Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddie Maguire
I think we should all be concerned with the New York Public Library recovering their rightful property.
Furthermore, we should probably take stock of our own collections. Going over some of your old auctions Mr Sloate, I think you might have a problem with the Harry Wright tintype you sold in 2002. I believe there are 2 missing from the Spalding Collection. How can you be sure one of them wasn't the one you sold? Or, how about the Knickerbocker Challenge letter in the same auction? Was it found in a grandma's attic perchance?
We all need to address this and take the appropriate actions.
|
Precisely what are you suggesting we do? Stop collecting? We're talking here about items that HAVE NO IDENTIFYING MARKS WHATSOEVER ON THEM connecting them with the NYPL or any other institution. Perhaps some might be stolen items, perhaps not. While I respect the concern you express that stolen items be returned to their appropriate institutions, don't auction houses and collectors have a right to in good faith transact business without having to worry that years later someone will come knocking on their door demanding they return items? Can't one say that institutions have an obligation to (i) publicize that which is missing so as to put good faith purchasers on notice they might be transacting in stolen goods and (ii) peruse publicized auctions to search for their stolen items.
I'll give you a specific example. Sotheby's around 1991 sold the collection of Jim Copeland. In the sale was an extensive 19th century collection, including non-one-of-a-kind items with no identifying marks that matched items in the original inventory of the Spalding collection (housed at the NYPL). In addition to the auction being highly publicized, I was told at the time NYPL was specifically asked to go through the auction catalog to ascertain if any lots might be items stolen from them. It's now 18 or so years later. I bought some of those 19th century items. If anybody should ever come knocking on my door saying I bought items stolen from the NYPL, I would in the most vigorous way resist returning anything. The NYPL had its chance to do something and didn't. I bought the items in good faith and now, years later, as a practical matter would stand little chance of being made whole if I had to return an item.
Mention in this thread too has been made of the Halper sale (again at Sotheby's) about ten years ago. At the time it is was by far the biggest sale ever of 19th century baseball memorabilia (and remains so today). It was publicized to the hilt. If in fact there were items stolen years earlier from the NYPL or any other institution, then don't you think those institutions had some affirmative obligation to check the auction catalog to see if it contained any stolen items? Good faith purchasers have rights too, and it seems to me that if an institution does not timely take certain actions, they shouldn't years later be able to demand return of an item and leave the good faith purchaser to bear the loss.