I agree if it was truly stolen but that side was never proven due to the father being deceased. The families appeal was based on a belief they had that the father was awarded those coins from his boss for the services of years in the company. If that is truly the case then the Mint gave that to the family but it became a he said she said case due to the witnesses being no longer with us. That is where my confusion is, if they ruled in favor of the Mint due to unlawful possession of the coin but there is a family fact of it being gifted, how can a judgement of theft be ruled if there is reasonable down being put forward? Seems to me there should have been a 50/50 split decision, a liquidation sell off and profit split or maybe 5 coins to the Mint and 5 to the family. Just seems off the more I read into it