Quote:
Originally Posted by Potomac Yank
As a collector, I refuse to play the Ostrich game...
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
Perhaps some might be stolen items, perhaps not...
Mention in this thread too has been made of the Halper sale...don't you think those institutions [NYPL] had some affirmative obligation to check the auction catalog to see if it contained any stolen items?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate
As far as pieces I have sold in the past...I will admit I do not know the provenance of any of them.
|
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.