liberty >>
<< <i>And based on one or more posts, it seems that he was hoping that the coin might receive a grade if resubmitted or tried elsewhere. Once it was determined that the upside was gone due to a specific problem, Heritage became the bad guy. >>
The description of the coin is erroneous. The coin sold for a value of a cleaned coin, not a tooled coin. Putting a spin on AnkurJ's intentions does not remove the fact that Heritage blew it with the description.
<< <i>Heritage is not legally required to refund the money, but this is a matter of ethics. Heritage promotes themselves as the world's leading numismatic aution firm, not a used car dealer. The coin has re-engraved dentils that should have been detected and described by any competent cataloger. Early gold is expensive, and not describing a problem as serious as tooling in at least two places on the coin is unexcusable.
Shame on Heritage for ripping off a customer with erroneous cataloging, and then not owning up to it. >>
Ankur, the cataloger works for the auction house, who works for the SELLER. If an item doesn't sell, the auction house typically doesn't get paid. Some catalogers do artfully dodge the issue by coyly letting the reader know that the cataloger believes that there is an issue with a coin, but others just keep their opinions to themselves. I saw the tooling on the reverse, using the images posted earlier on this thread, and was not surprised by the omission of this in the description of this item. If you buy an item using just an auction guide, and not an actual pair of experienced eyes actually viewing the item, then what happened to you shouldn't be surprising. If you want to buy coins put up for auction, then pay someone 5% to view the lots in question and report back to you. Most dealers who do this do not charge anything for this if you do not post the winning bid.
I agree that there is an ethical responsibility to buyers, but it doesn't extend to a legal one (i.e., no misrepresentation because the no-grade slab was disclosed). If an in-your-face disclosure was made in the lot description, then how many bidders would step up for this item? Very few, or perhaps none.
Toolmarks are a fact of life that any collector of pre-twentieth-century coins will encounter. The tooling of this coin wasn't great, because it was left only partially done (too squared-off and rough). Make an effort to look at lots of tooled coins in hand and images of tooled coins on the internet, if possible, to train your eyes to spot such problems. Call this purchase tuition.
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 have a problem with the description, if you are going to list all the reasons that you thing the coin was bbed then you put yourself in a weak position when you leave out what I believe is the worst or number one reason it was bbed afterall. To me that is misleading, I would ahve been fine if they said it is in a genuine holder for damage or damage and tooling but they wntered a new arena by basically from what I read practically everything that they thought was wrong with the coin and why they felt it was bbed. So to leave out the hashest reason is problematic imho. Either say it all or say nothing but don't sugar coat and make a buyer feel like he has a level of comfort in that he can read exactly what is wrong with the coin and if he can live with those reasons then he is a bidder. Nope i don't like the description, imho it is misleading, once you open the door you got to open all the way and tell it all, period! >>
Good point, sir.
If Heritage does not cancel the transaction, what does everyone think the coin is worth with all of the damage? I am trying to calculate how much I would lose if I tried selling the coin.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
my italics and bold.
Heritage artfully sidestepped the issue and covered their behinds.
Sometimes the most important thing said is that which is left unsaid.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
(This is what I thought before reading the whole thread.)
<< <i>See if Heritage will auction it for you for no seller's fee in the next auction, or perhaps they can offer it to the underbidder in this auction, on your behalf? It may minimize any losses, and would be a reasonably equitable solution given all the circumstances. >>
That would mean Heritage was making 15% and not doing him any favors. Instead, see if they will sell it for you and pay you the 115% of hammer that they will be getting for it.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Dave
<< <i><< See if Heritage will auction it for you for no seller's fee in the next auction, or perhaps they can offer it to the underbidder in this auction, on your behalf? It may minimize any losses, and would be a reasonably equitable solution given all the circumstances. >>
That would mean Heritage was making 15% and not doing him any favors. Instead, see if they will sell it for you and pay you the 115% of hammer that they will be getting for it.
>>
I didn't think Heritage was intending on offering him any favors - I'm just throwing out options he may consider to minimize his losses, since the OP doesn't want to keep it, and at this point, Heritage isn't taking it back or offering anything else. If he can negotiate getting 115% of the hammer price, that would be an even better option, but probably unlikely, unless Steve Ivy intervenes to try and make things right.
Time for Service Recovery from HA. You might want to mention that you will broadcast the resolution and HA has the power to determine if there is a happy ending or not.
As an aside, how sickening it is to think that a cool cud was removed by some ignoramus???!!!
I thought it would be best to be brief
Less is more
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
As of now, I am trying to negotiate getting the coin with no buyers premium. If they say no, I will go right to the top.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
1. If an auction company fully disclosed the problems and pitfalls of every coin, no coin would ever be sold. Same goes for more descriptive negative language on the holder.
2. The coin does not look that bad to me. Without high magnification, the problem is probably very subtle.
3. I do not think the price was unreasonable.
4. I do wish there was more disclosure.
5. If you hang around with dogs, you are likely to get fleas.
6. I would not be surprised if Heritage takes the coin back, but they send a dangerous precedent if they do.
7. I hope the OP learned a lesson.
I guess, overall, I side with Heritage, but both sides shoulder the blame.
Never stay with a coin you can not be happy with.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
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......