View Single Post
  #228  
Old 07-13-2015, 08:12 PM
poorlydrawncat's Avatar
poorlydrawncat poorlydrawncat is offline
ßrën.døn ßig.åløw
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...
No you're right, it's absolutely possible. But the fact that the mark was erased and that the card has a 25 year provenance that doesn't mention the NYPL makes it less of an assumption. But obviously I get your point, and you don't want to assume anything when it comes to a card of this magnitude. But unless the NYPL says they released that card, I think it's no longer an assumption at that point.

Pardon my ignorance, I don't know who JC is or what his copy looks like (I'm not too entrenched in hobby circles). Are you saying JC's card could be the missing one? We know yours has the NY stamp, is there evidence of a stamp on the reverse of his? Otherwise it seems like it takes more assumptions to assume his is the stolen card and not yours. Please correct me if I'm not getting your point about how the other card plays into this.

Also my point was more about the conditions you were putting on the card's return (eg "if it's proven", "if they ask for it"). If the NYPL doesn't have records of it ever being returned to the public, I'd like to know that you would return it on the basis that it was the right thing to do and not because you got a formal request.
__________________
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

Last edited by poorlydrawncat; 07-13-2015 at 08:20 PM.