Another fine piece about stolen baseball memorabilia from the Prime Minister

[oldjudge]

I heard a story years ago that a hobby expert presented him with evidence that a piece he had was stolen. According to this expert, his response was that everything has to come from somewhere. Personally, I hope he didn't know.

[mark evans]

I think Leon is right on the law, at least as a general proposition.

Hope to see all in Baltimore.

Mark

[judsonhamlin]

Got my latest SABRGraph email and Haul of Shame has another article confirming that the Cartwright letter Halper owned, and that was sold by Sotheby's in '99 with the "Archives of Hawaii" stamp was, in fact, stolen from the Archives. Not looking any better for Halper's legacy...

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

Got my latest SABRGraph email and Haul of Shame has another article confirming that the Cartwright letter Halper owned, and that was sold by Sotheby's in '99 with the "Archives of Hawaii" stamp was, in fact, stolen from the Archives. Not looking any better for Halper's legacy...

Sometimes not everything is as it may appear to be. In regard to this letter, my understanding of its provenance is that Josh Evans of Lelands acquired it directly from Anne Cartwright (widow of Cartwright's grandson) about twenty years ago. So very possibly it had been de-accessioned from the Hawaiin Archives and the tearing of the file number from the top was a crude way to evidence that. If in fact it was stolen, it seems extraordinarily brazen that it would be publicly sold three times with the Hawaiin Archives stamp so prominently displayed.

In my experience, when items are legitimately de-accessioned from institutions, not always is it apparent that that in fact took place. I have in my collection a book from 1874 entitled Record of the Boston Baseball Club that had been de-accessioned by the New York Public Library. It still bears the library stamp. I made my acquistion of the item contingent on the seller (a recognized and respected rare book dealer) using his best efforts (which ultimately proved successful) to get a letter from the NYPL acknowledging that they did in fact de-accession that item.

In the instance of the Cartwright letter, if in fact it was acquired directly from Anne Cartwright, I would think it quite possible that she legitimately reacquired it from the Archives. She was known to have serious financial problems and it would seem logical she would explore every legitmate way to acquire items of value that she could sell.

[slidekellyslide]

It seems to me that many stolen items are brazenly sold and displayed in the open.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

It seems to me that many stolen items are brazenly sold and displayed in the open.

Perhaps true. But in this instance it was done by three very sophisticated auctions houses, the first of which purportedly was involved in the acquisition of the item.

Again, though, I'm not saying that the item wasn't stolen. I'm saying that from the information I have, there is a real possibility that it has been legitimately transacted.

[judsonhamlin]

I have (and have seen) books from University and other Public Libraries - they have stamps marking them as "de-acquisitioned" or equivalent. The trimming of the documents to hide their provenance seems to me to be an attempt to hide their true origin. If it was legitimately removed from the collection, I would think that it would be better to have the intact document with a letter from Cartwright's family to explain the history.