It is a conspiracy if I help him steal it. If I am presented with a situation like this and the client has a contested right to keep an item he purchased at a public auction in good faith I am not conspiring to do anything if I advise him of his rights and suggest that he put the alleged owner to the test in court.

Some other assumptions here about how the item came to Leon are just that: assumptions. Until the library and Leon sort it out, which is what's going to happen apparently since the item was pulled, all the vitriol is premature. Fun but potentially wrong.

As for "loopholes" that is such nonsense. It is either legal or not.

I agree with this. Take this same set of circumstances and each and every comment made then replace Leon with....Dan McKee, Jeff Lichtman anyone for that matter including myself and that would be a good time to be in the pitchforks and torches business. Might even make a sale or two Leon himself.

You just sent a chill down my spine Wonka! Jeff is much tougher than me, let him take the brunt of it. :)

I agree with Adam. When it's our interests that are making their way through the legal system, it's about our rights and testing contested positions in court. When it's someone else's interests making their way through the legal system, now it's seeking loopholes.

People go to court every day for trivial items. When it comes to 10's of thousands of dollars, those who think ownership should simply be surrendered are largely those who don't own the item.

It likely won't get to that, but if Leon (or NYPL, for that matter) end up using the legal system to sort out ownership, there's no wrong in that.

Ok I have a huge issue with this. You are conflating legal right with moral right. They are two different things.

I can steal a million dollars and get off because they didn't read me my miranda rights. Does that mean that taking that million dollars is suddenly ok? If someone rapes someone and the statutes of limitations expire before they come to trial, does that make the action ok? No, just because someone has the law on their side doesn't mean their actions were morally acceptable.

To hold onto a stolen item by virtue of a legal technicality would be morally wrong wrong wrong and wrong no matter how you try and rationalize it to yourself. It doesn't suddenly become acceptable just because there's no legal recourse.

You'd be surprised, but there are a lot of people out there who would return the item without trying to leverage the legal system to keep it, just on the basis of it being the morally right thing to do. Then again there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't do the right thing and have a hard time understanding someone who would...

New gerneral counsel is

Michele Coleman Mayes, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

212-642-0115

I like Leon...and I like Net54 even more. For all those critical or disappointed with Leon, why don't you find another sand box to play in? Leon is far nicer with the lynch mob types in this thread than I would be if I was the owner. I think most come here for enjoyment of the hobby but there is a group who always seem to be bickering with others. Let's remember who keeps this forum going.

Jeff

What keeps any forum going is its users, and Leon knows that, he's not naive. And the fact that he doesn't rule like a tyrant is what has made this forum successful. Forums run with an iron fist never last long, it just creates an exodus to a new forum.

But onto the real issue. Just because Leon runs a website that you like, that shouldn't be enough for you to sacrifice your principles. Otherwise why even bother having principles at all if you're only going to apply them when it's convenient for you?

Dude, you have no idea about who I am or what my principles are. Have you ever met Leon? Have you ever done business with him? I have, so at least I speak with a little bit of knowledge.

I knew when I made my post, it will get all of the Leon haters in a tizzy. I WILL not waste my time defending myself to faceless strangers staring at a computer screen. Have fun getting your kicks attacking a pretty good guy.

Jeff

The countless collectors/members and advertisers. Not mention many members have been a part of this community before it was "Leon's Sandbox" as you call it. This community is that a community. If this was all about Leon it wouldn't be a community it would be a twitter or Facebook page.

Jeff FYI known Leon for years. Done business with him, driven him to shows, paid for dinners big and small, talked cards, politics you name it. He even sent Jeff Lichtman and I picture of the cover of the catalog to get our feedback. This isn't some cyber bully picking on the great Leon this a fellow collector calling him out. Perhaps I could have done this in private but that's hypocritical of me. If I can call out others here why should he get a pass. I'm not saying he's an evil person just think he dropped the ball here instead of manning up he's resorted to name calling and gathering his minions.

Bottom line a few weeks ago I was a good guy, and potential bidder for him. The minute I called out this card. As well as the hypocrisy of taking gifts from Bill Mastro while claiming to do more about fraud than 99.9% of the collecting community.

That day I became and "idiot", sorry if I feel Leon's tag line of "if you do wrong in this hobby I'm going to be your worst enemy" sounds better than "if you do wrong in this hobby I'm going to be your worst enemy, unless there are gift bags".

Cheers,

John

I don't buy your premise Brendan. This is a property ownership issue. Leon didn't steal the card. He bought it from a public auction. Morally speaking he is innocent. So the issue is which innocent person gets hurt. That's why we resort to the law. It is our way of handling these otherwise intractable issues.

You were saying it's wrong to be critical of Leon because he's been nice to you and runs a forum you like. That's fine that you believe that (no sarcasm), but I happen to disagree. Up until this incident I thought Leon was basically the most upstanding member of this hobby, I've had nothing but positive experiences with him either. I would have thought it a cold day in hell when I would side more with Nash than Leon...

But I disagree with his handling of this whole thing and I don't think it's fair to tell people not to criticize someone just because he's your friend or he's in charge of a forum. I would criticize the person in this situation regardless of whether or not it was Leon, and the fact that it was Leon actually made it more difficult for me to do so. But my principles are my principles and I will always try to apply them universally and fairly, even when it means applying them in ways that are hard for me.

I didn't think I was attacking you any more than you were attacking me, and I certainly don't feel attacked. This feels like a moral discussion to me... I didn't mean to make you feel personally attacked though, so I'm sorry. You're free to have your own opinions, I just like debating them :)

You're absolutely right! Owning a piece of stolen property is not morally wrong if you don't know it's stolen. But I think a lot of people would agree that if you are in possession of a stolen item, regardless of how you acquired it, that item should be returned. Or at least I think that, maybe you disagree, which is totally within your right.

But whatever the law decides wont change my moral principle which states that stolen items should always be returned to their rightful owners. And I think there are people out there who would agree with me on that.

At the end of the day, we don't know at this point what Leon's plans for the card are, so it's too early to judge anyone. I was addressing the people who were trying to find ways around returning the card, which at this point I am comfortable judging as being the morally wrong way to approach this situation.

I'm curious, you're suggesting that Leon is prepared to litigate this issue? Are you representing him? Is that a Dorskindian 'we' or a traditional 'we'?

I knew we served some socially useful function, just couldn't remember what it was. Thanks Adam.

Whatever did or didn't happen with Leon's card, it is incredibly disheartening to see a thread about one of the alleged grandest perpetrators of fraud in the hobby degenerate into something so minor in comparison.

So many of the same people bickering in this thread about the most quibbling of differences profess to have an interest in cleaning up the hobby, yet when presented with the choice of spending 20 minutes writing a letter that may make an actual difference or wasting it away arguing here, there seems to be no shortage of those that choose the latter.

Now I certainly don't know Mr. Lichtman, but by all accounts he seems to be an excellent lawyer. I certainly also know absolutely nothing substantive about the law other than to find an excellent lawyer and then follow his or her instructions. For those of us that are vehemently against writing a letter, what could the potential drawbacks be? Please note this is not a hypothetical question. I intend to write one myself as a bidder in his auctions unless some unforeseen consequence is presented.

That is a false ""choice" you are presenting. Nobody has suggested they didn't have time to write a letter, and instead spent the time arguing here. Please. People may or may not have good reasons for writing a letter or not, and you are free to disagree, but to posit that they haven't because they spent their time posting here is baseless rhetoric.

I certainly disagree, but again, we are getting bogged down in the details that ultimately don't matter.

What are the legitimate reasons for not wanting to write one? I believe (and correct me if I am wrong, as I certainly could be) you stated earlier in the thread you did not feel yourself categorized as a victim, which is obviously an opinion as valid as any other. Are there negatives to writing one the layman may not see? I understand this is simply a discussion and not legal advice.

I don't see any downside. You should feel free. As long as you are comfortable with the letter being a matter of public record.

Greg, thanks for the compliment :) Yes, there's lots of hot air on this thread about legal maneuvering to keep a stolen card from a public library which was the victim of a crime. However, as Peter points out certainly lack of time is not the reason why some people won't write to the judge about Mastro.

Personal choice is a reason: not everyone wants to 'get involved' in situations such as this although that makes little sense to me. Anyone who claims they are not a victim to Mastro's fraud is just providing a convenient excuse as I said earlier in this thread. If somehow you never bid in a shilled auction (and it's difficult to know for certain as bidding records were destroyed by Mastro or otherwise not revealed to the public) you certainly are impacted by the artificially inflated prices from Mastro auctions which will affect the market going forward. Plus you've also been victimized in another manner: the hobbyist's level of trust in auction houses has forever been lessened due to Mastro and his group of thieves.

The only downside to writing a letter that I can see is if that if the prospective letter writer ever committed fraud in a Mastro auction; Mastro's lawyers should rightly inform the judge that the writer is in no position to criticize Mastro to the court when the writer has unclean hands himself. Other than that I can't even imagine any drawbacks to writing such a letter.

Jeff another reason may be that your out of paper in the printer...stamps have also become more expensive also. Just trying to play devils advocate.

It is interesting how this thread has devolved into two separate issues. I am not in Leon's camp on one and am more or less camping in his direction on the other.

I think Leon's refusal to write a letter on the Mastro situation is a mistake. I have told him that. He has chosen not to write the letter and that is the end of that. I don't see how any further harangue is going to make a difference or cause him to change his mind. In fact, I would suggest that it is having precisely the opposite effect.

With respect to the Peck and Snyder issue, I tend to believe that Leon has the right to further look into the situation before making any decision. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's easy to talk about a fast "morality" decision when you aren't the one out five figures, not so much if you are the one taking the hickey. If it were me, and I had done nothing wrong in the purchase of the card, I would be looking at every aspect of my previous transaction and carefully thinking about the situation before I made any decision whatsoever. I mean seriously, if the card was stolen from the library, it has now been missing for 30 some-odd years. Is another week or month going to make a difference? I don't think so.

I hope that whatever resolution ultimately occurs is fair and reasonable for all involved, but I certainly don't think that it has to be made today. That's my $.02.

...

"I mean seriously, if the card was stolen from the library, it has now been missing for 30 some-odd years. Is another week or month going to make a difference? I don't think so."

---------------------------------------------------

That's assuming it gets returned, so no it wouldnt make a difference, but if its going to "not make a difference" by being returned to the library 1 month from now, then just ship it there now. and show good will. The only reason not to ship it there now is to find a way to keep it. It has a NYPL stamp on it, it's property of NYPL in my opinion. They put that lion stamp on it decades ago. They claimed ownership. You gonna make them prove a negative, that it wasn't deaccesioned?

If Mr. Luckey wants monetary compensation, he should cash in on the seemingly 2 grade difference from the SGC grade guarantee. The difference between the holder it is in now - A 50 (4) and what it would realistically grade, which looks like no more than a 30 (2). Then donate it (or return it, depending on the semantics you take) to the library. There is your compensation.

If the NYPL missing items list posted on Nash's website identifies only one missing 1869 Red Stockings card, but there are two known examples with the NYPL stamp, then why does everyone assume this one was stolen?

[QUOTE=travrosty;1431354]"I mean seriously, if the card was stolen from the library, it has now been missing for 30 some-odd years. Is another week or month going to make a difference? I don't think so."

---------------------------------------------------

That's assuming it gets returned, so no it wouldnt make a difference, but if its going to "not make a difference" by being returned to the library 1 month from now, then just ship it there now. and show good will. The only reason not to ship it there now is to find a way to keep it. It has a NYPL stamp on it, it's property of NYPL in my opinion. They put that lion stamp on it decades ago. They claimed ownership. You gonna make them prove a negative, that it wasn't deaccesioned?

You completely missed everything I said, but that's OK. Maybe English isn't your first language. It isn't a "good will" issue yet. Its an ownership issue. Why doesn't Leon get to investigate the matter a little bit more before he takes a 5 figure hickey? As I said before, its easy to pontificate when it isn't your money. Here's an idea -- since you are so clearly philanthropic, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Kick in the $10K and I'm sure all will be good. Otherwise, STFU. Best,

Kenny

in other words, there is no waiting another month unless he returns it, that's what i was saying. so if you say they waited 30 years, they can wait another month, that is predicting they will get it back a month from now, if that doesnt happen, then they will wait another 30 years or infinity or whatever, so the statement only works if he returns it, so 1 month or now, if he is going to return it, might as well return it now, otherwise no need to make the statement that the library can wait another month if they have already waited 30 years. the only other option is not to return it, so they will not be waiting another month to get it back, they wouldn't get it back. that's the point.


hypothetical conversation

nypl "you're right, we waited 30 years we can wait another month."

(month goes by)

nypl "are we getting it back"

answer "no"

????????????????????

All I know for sure if that the card is not VGEX. I've seen near mint cards with a pen mark on them and they are a 1.5 or 2 via SGC. I've seen cards with eraser marks and they are in the same range or worse. How can a card that has both ink stains and eraser be in VGEX? The folks at SGC obviously knew this was a valuable card but the grade just seems very odd. Does anyone know when it was graded (just curious)?

Also, I mention this grading aspect as the other parts of the conversation have been close to exhausted for now.
Cory Weiser

I've never had a card graded ever and I agree it should be discussed, but many, many have their vintage cards graded, so they aren't going to be saying anything out of fear that the grading company will take it out on them via their future submitted cards. I'm not saying the grading company would do that as I am confident they wouldn't, but people have that fear, just like they fear being banned by the auction companies for saying anything, (and that does happen with certain auction houses)

a 30 (2) seems to be the highest most generous grade this card could deserve and could be lower. ink is obviously present on the back of the card along with erasure and ink loss to the lettering that was there in the area the stamp was removed.

Kenny, if this was only about Leon's 10k he could get that back from Mastro. I would be surprised with an upcoming sentence Bill wouldn't like to add this as a feather in his cap by refunding a client and returning an long lost item to the NYPL. This is more about wrestling with the lost profit not his original purchase price.

I agree with you easy to be an armchair quarterback when it isn't your cash. I had a recent scare about a photo I bought (9k) from Legendary. I did everything in my power to research and correct the potential issue with the proper people the very moment I was made aware. In the end it tuned out to be a false alarm. With that said I did everything and even a bit more than what I've been critical of Leon for not doing.

My situation was also an out of the blue thing I caught on my own from a thread here. Not me being made aware of an issue by the Feds and a year later putting the photo up for auction with a description that conveniently covered the very issue I was made aware of a year earlier. Only to come in here to you guys and say golly gee I would have never listed it had I known that....let me look into this.

Leon having a stolen item is not his fault, that sucks! The way he's handled it and the steps he's taken or didn't take are what concerns me. One can't talk about doing more than 99.9% of the hobby when it comes to fraud and making the hobby a better place, then sort of turn a lazy eye to trouble in ones own camp.

With all of his hobby knowledge and the people he has access to here. The information he was given and is talking about on video in regards to this being from the NYPL. I find it hard to believe a year later and he wasn't able to detect or have somebody help detect this stamp and this is all news to him. Heritage didn't mention Library stamp by accident or as the course of a routine write up.

Cheers,

John

I have only lightly perused the discussion and I will keep my comments short.

Despite the history of the transactions on the card and the criticism of Leon, the right thing to the moment has been done. The card has been pulled.

The sad things about this are that it will have the following effects:

1. There will be less funds for Leon's daughter's college funds.
2. Leon has to deal with the consequences which are on a number of levels.
3. Although the right thing has been done in pulling the card, all involved including our hobby, have another matter that does not put collecting in the best of light.
4. Some members have voiced that they will now pass on the entire auction. The question now is how many collectors outside of members of Net54 will do the same?

There are other possible effects, but I will leave that to the other members of Net54 to discuss. I stated my comments would be short.

One final observation. Recently "Mysteries at the Museum" ran a piece on Mastro and it was featured in a post on Net54. I'm afraid that there will be another piece coming soon.

Less funds for college?

Seems to me he could have sold one or two cards and made tuition payments just fine.

????


Matte E.

Nice to see that someone else did the math.

R0b D3wolf

Guys, I realize other cards will make up for the Peck card, but overall it is still less funds.

The lynch mob can go home now. If it spreads to other places it will be dealt with. thanks,.