ISO must have changed a LOT since 10 years ago.

I won't get much into it, but I dislike ISO nearly as much as Travis dislikes TPAs.

All they do is cert process. If the process is bad it's just documenting and enforcing bad process. So if PSAs process is to unpack stuff, give it to temp help hired off a streetcorner, then have a data entry person type a letter or flip and send it to slabbing/packing/ shipping.........As long as they do that every time and in just the same way, they're OK for ISO. (Not that some companies don't use it as a tool to improve both process and quality, just that most don't)

Steve B

How he most reminds me of Canseco, is that he turns on people/companies in which he was the one who initially supplied the junk to them in the first place.

When the piper comes a calling, he'll throw his friends under the bus the second his house comes under foreclosure again.

I like Travis, he's good for boxing, but I hope he doesn't eventually get steam-rolled by the Nash machine.

I've also noticed Nash has a habit of determining that every item that has a library stamp on it, must have been stolen at some point. I've been to enough library sales to know, these places are constantly blowing stuff out of their doors and dis-accessioning stuff to make room, and have been doing so for decades.

I once picked up an entire Civil War era bound volume of Harpers Illustrated Weekly from a library sale for 50 bucks.

Sure, if it can be definitively traced to the HOF, or some other confirmed robbery, I can understand, but if some librarian thought they could make 50 cents off a John Ward cabinet 50 years ago, and clear room, I don't understand why that would be so tough to believe. Without a police report, I think he is jumping to a lot of conclusions.

I am not defending the TPGs; I am not exactly on PSA's friends list since I sued them successfully on behalf of one of our members some years ago and rip them regularly for what they do wrong in writings going back more than a decade. That said, if you believe that the company's mistakes are something more than mistakes, if you are suggesting that their business model is to intentionally mess up their work product, that simply does not comport with reality nor is it supported by a scintilla of evidence. I'm a lawyer, Travis, I deal in evidence, not assumptions and accusations. Show me the proof underlying your opinion that the TPG mistakes are not "just human error" and show me the proof that they "don't care about the consumer."

As for why you are unable to get PSA and JSA to see things your way on purported erroneous exemplars, I think it is not that their managements don't care about the customers but more that they don't care about your opinions. You may be right on some things, I don't know, but you often state your views here in a manner that is so shrill, intolerant, obnoxious and arrogant that people who don't know you are not exactly going to be inclined to listen. You maintain that kind of public persona and you will need a lot more than "because I say it is" to back up your statements. Credibility comes with respect and respect has to be earned continually. Nash may be right on some things, but he is a con artist and deadbeat with an ax to grind against Rob Lifson, so people aren't exactly going to take his screeds as sermons from the mount, either.

+1 million

Truth is truth, Dan. The moral character of the source notwithstanding.
If we ignore the Lifson references, is what Nash has been saying true?

Yes. It has.

Has an ungodly amount of material--much of which has been appearing on the market--been stolen from the HoF Library and the NYPL? Yes.

Has much of the high-end Halper material purchased by MLB and donated to the HoF been shown to be counterfeit? Yes.

Have many of the stories put forth by Halper regarding the provenance of items in his collection--including different, contradictory stories about the same piece--shown to be blatant lies? Yes.

Has the HoF made little-to-no effort in reacquiring its stolen material? Yes.

Has PSA and JSA made mind-numbing "blunders," without once owning up to their errors? Yes.

And so on.

Beautifully written post. I am in total agreement all around.

The Hall of Fame Library, and the New York Public Library have never deaccessioned the material in question. The HoF is not allowed to sell any of the material donated to them. And, since they do not purchase, it's all donated.

You haven't been paying attention have you?

when they issue loa for an autograph without any exemlars to compare it to, even though the loa says it was comapared to exemplars, is that just human error, an innocent mistake?


NO N-O!


as far as the bad exemplars on psa autograph facts, we showed them the rosalie fitzsimmons autograph where the fitzsimmons part matches up exactly with the fake fitzsimmons they have on there, so they know already its bad, they just dont care.

Of course you don't know if we are right or not. That's why you defend psa. if you knew if we were right or not, you wouldn't. How is that PSA slabbed 'signed' Holyfield card doing? You threw it away, right?


We tried contacting psa and the auction houses in the so called 'nice' way, we were polite, respectful, caring, loving, all-american, etc. THEY DONT CARE! That's what it got us when we tried to help. They didn't give a damn!

Me and M.O. from fighttoys tried to help heritage, I tried to help psa, they couldn't give a F.R.A. about it. It's the cold shoulder brush off. They would just say - thanks, we will take care of it, and then it was business as usual. The band plays on!

I understand about the HOF, I even mentioned that in my post.

The NYPL is another animal. I'm sure some stuff has been pilfered, but the majority of his writings on that subject are pure speculation and connecting the dots to his predetermined conclusion.

agreed, salient points.

the red herring by the people who wont accept the proof offered by haulsofshame is that they would somehow be on board and accept the proof if someone other than Nash were presenting it. this is of course nonsense. they are just using nash to misdirect from the problem of stolen property, some auction houses doing little to vet the items instead relying on TPA's to do the authentication that doesn't hit the mark on many ocassions.

The resistance to this information being made public is NOT nash - even though they would have you believe so. They just don't want this laundry out there because it shows the system currently in place, warts and all, and a lot of people want the warts covered up so the status quo can continue. It benefits too many for it to be dismantled, even in favor of something better (for the end consumer and the hobby).

Right now it doesnt get much better for the tpa's and those hooked in with them. You can authenticate as much material in secret with as few authenticators as you want. Spread your authentication teams out incredibly thin (up to 4 teams at once out on weekend shows). Not sign the loa's or sign them on 'behalf' of the company. not have to tell the customer just exactly who looked at and authenticated an autograph. not give a guarantee or anything. Just give excuses that it's an 'opinion'., Not show exemplars, and cash a boatload of checks for these nameless, anonymous coa's. what a great system, right?

Well said, and unfortunately I'll bet only 99% of the forum understand this point.

Ken

Except, as I said, as far as has been ascertained the NYPL did not deaccession the said material. Deaccessioned items are clearly labeled as such--and no one in his right mind would destroy such a label.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. Some of these items supposedly went missing decades ago. Librarian has a sale, moves some stuff out. It happens on a pretty regular basis. I'm not sure why the NYPL is any different from every other other library in the country.

Librarians at the NYPL main branch rare books collection--where the items were--don't have "sales."
And the NYPL is juuust a bit different, being the finest library in the country.

You might believe Nash is a snake--and he very well may be. But the NYPL items were stolen, nonetheless.

You are probably right David, but how do we know someone didn't walk into the library in 1955, talk to the man in charge at the time and offer to buy a bunch of the books/letters for $500 bucks and walk out with them? Might be unlikely, but it is not an impossible scenario. Things were different 60 years ago and there was no monetary value placed on this stuff and the rules regarding selling items in their possession were not as strict. The law on this stuff is pretty clear that the person with possession is deemed to be the owner with good title unless a superior claim is put forward. Without concrete evidence of a superior ownership claim (which everyone believes the NYPL and HOF have, but can not prove it) they cant prove anything which is why they have not shown any interest up to now to try and get these things back. The FBI seized many of the Harry Wright letters in 2009 from what I understand on the subject, held them for 3 years and investigates the ownership claim, and then gave them back to the people they seized them from and told them to do as they wished with them because the NYPL had no evidence the items were in fact stolen despite the fact that it seems very likely they were.

I am with you that it is very likely, but saying "They were stolen" is a statement that would never hold up in court, and that is why the institutions will not pursue these items. They would lose in court and spend more moey getting to that decision than the items are probably worth.

Just a lowly Lawyes opinion on the subject without full knowledge of al the facts, just from what I have heard and read, stating only to the LEGAL aspect of these items and not the fact that I too believe they were likely stolen and probably an inside job 60 years ago. NOBODY knows for sure and if they did, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Even if a librarian sold the items, they are still stolen. In that case, stolen by said librarian.
I think there's ample proof of previous ownership. It's refusal to own up to incompetence that prevents the recovery.

David- the bulk of the Spalding Collection at the NYPL is housed in the Department of Photos and Prints, and not part of any rare book collection. Small point, I know.

Thanks for the correction, Barry. But my contention stands--nothing was deaccessioned.

If I was to wager a ton of money on whether a major hammer falls first on the TPA's or Nash, all of my money is on Nash.

If they were stolen 30 years ago I would think the statute of limitations for the NYPL or the HOF to file a claim would have long since passed.

I'd like to see his articles criticizing the NYPL and HOF for failing to maintain their collections and failing to follow up on stolen items. That is the real atrocity.

you would lose too.

i dont have any money but a gentlemans bet it is.

Define "Major hammer".

The statuate of limitations having passed means that the thief can't be prosecuted. The items, however, remain stolen property, and are always subject to return.

Why do you think they don't try to reclaim the items? I thought I read somewhere that they don't want to admit they lost them.

Because they cant prove they were stolen.

Of course they could prove they were stolen--if they wanted to.

Proving that they once owned them is not evidence of theft, it suggests it probably took place, but it is not proof. If you know something the FBI didn't uncover during their 3 year investigation with the NYPL I am sure they would love to hear about it.

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.

Untrue. The library would have to present reasonable evidence of ownership and theft. If they cannot make this case to a reasonable standard, the current possessor/owner is required by law to present nothing at all.

Proof of prior possession by the library, along with no evidence of legal possession--i.e., legal removal from the library--is evidence of theft.

Is an invoice from an auction house proof of possession?

Of course not. Proof of legal possession. Proof that the material was legally obtained from the library before being sold on.

Everybody who's ever bought anything with a library stamp on it, has a lot of explaining to do, I guess.

The problem with most of these items is that they've been through multiple hands and I'm not sure how the museums go about tracking the thief down. That said, I believe that if you are in possession of an item that belongs to the library or museum it is your moral obligation to return it and then seek restitution from where you got it.

If the monies went back into the libraries coffers, I don't really think it is..........and it would be impossible after all these years to prove otherwise.

As for the contention, nothing was ever deaccessioned, I think that's something else you can never prove. As much as you like to believe, an actual deaccession (I'm sure I'm spelling it wrong every time I spell it) marking is more rare then not. Most don't bother with it when they sell stuff off.

Yes, it's the NYPL, they hold themselves to a higher standard. I think that's a speculative assertion.

That's right. There are numerous cases of rare document thieves being caught with caches of stolen documents from many different libraries. Most of the time, the libraries in question hadn't even realized said documents had gone walkabout. Guess what? The documents went back to the libraries, and the thieves went to jail. Library stamp was enough.

David, your writings make me think you are sympathetic to Nash's issues. Forget what he is targeting and going after for a minute. What are your thoughts on him?

Fine, when it's a clear cut case in a reasonable amount of time.


But by your logic, a library can sell something in a sidewalk sale in 1960, realize it's worth a fortune in 2013, and reclaim that item back into their holdings, based on a stamp that it once belonged to them.

In the expensive fine art world, they say keep your sales receipt because it turns out to be stolen, you legally get your money back from the seller. As an item may have been stolen a long time earlier, the seller may in turn get his money back from the person he bought it from. And so on down the line. Stolen items has long been an issue in the art world, and many buyers will expect you to demonstrate the provenance and legal ownership of a Picasso.

If an item was stolen, you can't legally buy or sell it. You may have paid $5,000, but you don't legally own it. This is why, as a buyer, you should be confident the item you are buying wasn't stolen. Stolen items do exist in the baseball hobby market.

I have no knowledge of the NYPL and its practices and if David says they've never gotten rid of stuff I have no reason to doubt him, but other libraries, schools and even museums do sometimes get rid of extra stuff. Museums have sales, often to get rid of extra stuff or because they're changing the museum's focus.

+1

And said material is always clearly marked as such precisely for the reasons cited above.

One thing is the legal owner has to object for there to be a legal objection. Practically speaking. If your hometown library doesn't care anymore that you didn't return a worn Danielle Steele paperback forty years ago, then the library doesn't care.

Now, on the other hand, if it was a Picasso oil painting instead of a worn Danielle Steele paperback, they likely will care.

You keep on insisting this, but no it's not...........and 30-40-50 years ago, I doubt it was either.

This seems to be the crux of the issue at hand. The items being dicussed on Nash's website are closer to the Picasso than the Steele novel (certainly in the eyes of the members of this board), yet for some reason the museums in question do not seem all that interested in creating legal objections in all cases.

I agree the Danielle Steele paperback was an extreme example. I didn't even say hardback.

That's why I went back added the Picasso example.

But my point was if the legal owner doesn't object, then the legal owner doesn't object. Nothing an uninvolved third party can do about that. You or I can't sue on the NYPL's behalf.

Yeah. I keep on insisting upon it.

Because it's true.

I bought a framed print at a garage sale that had our local library's markings on the back along with a pouch and a card that was last stamped in 1961...believe it or not you could at one time check out artwork from the library. I was curious about this item and if it still belonged to the library so I called them and they said they haven't checked out artwork for years. There was absolutely nothing stamped on this item showing it was deaccessioned.

So? The last guy to take it out never returned it.

You could be right...I don't think it's even a point worth arguing. Clearly there are items missing from both the HOF and the NYPL that were stolen. I don't believe any of those baseball papers or photos were ever deaccessioned. I do however believe both of those institutions are not following up on it because they don't value it enough to go after it. They get stuff for free, they aren't going to pay lawyers to get it back. If the FBI gets it back for them they'll probably take it, but I doubt they spend 1/100th the time that we do thinking about the lost items.

You're absolutely right, there, Dan!

Dan, that's particularly true when the item is valuable - I know of a specific example where the item has library stamps, but nothing to indicate that it was ever deaccessioned. The library sold the items to a collector after acquiring a duplicate in better condition, the buyer then re-sold them. The original legal sale by the library definitely occurred. Out of curiosity, I traced it's history and verified all owners, including the library.

I am of the opinion that the hof and nypl value 20k to 50k autographs enough to want them back. i also believe they dont want the publicity that goes along with admitting that these items slipped through their fingers, especially since new donors would want to be assured that their donated items actually stay in the museum or library.

So that is the reason why they dont go after them in my opinion. There is a price to pay in the form of bad publicity that they dont want to pay. Otherwise it wouldn't cost them anything to just admit they aren't interested in getting the items back, but they don't admit that. You can't get a statement out of them and that is per their damage control plan of defense.

And what Podunk library did that? Wasn't the NYPL, by any chance, was it? No, I thought not.

Bad publicity is probably a part of it, but these thefts happened a long time ago and it would be easy for them to say the procedures for looking at this stuff have changed and what happened then can never happen again. It wouldn't be too hard to reassure a potential donor that his items are safer than Burdick's were 20+ years ago...or that the Spalding collection is untouchable, "here are the scans you asked for."

I truly believe it's much more of a money, lawyer, hassle issue for items they do not value the same way we do. They don't have to pay a dime for the FBI to do their job and if they get them back, they'll take them, but they obviously aren't going to use any of their own resources to do it.

Gee, it really does sound like a novel. Someone should write it an expose on the librarys and the HOF.:eek:

Along the lines of what Travis said, I've heard where art galleries don't like to let it to become public that something was stolen, because it might make other hesitant to consign.

Personally, I believe Leon did a good job by posting this. With over 4400+ views, it has brought a lot of attention to Mr. Nash and his website, and thus, a lot more people reading it.

And hopefully it will expose him as one of, if not the, biggest fraudsters in the history of our hobby. Him going after bad things is great but he should probably be doing it from a jail cell. In my opinion he is much worse than anything he has exposed. I think some of the people holding fraudulent 19th century memorabilia, which allegedly has no provenance before him, would agree. And for your reading pleasure another case below...I wish I had another episode, the audio court proceedings of Nash getting severely reprimanded by a judge. One of the most unusual things I have heard and quite entertaining. It made these court documents look tame.

http://luckeycards.com/lifson1.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/lifson2.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/lifson3.jpg

Leon, did they ever arrest him?:confused:

Not that I am aware of. It is/was a civil offense and I believe is very low on a priority level for law enforcement. I was told that about the only way this order would have been invoked is if he got caught, in that jurisdiction, for something else. But I am not an expert so don't know for sure. Also, in Nash's defense, I do believe that most, if not all, of that judgement has been paid back. But I know there are some lingering issues that really suck. Maybe if some of the people that are so cozy with him were holding 6 figures of fraudulent material, that allegedly came from him, they might feel a little differently. But then too, since its not them, maybe they just don't care. But because the person holding the bad goods is a good hobby friend of mine, I do care.

Leon, please post all cease and desist orders that have been sent to you over the years. Do you consider all of them fair? You probably don't consider any of them fair. They are free to send, don't cost anything and prove nothing. Posting a cease and desist letter as proof of anything is pretty lame as you and many website owners get these from time to time. I don't care if you post it but it's not an indictment of anything as hundreds of website owners including you would have to be considered guilty and we all know these letters are as common as toilet paper, and are always printed and sent first before anything else because of the non-cost involved, hoping the website will copitulate.

Travis, the cease and desist letter is not an indictment of anything, you're right. That's what the judgment for fraud in the amount of $760,227.08 and the included warrant for arrest are for, those are the indictments against Mr. Nash.

You can't ignore the facts simply because they don't fit your narrative.

_____________
Mark Fox

+1..Travis ignores anything that doesn't support his argument or beliefs.

then why include the cease and desist letter when the poster of such letter has had many of them sent to himself in care of this very website?

Do you have any comment about the fact that Mr. Nash has committed $760,000 worth of fraud?

Ken

Ken, now that's just a silly question! 145 posts into this thread and Travis has yet to acknowledge or comment on the fraud charges that Mr. Nash himself claimed guilt to... why would Travis start now?

______________
Mark Fox

Travis- I have received a lot of cease and desist letters. Your are correct, it goes with running a forum. Forget about the Cease and Desist I posted. How about the other two actions signed by judges? And since posting those I have learned that Nash STILL OWES Frazier close to $400,000. Yes, that is hundreds of thousands. Also, I found out he owes Lifson at least $100,000 but probably more. How can you buddy up with this guy and defend him when he is such a fraudster. And btw, my guess is that this thread gets more interesting soon. So please respond about those two actions Travis, there will probably be more coming.... Stay tuned....

Because this isn't your normal cookie-cutter cease and desist letter, that's pretty obvious. This one includes specifics regarding the fraud that Mr. Nash was found guilty of and the details in part of Mr. Nash's inability, or more appropriately, his reluctance to cooperate in the efforts to satisfy the judgement against related to the fraud, almost a year after the included warrant for arrest was issued.

___________
Mark Fox

the cease and desist letter doesn't include specifics like that, read it. its just a ploy to misdirect. leon is still compiling his cease and desist letter to post and i am sure we will see them all here soon.

when people dont like what is presented on haulsofshame because it includes their buddies is embarrassing, they always try to go after the messenger.

Travis

I can only comment on my own experience with the NYPL. When I saw an item years back on ebay with a "NYPL" stamp, I was concerned that it was unlawfully removed from the NYPL. I contacted counsel at the NYPL. He replied to me and indicated that the NYPL had reviewed its records and that the item had been indeed deaccessioned by the library, but somehow the proper stampings had not been entered in the book. As such, that particular item was not stolen from the NYPL.

He also added that if I came across other items where provenance was questioned, I could contact them again. I did not get the impression that things were "swept under the rug". It was quite the contrary and that he was indeed interested in being advised of items that had been taken unlawfully from the library.

Max

thank you for relaying your experience. it's always good to hear all sides.

........but, but, but........David said that never happens. All libraries clearly place deaccession stamps on all items that lawfully leave their possession.

:confused:

Travis, you must have missed my direct question to you, please respond.

Ken

PS: And just in case you think I'm asking this because I'm defending my friends, of all the people Nash has ever talked about on his site, the person I've communicated with the most -- the closest thing I have to a 'friend' from his posts -- is you.

This quote made me laugh out loud. You mean "It's good to hear all sides, unless it's one of my friends. Then you have an agenda and you're all going down." Right?

I don't defend PSA; PSA defends against me.

Not on your say-so.

Ken has he been charged and convicted of fruad?

Shelly, do you feel he should get a free pass??

Uh, Shelly, actually I believe he admitted to fraud....but I am sure these are all a big, big misunderstanding...

http://luckeycards.com/actions1.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions2.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions3.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions4.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions5.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions6.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions7.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions8.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions9.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions10.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions11.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions12.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions13.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions14.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions15.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/actions16.jpg

If he is guilty of a crime no. Untill that time he is just someone one you dont like and never will. I think there is always two sides to a story. I know Rob reads this site. I would like to hear from him.

Everything said so far, against Nash, would pale in comparison to what Rob thinks, trust me.

i am with this statement. i remember reading pete's side. Just because people dont like someone, doesnt mean they have a monopoly on the facts.

i looked back at haulsofshame posts, and found this.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=7968