Trivia

[molenick]

I have seen "reliable" sites use the $100K number and "reliable" sites use the $125K number. It's hard to know who is getting their information second-hand from whom, but here is a link to an auction of the contract promissory note in relation to the sale https://goldinauctions.com/LotDetail...entoryid=10213.

It appears that the $100K number is based on the fact that "The $100,000 payment was to be distributed with $25,000 in cash at the signing, plus three promissory notes each for $25,000, payable over the next several years at a rate of 6% per annum."

Again, I can't say which is correct but it wasn't a straightforward cash deal, which may have resulted in the confusion of the actual number.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by molenick

I have seen "reliable" sites use the $100K number and "reliable" sites use the $125K number. It's hard to know who is getting their information second-hand from whom, but here is a link to an auction of the contract promissory note in relation to the sale https://goldinauctions.com/LotDetail...entoryid=10213.

It appears that the $100K number is based on the fact that "The $100,000 payment was to be distributed with $25,000 in cash at the signing, plus three promissory notes each for $25,000, payable over the next several years at a rate of 6% per annum."

Again, I can't say which is correct but it wasn't a straightforward cash deal, which may have resulted in the confusion of the actual number.

That is my understanding also
But amazing how history can be so different with the same result and so well “documented “

[molenick]

I think $100K was the number known at the time...it was the reason Grove was sold for $600 more (although if you count interest, it actually was not more than Ruth).

But I still have no idea of the answer to the original question.