Bill Mastro's upcoming sentencing

[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...

[Brian Van Horn]

Just a thought about sentencing:

[glchen]

A lot of people are really beating up on Leon in this thread. I think from his history on the board, and his past actions, he really deserves the benefit of the doubt here. Give him time to sort through this. I know a few years ago, I purchased a raw Butterfinger Babe Ruth ad card from a reputable consignor on ebay. I thought the item was authentic, so I didn't even bother sending it in for authentication for over a year. Finally, I decided to send the card into Beckett, more for protection than to check if it were authentic, and I was very surprised when it came back as counterfeit. The consignor and I agreed to have Leon mediate this, and Leon was very generous with his time in working with the Beckett folks to take another look at the card. The card was still determined to be fake, and Leon agreed with the assessment since he had owned a genuine one of these in the past. Leon had no obligation whatsoever to get involved in this matter, yet he did, and helped me a lot in this matter. (I was also very satisfied with the refund that I received from the consignor after I returned this card also.) The point is that Leon really does a lot for a lot of collectors in the hobby without asking anything to be publicized or anything. I really think he's deserves and has earned the time to let this matter run the course before people pass their judgment here.

[calvindog]

How does a card with an NYPL stamp which means it's clearly owned by the NYPL "leave the library under normal conditions?" What are such "normal conditions"? Like it grew legs and walked out?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

How does a card with an NYPL stamp which means it's clearly owned by the NYPL "leave the library under normal conditions?" What are such "normal conditions"? Like it grew legs and walked out?

Like it was possibly sold to use the money for other reasons. Now about all of those card doctors you represent. Why don't we talk about them for awhile?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

Like it was possibly sold to use the money for other reasons. Now about all of those card doctors you represent. Why don't we talk about them for awhile?

Before we change the subject, just answer me this:

If the NYPL does not have record of the sale, would you return the card?

And if there's other circumstances I'm not considering by all means bring them up.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Like it was possibly sold to use the money for other reasons. Now about all of those card doctors you represent. Why don't we talk about them for awhile?

You mean my representation of people in accordance with the Constitution and federal laws? You know I don't conspire with clients to commit fraud in the hobby. And you also know I'm not going to breach a privilege to discuss what my clients say to me.

So let me get this straight:

Dewolf is a "vile pri*k"
Wonka is an "idiot"
I'm a "bold-faced [sic] liar."

What does that make you? Why don't you just acknowledge legitimate criticism instead of attacking everyone who dares to speak the obvious? No one has it out for you here. There's no "crusade" against you. Why such increasingly irrational responses?

[Leon]

You sound like a broken record. Like a little kid "what does that make you".....really? Why do you defend card doctors when you are allegedly leading the charge against them? Uh, I think that would make you a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by calvindog

You mean my representation of people in accordance with the Constitution and federal laws? You know I don't conspire with clients to commit fraud in the hobby. And you also know I'm not going to breach a privilege to discuss what my clients say to me.

So let me get this straight:

DeWolf is a "vile pri*k"
Wonka is an "idiot"
I'm a "bold-faced [sic] liar."

What does that make you?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by calvindog

How does a card with an NYPL stamp which means it's clearly owned by the NYPL "leave the library under normal conditions?" What are such "normal conditions"? Like it grew legs and walked out?

It's unlikely, but like Leon mentioned sometimes libraries will sell items when they need the money. But there would be a record of that sale, and unless the NYPL has one, I think there's no doubt the card is stolen...

[Econteachert205]

I worked at a museumthat had items "donated" all the time. More like trash drop off, old magazines, farm equipment etc. when I worked there one of the jobs was to de accession items. We had an antiquated cataloging system ( this was 2004) and not all items were catalogued. We had volunteers who would put things into storage without properly cataloging.

I'm sure that now the nypl has their act together, being a larger institution than the one I worked at, however in the past, I'm sure the same problems as I described with books occurred. Here are a few thoughts on the item in question.

1. I feel it is unlikely that even if there were multiple cards in the nypl collection one would be deaccessioned or sold without clear recording, even 30 years ago.

2. It seems likely that the stamp is from a library collection, and if it was sold legally, it seems unlikely the new owner would chance damaging the card to remove the stamp.

3. I trust Leon that he bought it after whatever happened. He is the one who stands to lose large here. If he suspected the card was taken from a library collection he would have sold it privately, not put it with scans on a major auction house where this super rare card, one of a handful, could be scrutinized in such a way.

4. The FBI and Nypl will be made aware, Leon stands to lose a lot on the card and this whole ordeal will likely be no fun whatsoever. If it were my card I'd be sick. He's been straight forward about addressing the concerns here.

[wonkaticket]

You can call it beating up on him, a witch hunt or an inquisition. I call it being disappointed. The facts are Leon has/had a card that he knew full well had potential issues. He was made aware of these issues long ago by qualified people with nothing to gain. He's a person of standing in our hobby and someone who touts their honesty, integrity and dedication to this hobby. A person that demands people to stand behind their comments.

Regardless of the laws regarding ownership, legal issues, innocence or guilt. I find it disappointing and hard to believe. That almost a year after these issues were brought to his attention he never noticed or looked for a stamp connecting this card to the NYPL.

I'm sorry but if the Federal Bureau of Investigation takes an item from my collection for review as potentially stolen. From that day forward that would be the focus of my collecting world to clear the misunderstanding and resolve any questions around my item long before it ever hit an auction block. To say after it's at auction "oh yeah now that you mention it I do see the mark, wish I had seen that before" seems dishonest at the worst end of the spectrum and extremely naive at the other end.

But I'm an idiot for seeing it this way that's been clearly pointed out, so this idiot will let this auction pass him by.

[trobba]

If the card was sold legally, why would someone go through the trouble/effort/risk to remove the seal from the card?

I don't really get it, the close up scan shows enough indisputable proof that the word "library" was there as well as other marks to remove any doubt from my (completely unbiased) mind that it was the NYPL mark.

I think Heritage's caveat of "a collector stamp or the mark of some retailer" is pretty lame and touches, if not crosses, the border of stretching the truth.

I don't collect these and knew nothing of all this until I read this post, but it sure seems to me the card has major provenance issues and until the truth is completely resolved have trouble seeing it up for public auction. Why not pull it and do all the research? If it proves clean it will only increase the value when up again, instead of having a shroud of guilt lingering that will only taint the whole sitchie...

Seems like there are enough questions to slow everything down and get it right.

Rob G

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by 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...

No you're right, it's absolutely possible. But the fact that the mark was erased and that the card has a 25 year provenance that doesn't mention the NYPL makes it less of an assumption. But obviously I get your point, and you don't want to assume anything when it comes to a card of this magnitude. But unless the NYPL says they released that card, I think it's no longer an assumption at that point.

Pardon my ignorance, I don't know who JC is or what his copy looks like (I'm not too entrenched in hobby circles). Are you saying JC's card could be the missing one? We know yours has the NY stamp, is there evidence of a stamp on the reverse of his? Otherwise it seems like it takes more assumptions to assume his is the stolen card and not yours. Please correct me if I'm not getting your point about how the other card plays into this.

Also my point was more about the conditions you were putting on the card's return (eg "if it's proven", "if they ask for it"). If the NYPL doesn't have records of it ever being returned to the public, I'd like to know that you would return it on the basis that it was the right thing to do and not because you got a formal request.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by 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...

So I guess, even with this said, and assuming you have the one that was not stolen (yet obviously still belonged to the NYPL), that it was stamped, then altered to try and remove said stamp, and should be in an SGC A holder and not graded a 50, right? I'm just trying to sort out the various rotten smells in Denmark.