Wright Letters

philliesphan · #1 07-05-2009, 06:15 PM

I own a Harry Wright contract amendment for Chas. Ferguson for the 1888 season, that was obtained from the Halper sale. Do I now need to worry about being the rightful owner of this item, which is fully handwritten and signed by Harry Wright?

m

barrysloate · #2 07-05-2009, 06:35 PM

You don't have to worry yet. It may be fine (but you might want to delete your post).

Freddie Maguire · #3 07-06-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philliesphan

I own a Harry Wright contract amendment for Chas. Ferguson for the 1888 season, that was obtained from the Halper sale. Do I now need to worry about being the rightful owner of this item, which is fully handwritten and signed by Harry Wright?

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

You don't have to worry yet. It may be fine (but you might want to delete your post).

All due respect to Mr. Sloate, but I find this type of response to "philliefan" who obviously is genuinely concerned with the ramifications of having a stolen item-and, he probably has a right to be concerned-a little disturbing.

By suggesting he "remove his post" aren't you encouraging the very behaviour that created the environment for this type of criminal activity to flourish?

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. I'm sure the FBI won't stop at the Hunt Auction.

benjulmag · #4 07-07-2009, 12:22 AM

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.

barrysloate · #5 07-07-2009, 05:10 AM

Freddie- I wasn't suggesting that Phillie Fan commit any kind of fradulent act. If he feels his piece may be stolen from the Library he has the right to contact them if he chooses. I don't believe that everything belongs on a public chatboard, however. And the piece he has may be perfectly legitimate with regard to his ownership. I have absolutely no idea one way or the other.
As far as pieces I have sold in the past, I have sold dozens and dozens of rare items and I will admit I do not know the provenance of any of them. I hope all of them were good but like I said, I do not know their source.

2dueces · #6 07-07-2009, 06:12 AM

Nice little hobby we have here. Any more good news about the hobby this week? I bet someone will tell me that the THE CARD is trimmed. That would just top of the week.

FrankWakefield · #7 07-07-2009, 06:42 AM

Corey, all,

A good faith purchaser can obtain good title from a seller only if the seller has rightful title to the item. If the seller didn't own it, then the seller can't convey good title to it.

If a collector has something that was stolen from the rightful owner, then the collector doesn't own it, the rightful owner still owns it. The resolution for the good faith purchaser collector would be to get their money back from the seller and return the item back to the rightful owner. The seller could then go back to whoever they bought it from, and on and on.

Only way a good faith purchaser gets good title to something that was stolen would be if he buys it a second time from the rightful owner.

I understand Barry's response to Marc. And Marc could consider simultaneously contacting the Library and whoever he bought the contract amendment from, inquiring about whether it belongs to the library. If it does, then Marc gives it to the library and the seller refunds Marc's money. That would be the high road...

19cbb · #8 07-07-2009, 06:31 AM

I agree with what Corey and Barry said.

jbsports33 · #9 07-07-2009, 06:58 AM

another interesting story that involves the FBI, when I was younger it was just cardboard, trading cards with friends and going to the local shows/shops.

what a mess this hobby is in right now, but hopefully soon we can all get back on track and these stories will slow down a little bit

Jimmy

1lovediane · #10 07-07-2009, 11:46 AM

nonsense; instead of whining, contact your counsel if you have one and ascertain the law regarding whether a thief can pass good title to a chattel. you will be amazed.

Potomac Yank · #11 07-07-2009, 12:14 PM

I can't believe some of the things that I'm reading.
Sounds like some one has led a sheltered life.

If the guardians of the Cooperstown basement couldn't protect the Walter Johnson opening day baseball's, how do you expect librarians of the NYPL to protect their basement.

A thief is a thief.
The thieves obviously knew this.

I don't know about you, but I can't wait for more to follow.