Wright Letters

[2dueces]

Nice little hobby we have here. Any more good news about the hobby this week? I bet someone will tell me that the THE CARD is trimmed. That would just top of the week.

[FrankWakefield]

Corey, all,

A good faith purchaser can obtain good title from a seller only if the seller has rightful title to the item. If the seller didn't own it, then the seller can't convey good title to it.

If a collector has something that was stolen from the rightful owner, then the collector doesn't own it, the rightful owner still owns it. The resolution for the good faith purchaser collector would be to get their money back from the seller and return the item back to the rightful owner. The seller could then go back to whoever they bought it from, and on and on.

Only way a good faith purchaser gets good title to something that was stolen would be if he buys it a second time from the rightful owner.


I understand Barry's response to Marc. And Marc could consider simultaneously contacting the Library and whoever he bought the contract amendment from, inquiring about whether it belongs to the library. If it does, then Marc gives it to the library and the seller refunds Marc's money. That would be the high road...

[Potomac Yank]

As a collector, I refuse to play the Ostrich game.

If there is a slight of hand in my hobby, I want to know about it.
If it affects me directly, I'm going to do something about it, and inform my hobby about it, like I did in 1990.
Most of them decided to play the Ostrich game, and it eventually cost some of them.

We just might be in the process of seeing the tip of the iceberg.
As a collector, this investigation is overdue, and does not demoralize my feelings for the hobby.
If there's lice involved ... Get rid of it.
To not talk about it in a chatroom,or anywhere else ... is naive.

As a collector, that's where I stand.
I don't think investors come from the same area?

I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see what else develops.

[Freddie Maguire]

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.

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.

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.

[barrysloate]

The person who consigned the Knickerbocker letter is now deceased. I can not go back to him any more.

[benjulmag]

To respond, I did do my due diligence. I scrupulously examined the cdv to see if it had any identifying marks to indicate it was stolen property. On top of that, I was explicitly told the NYPL was notified of the Copeland sale and told some of the items in it matched missing items that were on the original Spalding inventory list. Yet I was told the NYPL took no action to assert claim to anything and the auction went on. I do not know anything I purchased was stolen. The Forest Citys cdv you refer to is an albumen photographic item that is not unique. In fact years later I sold it when ANOTHER one in better condition surfaced.

In another instance when I had an opportunity to purchase a rare item, not only did I check the original Spalding inventory (it was not on it), but I spent half a day at the NYPL looking at microfilm of similar items in the event the item was inadvertently not listed or listed incorrectly.

I'm not downplaying the importance of stolen items being returned to their rightful institutions. Nor do I believe that individuals who put their heads in the sand and intentionaly overlook telltale signs an item might be stolen should not be forced to relinquish owneship. But I do feel institutions have affirmative obligations too, and I believe those obligations are not just ethical but also legal -- to take reasonable actions to timely assert claims of ownership when reasonably put on notice items are about to be auctioned, and to publicize lists of stolen items.

[FrankWakefield]

Corey, I don't mind you disagreeing.

If something is stolen from your home, the something is still yours. And there's no time limitation that changes that. Such a law or concept would be a step toward condoning or facilitating crime. This isn't some civil easement problem where you slumber on your rights and eventually lose them. When the crime of theft occurs that doesn't affect rightful title to the something. It merely affects possession.

If whoever eventually buys it traces back their alleged title, they'll eventually get back to a thief. And no way, not ever, will the thief be able to convey rightful title to something, no matter how much time passes (unless they subsequently buy title from the rightful owner).

So disagree, but a rightful owner remains a rightful owner; notwithstanding a thief selling something to a good guy years later.

[benjulmag]

On this one we'll agree to disagree. I'm talking here of the narrow instance where the rightful owner learns of the whereabouts of his property, knows it is about to transact to an unknowing third party purchaser, and takes no actions whatsoever to notify that person the item is stolen, or otherwise assert claim of ownership. I believe that in such an instance rights you once had to reclaim your property can in time through such inaction be lost. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that is my understanding. Yes, of course as a society we don't want to reward crime and want the victims of theft to get their property back. But at the same time we also want good faith third party purchasers to be comfortable transacting business and not be asked years down the road to suffer potentially great financial loss when the loss could have been entirely avoided by the original owner taking reasonable actions.

And, as I mentioned, I believe this concept has been codified into law in regard to stolen WWII artwork.

[Ladder7]

Freddie, I believe Barry was referring to the _original_ doc owners and not the current consignor... Please show respect. Thanks

FWIW, I entered the NYPL two years ago to peruse some of these old documents and was troubled to hear from the clerk, "Many items have been stolen over the years and no longer available for handling or viewing".

I would have to return when the collection would be displayed months later, and the window was just for a few days.

Im not an executioner, but these greedy pantloads should be strung up by there cajones.

My question, Where in the heck is Bookman when you need him?!

[Leon]

I am with Joe P on this one. If there are issues in the hobby then they should be brought to light and taken care of so no one else gets harmed. So on one hand I sort of don't like the negativity, but on the other more important hand, I think it's a good thing. It's sort of like going to the Dentist. We rarely want to but when it's over we feel better for doing it AND it's something that NEEDS to be done. I can't think of a better place to talk about it either, than Net54baseball.com. I will admit I do have a bias towards the positive aspects of the hobby much more than the negative....but then again, I am a collector first and foremost...with some dabbling on the business side too (obviously)....I look forward to seeing everyone at the National that can make it..regards