"There is surface marring or erasure on the back in the same upper quadrant. This could be a library stamp, a collector stamp or the mark of some retailer."
Forgive me Leon. Perhaps I'm reading into things but why would Heritage go out of their way to mention "library mark" as the first possible option for the removed blemish on the back of this card? Especially for a card that you say has past the scrutiny of review by whom I assume to be the proper authorities.
I would guess I may have a few cards that would have what an auction company may describe as "unidentifiable blemishes" but I wouldn't expect "library mark" as the first possible speculation. Only reason why I can think of is. If I were aware or the auction company was aware the item in question had potential issues. Otherwise why speculate?
Anyways enough about this card, my posts were more to say lots of things can be viewed as hypocrisy. Also your silence and back and forth support of these guys is troubling and confusing to me. However as said its my opinion and your entitled to do as you see fit. I may question the motives but I can reset your decision.
Cheers,
John