Wright Letters

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I believe Leon was being sarcastic.

I know Barry...

[barrysloate]

Got it.

[baseballart]

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

[Freddie Maguire]

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?

[Rich Klein]

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

[Freddie Maguire]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

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?

[1lovediane]

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?

[Freddie Maguire]

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

[1lovediane]

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?

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by baseballart

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

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.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

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.

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

[benjulmag]

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?