Wright Letters
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/sp...tml?ref=sports

Would write more but it's late...

David Hunt is doing the right thing (I won't say Wright thing) until more of an investigation is completed.

HMMMMMM; Very Interesting
 

I'm curious as the outcome of all this.

Rich

wow
 

Who would have ever thought something was stolen from the NY Public Library's Spalding collection? I can't imagine...

We discussed about the NYPL stolen material a couple of years ago... and it wasn't pretty if you know what I mean.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=nypl&page=2

I believe Leon was being sarcastic.

I know Barry... :cool:

Got it.

From one of the old NYPL threads, I do recall that the NYPL actually did de-commission some material, which was very surprising, but appeared to have good records as to what was de-accessioned and what was not.

Max

I can't find it anywhere, but I thought I remembered Hunt Auctions selling off Harry Wright's stolen will around 1998. Anyone remember that or have anything on that?

I know there was a whole scandal with stolen Hall of Famer wills. How ironic would it be if Hunt sold the very will that proved the rightful ownership of the letters being sold now?

Iirc
 

The stolen wills were part of material linked back to a card dealer who was a prominent advertiser from New York in the late 1980's and early 1990's who is no longer in the business.

I could not find any google links about this but I thought I remembered this whole story either in SCD or in Trade Fax (perhaps Bob L can help)

Regards
Rich

That does sound familiar. Did the wills ever get returned to the proper courthouse?

Wright letters
 

Did all of you experienced hobbyists know that the Jim Devlin letter to Harry Wright, pulled from the Hunt auction happens to be lot # 209 in the 1999 Sotheby's auction of the late Barry Halper collection? As the Ole Professor, Casey Stengel was fond of saying: "You can look it up," assuming, of course, that anybody is inclined to do any work or research? How can this be? Was the winner of the lot # 209 in the Halper auction the grandfather of the Hunt consignor? I am confident that you will solve this puzzle. By the way, where did Barry Halper obtain the Devlin letter? Was Halper related to Harry Wright? Albert Spalding? Henry Chadwick? When all of you get a chance, why don't you take a look at the several harry wright items included in the Halper auction? How did Barry get so lucky to have obtained these items?

I might be reading this wrong, but according to the NY Times today, the Halper letter and the Hunt letter might have been different stolen Devlin letters. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/sp....html?emc=eta1

Wright letters
 

So what? How did the halper letter leak out of harry wright's possession? Ditto the Hunt letter? The granddaughter of Harry Wright is asking these questions? I would suggest that the hobby take its collective heads out of the six feet deep sand? We need a comparison of the halper and hunt letters, written from devlin to wright? will anybody cooperate? Also, take a look at the halper items from wright, chadwick, spalding, et al. and take a look at similar items in other catalogue auctions? how come a lot of these artifacts have binder holes? did harry wright use a binder in 1877?

An interesting point .....
 

*
*

That's an interesting point.
When exactly did binders come into play?

The NY Times had a follow-up today
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/sp....html?_r=1&hpw

Regards
Rich

Ugh...
 

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

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

Max, I can't find the link to the thread you're mentioning.

Would love to see the records of what was deaccessioned on my next visit to the library.

What about this lot from REA May auction? It's an 1889 letter from George Stallings to Wright removed from a scrapbook.

Why did no one ever ask about this one being a stolen letter? I wonder if this is the Hunt consignor putting this one in REA a few months earlier to test the waters? Or maybe it was found in another grandma's attic.

http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2009/911.html

x

harry wright letters
 

Mr. Maguire: It's great to see that some person is finally connecting the dots! I underestimated some of the hobbyists.

I think some dots have been connected for a long time.

Not an easy topic to discuss in a public forum.

Velcome to Reality Vorld
 

*
*

Jim, what you say is true, some collectors have been aware of some of the Hijinks going on.

However, it's the investors, the flippers, the recluse and the newbies that are beginning to notice the tip of the iceberg.

As Count Dracula would say ... Velcome to Reality Vorld.

Update...letters removed:

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...m-auction.html

I guess the FBI asked David Hunt to reconsider his position. Is water-boarding still legal?

*
*

No! ... (5) Five (5) Deferments Cheney is no longer President. :)

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.

Mr. Maguire
 

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.

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.

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.

I agree with what Corey and Barry said.

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...

Wright Letters
 

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

To play the Ostrich game, or not to .....
 

As a collector, I refuse to play the Ostrich game.

If there is a slight of hand in my hobby, I want to know about it.
If it affects me directly, I'm going to do something about it, and inform my hobby about it, like I did in 1990.
Most of them decided to play the Ostrich game, and it eventually cost some of them.

We just might be in the process of seeing the tip of the iceberg.
As a collector, this investigation is overdue, and does not demoralize my feelings for the hobby.
If there's lice involved ... Get rid of it.
To not talk about it in a chatroom,or anywhere else ... is naive.

As a collector, that's where I stand.
I don't think investors come from the same area?

I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see what else develops.

sharing sentiments
 

I am with Joe P on this one. If there are issues in the hobby then they should be brought to light and taken care of so no one else gets harmed. So on one hand I sort of don't like the negativity, but on the other more important hand, I think it's a good thing. It's sort of like going to the Dentist. We rarely want to but when it's over we feel better for doing it AND it's something that NEEDS to be done. I can't think of a better place to talk about it either, than Net54baseball.com. I will admit I do have a bias towards the positive aspects of the hobby much more than the negative....but then again, I am a collector first and foremost...with some dabbling on the business side too (obviously)....I look forward to seeing everyone at the National that can make it..regards

Jimmy

I'm not sure I can find the thread from the old net54. I do recall I corresponded with the NYPL's in-house counsel on the item, and he advised me that the particular item had been de-accessioned. If you want his contact information, pm or email me, as he was quite helpful in his communications.

Max

Frank
 

Not sure I agree entirely with what you said -- that its not as black and white as you make it seem. If in fact an institution knows or reasonably should know its stolen items are about to be auctioned and take no steps to reclaim them or put good faith buyers on notice of their claim, then I believe there is serious legal question whether the good faith purchaser cannot successfully defend against an action initiated years later to reclaim the item. As I understand the law, if you are slow or lax to assert your rights and know or reasonably should know your inaction will be to the detriment of good faith third parties, then you will be deemed to have waived those rights. In fact, in the art world, in regard to items stolen by the Third Reich, isn't some of this codified into law? Aren't individuals/heirs who reasonably should have taken actions to assert their claims (e.g., listing the stolen artwork with an international registry) prevented from years later belatedly doing so at the expense of good faith purchasers?

God bless you Joe. That's all I'm saying. As collectors we are obliged to deal responsibly. Furthermore, the public libraries are owned by all citizens and as such should be defended by all citizens.

Corey, with all due respect, we are the library. Every citizen has an obligation to defend public property to a reasonable extent. Moreso, collectors such as those here are the experts of the field, greater than library employees and are morally bound to represent the interests of the institution. All of the blame can not be placed on the sellers of the items; buyers are guilty as well. For example, if Mr. Sloate in good faith passed on an item to you that was obtained illegally by a third party and you recognized it as stolen, it would be your responsibility to inform Mr. Sloate and so on. These of course are my opinions.

It sounds like in the above quote that you are admitting you are in the possession of stolen NYPL property? And your defense is one of obstinance.

You mentioned the Copeland and Sothebys sales: You admitted that there were loads of questions as to whether there were stolen NYPL items in those auctions. The burden is on the buyer as well to do his due diligence when he is aware there could be a problem.

When you bought the Forest City CDV in Copeland did you call the library before to confirm that they were missing a Forest City CDV? A list was readily available. Lew Lipset printed in the Old Judge of fall 1991 that "one rumor reported to us from a reliable source with first hand information is that Rob Lifson sold Copeland $1,000,000 worth of material, mostly 19th century, just a short time before he (Copeland) decided to sell."

That might sound like quite a bit of information to follow, but the collectors on this board are the leading experts in this field-the writers of the news letters and catalogs-there is no excuse for ignorance other than greed.



I don't mean to be impertinent, but this might be the most ludicrous thing I've ever read. Of course you write checks to consignors. Do you leave the name and address blank and hope they arrive in the proper hands? You must know exactly whence your material comes.

How could you possibly go on as a dealer after admitting on this board that you have no idea of the provenance of items you sold?

Do you know who consigned the Knickerbocker Challenge letters to you? Either that consignor stole them from the NYPL or the person that consignor purchased it from stole them, and so on and so on. Too, the person who bought them from you has a right to know their provenance. I would.

You should be cooperating fully with an investigation that only leads to improving our field and your good name. Ultimately, the honest traders will prosper most.

The person who consigned the Knickerbocker letter is now deceased. I can not go back to him any more.

Freddie
 

To respond, I did do my due diligence. I scrupulously examined the cdv to see if it had any identifying marks to indicate it was stolen property. On top of that, I was explicitly told the NYPL was notified of the Copeland sale and told some of the items in it matched missing items that were on the original Spalding inventory list. Yet I was told the NYPL took no action to assert claim to anything and the auction went on. I do not know anything I purchased was stolen. The Forest Citys cdv you refer to is an albumen photographic item that is not unique. In fact years later I sold it when ANOTHER one in better condition surfaced.

In another instance when I had an opportunity to purchase a rare item, not only did I check the original Spalding inventory (it was not on it), but I spent half a day at the NYPL looking at microfilm of similar items in the event the item was inadvertently not listed or listed incorrectly.

I'm not downplaying the importance of stolen items being returned to their rightful institutions. Nor do I believe that individuals who put their heads in the sand and intentionaly overlook telltale signs an item might be stolen should not be forced to relinquish owneship. But I do feel institutions have affirmative obligations too, and I believe those obligations are not just ethical but also legal -- to take reasonable actions to timely assert claims of ownership when reasonably put on notice items are about to be auctioned, and to publicize lists of stolen items.

harry wright letters
 

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.

Corey, I don't mind you disagreeing.

If something is stolen from your home, the something is still yours. And there's no time limitation that changes that. Such a law or concept would be a step toward condoning or facilitating crime. This isn't some civil easement problem where you slumber on your rights and eventually lose them. When the crime of theft occurs that doesn't affect rightful title to the something. It merely affects possession.

If whoever eventually buys it traces back their alleged title, they'll eventually get back to a thief. And no way, not ever, will the thief be able to convey rightful title to something, no matter how much time passes (unless they subsequently buy title from the rightful owner).

So disagree, but a rightful owner remains a rightful owner; notwithstanding a thief selling something to a good guy years later.

I can't believe .....
 

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.

Frank
 

On this one we'll agree to disagree. I'm talking here of the narrow instance where the rightful owner learns of the whereabouts of his property, knows it is about to transact to an unknowing third party purchaser, and takes no actions whatsoever to notify that person the item is stolen, or otherwise assert claim of ownership. I believe that in such an instance rights you once had to reclaim your property can in time through such inaction be lost. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that is my understanding. Yes, of course as a society we don't want to reward crime and want the victims of theft to get their property back. But at the same time we also want good faith third party purchasers to be comfortable transacting business and not be asked years down the road to suffer potentially great financial loss when the loss could have been entirely avoided by the original owner taking reasonable actions.

And, as I mentioned, I believe this concept has been codified into law in regard to stolen WWII artwork.

Joe
 

The issue here isn't blaming an institution for the theft of an item or rewarding the theft. The issue pertains to an institution learning of the whereabouts of a stolen item, yet doing nothing. In example you cite, suppose you were the buyer of that Walter Johnson baseball? When you bought it you had no reason whatsoever to believe it was stolen. And suppose twenty years later, when the auction house that sold it to you is long out of business, you are asked by the HOF to return it and bear the complete loss for the money you spent on it. Won't you be a little aggrieved if you learned that at the time you originally bought the ball the HOF knew of the sale, knew the item was stolen from them, knew you had it for those twenty years AND didn't inform you that the ball was stolen or otherwise take action to assert claim to the ball? I think a lot of people in that situation would be very pissed and question the fairness of any system that does not recognize them as the owner of the ball at that twenty-year point.

It sound like you've done quite a bit of background research on the legalities of this issue. I can appreciate the work you've put in. (Although, a cynic might question your motives.)

But, do you feel it's proper to cite the NAZI theft of art work as precedent? For one, the theft in our case is from a public institution. Additionally, the original owners of the stolen artwork in the cases mentioned above are clearly dead and had little recourse for retribution (In fact it took years for thefts to be acknowledged thus the late claims by descendants). And lastly, I find it in very poor taste. We are talking about baseball cards, after all.

While the stamps or markings are probably the best way for the NYPL to prove ownership of stolen materials, of course, you could check the edges of your Knickerbocker material to see if they match up with the sliced pages that remain in the Knickerbocker Correspondence scrapbooks at the NYPL.

I do appreciate the hard work you appear to have done. And, you obviously have a great understanding of the law.

I think you'll find this interesting: http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I91_0018.htm

It's a legal precedent for the State of New York in a matter similar to this (more similar than NAZI crimes, I hope.)

harry wright letters
 

again, have your lawyer explain whether a thief can pass title to stolen chattels even to a "good faith purchaser." enough whining.

Of course you can buy property that didn't have good title
 

My, this thread has brought some folks out of the woodwork. 1lovediane and Freddie Maguire, we'd love to hear your thoughts on other matters. Do you have a particular interest in the topic, or did it just rile you?

As to creating "good title" out of thin air, it happens all the time, and with official sanction. Police departments all across the country hold sales of unclaimed recovered property. They post announcements in the local paper, and that's considered plenty of notice. If you were the original owner, how far do you think you'd get with a claim years later of, "Hey, that's my bike."

And that lost luggage place in Scottsboro, Alabama sells all kinds of material that can be positively identified, including cell phones with their unique IDs. Where would a claim against a buyer from there get you?

I'm certainly not condoning theft of material, whether it's from a private or public source, but once you're given an opportunity to reclaim your property, and you choose not to (and inaction is a choice), then I'd imagine you're ceding some of your prior rights. (Does that create "abandonment"? Only a lawyer could say for sure, though I'd bet that some of the non-lawyers on here will weigh in. Disclaimer: IANAL)

The police sale is almost exactly analogous to the NYPL situation:

• They had property (assuming that an item in question actually was in their collection)
• It was taken from them
• They were notified of its whereabouts
• They chose not to act
• A buyer purchased it in good faith (Here's the difference--at a police sale, the buyer can assume that at one point the item was stolen property; with the material we're discussing here, the buyer can assume, unless information is provided otherwise, that the material is clean)

You may believe that Corey, or Barry, or someone else here is in the wrong (even though you have no evidence to that effect), but I don't think the law would agree.

My rock at the hornet's nest,

Bill