[Leon]

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...

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

Honestly Leon, of all the things you said, this is the one that really stands out to me as the most concerning, especially the way you phrased it.

"If they ask for it back...". Only if they ask for it to be returned? I find that an odd caveat to make, unless you are aware of the fact that public libraries in the past have not always been on top of recovering their stolen items, even when they've been proven to be stolen. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through.

"If it's proven it's stolen..." What does that mean exactly? What burden of proof are you putting on this? Are you talking about legal proof? If the FBI tells you it's stolen?

As far as I'm concerned we have all the proof we need that the card was stolen, the only thing we don't have is "proof" from a court of law or government agency. If that's what you're talking about, then I think honestly you're just trying to find excuses not to give up the card. For instance, if I witness someone committing a murder, do i need to wait for a jury to decide if he's guilty before I do? Of course not, I can know something to be true even if legally it isn't acknowledged to be so.

In that spirit, let's look at the evidence. Here are the images that people are saying prove that the NY public library stamp was erased:


Ok so from what I can see the card has a bunch of red ink marks on the back. Oddly enough all the ink marks line up PERFECTLY with the NY public library stamp and match the color of the ink used. Oddly enough there are no red marks outside where the stamp would have made them. Also we know the NY public library has a rich history of items exactly like this one being stolen from its coffers.

The combination of these three facts alone makes the odds that these ink marks got there some other way astronomical, like 1 million to 1. And if someone took the time to erase the stamp and hide its true provenance, then the odds are nearly 100 percent that it's stolen.

So I don't get it Leon. Why not just say, "holy crap, you're right, I'm gonna make it right no matter what. Hell, I'll donate it back if that's what it takes!" Why are you putting so many conditions on the return? IF it's proven, IF they ask for it... You don't need to wait for someone to tell you, you and I know more about cards than any FBI agent or judge and we know that card was stolen regardless of whether it's legally acknowledged.

I don’t see how someone who truly was doing more than 99.9 percent of the hobby to combat fraud would be asking us to wait for another opinion or promising to return it on the condition that the library makes a formal request. Someone who was doing more that 99.9 percent of the hobby would donate it back to the library if that’s what it took to get it back in the right hands.

Right now the only thing that’s 99.9 percent is my certainty that the card was stolen.

EDIT: I'd like to apologize in advance if this comes off as too fiery. Want to add that I'm not saying Leon knew anything about the card or wouldn't take action to make sure it was handled the right way. Just pointing out my concerns about the way the issue is being discussed...