REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You are claiming--or your good hobby friend is claiming--that Nash is in error. I don't see an example here of "waffling."

And you concede that "your" card did have an NYPL stamp? When did you realize that it did? If it was before Nash published his findings, you yourself should have contacted the Library. If it was after, you should thank him for righting a wrong.

Ok, he was wrong. Sorry that is different. So you admit he was wrong on that but otherwise his stuff is well researched and everything else is correct?... Cool.

Yes, Nash started the ball rolling on the mark and Chris B did the final input. I knew there was a mark there the same time the rest of this board did, regardless of what anyone believes. Finding the mark was fine, no issue with that actually. I wish it was found earlier it would have saved me some heartache. The issue is everything else that went with the debacle not the finding of the mark. After my write off I should come out fine on it so my CPA says. I still lost some money but that wasn't the issue. Having people say I knew something when I didn't is what was ridiculous. ....A person could say the sky is up and some knuckleheads would argue it...Such is life..

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

Ok, he was wrong. Sorry that is different. So you admit he was wrong on that but otherwise his stuff is well researched and everything else is correct?...

I don't know whether he was wrong or not. Your friend said he was wrong.

The bottom line is this: You were trying to sell a stolen card--a card to which you did not have good title. Nash informed you of that fact, and that led to the card being returned to its rightful owners--the public library of my home town.

Thank you, Peter.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I don't know whether he was wrong or not. Your friend said he was wrong.

The bottom line is this: You were trying to sell a stolen card--a card to which you did not have good title. Nash informed you of that fact, and that led to the card being returned to its rightful owners--the public library of my home town.

Thank you, Peter.

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

That's right, Leon. It was never in the NYPL collection. You just decided to donate it to them. And the NYPL stamp was there by... magic? You did not have good title, regardless of what you--or your lawyers--might claim. The stamp proves it was--and remains--library property. When you learned of the stamp is irrelevant in proving title. I must take you at your word that you didn't know it was library property. But that does not change the fact that the card indeed was.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's right, Leon. It was never in the NYPL collection. You just decided to donate it to them. And the NYPL stamp was there by... magic? You did not have good title, regardless of what you--or your lawyers--might claim. The stamp proves it was--and remains--library property.

You can say whatever you want to but it won't make it so and won't change the facts. I am most likely done with this thread. It's really a moot point as what is done is done. I am happy with the way it all turned out in the end. Thanks for your opinion. Have fun with your fraudulent friend....

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

You can say whatever you want to but it won't make it so and won't change the facts. I am most likely done with this thread. It's really a moot point as what is done is done. I am happy with the way it all turned out in the end. Thanks for your opinion. Have fun with your fraudulent friend....

The fact is the card belonged to the NYPL. The evidence--the library stamp--proves that. The lack of other records--assuming there are none--still does not negate the fact that the card was stamped. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Be "done with the thread" all you want. But there isn't a person here who doesn't believe the card is NYPL property.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The fact is the card belonged to the NYPL. The evidence--the library stamp--proves that. The lack of other records--assuming there are none--still does not negate the fact that the card was stamped. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Be "done with the thread" all you want. But there isn't a person here who doesn't believe the card is NYPL property.

I concede it might have been theirs, there is just no proof beyond an almost illegible mark. You can't change those facts either. Maybe you should ask your good friend Pete, who was wrong about it already. You do trust him right? Birds of a feather I guess.... LMAO..

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

it has a nypl stamp on the back and they never had it?

Their letter to you, which you posted, said thank you for RETURNING it to the nypl. you can't return it if it was never there in the first place.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by travrosty

it has a nypl stamp on the back and they never had it?

Their letter to you, which you posted, said thank you for RETURNING it to the nypl. you can't return it if it was never there in the first place.

I made my mind up to get rid of it at that point so didn't contest the letter. Had I not accepted that letter and wanted to keep the card I would still have it....and have it forever or until I sold it if I wanted to, just like the other one that is still out there. I had good title to it until I gave it to them. But with what I do in the hobby I felt I should give it to them to end the controversy.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

I made my mind up to get rid of it at that point so didn't contest the letter. Had I not accepted that letter and wanted to keep the card I would still have it....and have it forever or until I sold it if I wanted to, just like the other one that is still out there. I had good title to it until I gave it to them. But with what I do in the hobby I felt I should give it to them to end the controversy.

If you have clear title like you are stipulating all along, then what's the controversy?

A lot of people choose to 'get rid of' 80,000 dollar cards. i don't believe you could have sold it without possibile liability down the line if the person who bought it from you was ordered to return it to the library. They could have charged back to you claiming you knew it was nypl property being told by a field agent himself according to you on a tape in which every time you uttered the word NYPL, it was in hushed tones. As well as cleverly devising a description at auction which describes it as 'possibly being a library mark' as the first option of what the mark on the back might be.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

I had good title to it until I gave it to them.

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

Your ignorance is mind-boggling. But my spelling isn't very good .

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

Truly amazing,

Doctor David Atkatz now controls the court of law as evidence in his statement "And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there". How would Doctor David Atkatz have any clue what the court of law would decide unless he had insider information or had some sort of control over the judge. Tell us Doctor, how do you know what the court would decide...? I will say Dr. Atkatz, you are good - you are really good.............. Your powers.... wow