I can accept the charge of being pedantic. The text in the Slate article is "first Nobel laureate in history to [sell the medallion]" while the linked-to article in the Telegraph quotes Christie's auctioneer as "the first Nobel Prize to be sold by a living recipient" so I assume you think the Telegraph is also pedantic for adding the qualifier "living".
"Offensive" I contest. Here I thought I was diminishing his uniqueness.
But "Selling your medal for personal gain is just crass"? That I reject.
I reject the validity of your blanket condemnation of what a winner can do with their prize. Where is the limit? Can a Presidential Medal of Honor winner auction their medal? Purple Heart winner? Pulitzer prize? State spelling bee champion? Or is the Nobel Prize somehow unique?
Would is be crass for a winner to sell the award if they needed the money to pay for a bone marrow transplant? To prevent foreclosure on the house? Provide seed money for a new business? Surely you don't think all possible cases of personal gain are crass.
Crick's family sold the medal after his death. 70% went to research organizations but I don't know about the other 30%. Is it okay for part of that to go towards personal gain for the family members? It had been in storage first in a room and then in a safety deposit box for 50 years. Why should he, or any other prize winner, wait until death to sell the prize?
P.S. The account about dissolving the gold was also in the link I gave.