How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Except, as I said, as far as has been ascertained the NYPL did not deaccession the said material. Deaccessioned items are clearly labeled as such--and no one in his right mind would destroy such a label.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. Some of these items supposedly went missing decades ago. Librarian has a sale, moves some stuff out. It happens on a pretty regular basis. I'm not sure why the NYPL is any different from every other other library in the country.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Librarian has a sale, moves some stuff out. It happens on a pretty regular basis. I'm not sure why the NYPL is any different from every other other library in the country.

Librarians at the NYPL main branch rare books collection--where the items were--don't have "sales."
And the NYPL is juuust a bit different, being the finest library in the country.

You might believe Nash is a snake--and he very well may be. But the NYPL items were stolen, nonetheless.

[prewarsports]

You are probably right David, but how do we know someone didn't walk into the library in 1955, talk to the man in charge at the time and offer to buy a bunch of the books/letters for $500 bucks and walk out with them? Might be unlikely, but it is not an impossible scenario. Things were different 60 years ago and there was no monetary value placed on this stuff and the rules regarding selling items in their possession were not as strict. The law on this stuff is pretty clear that the person with possession is deemed to be the owner with good title unless a superior claim is put forward. Without concrete evidence of a superior ownership claim (which everyone believes the NYPL and HOF have, but can not prove it) they cant prove anything which is why they have not shown any interest up to now to try and get these things back. The FBI seized many of the Harry Wright letters in 2009 from what I understand on the subject, held them for 3 years and investigates the ownership claim, and then gave them back to the people they seized them from and told them to do as they wished with them because the NYPL had no evidence the items were in fact stolen despite the fact that it seems very likely they were.

I am with you that it is very likely, but saying "They were stolen" is a statement that would never hold up in court, and that is why the institutions will not pursue these items. They would lose in court and spend more moey getting to that decision than the items are probably worth.

Just a lowly Lawyes opinion on the subject without full knowledge of al the facts, just from what I have heard and read, stating only to the LEGAL aspect of these items and not the fact that I too believe they were likely stolen and probably an inside job 60 years ago. NOBODY knows for sure and if they did, we wouldn't be having this debate.

[David Atkatz]

Even if a librarian sold the items, they are still stolen. In that case, stolen by said librarian.
I think there's ample proof of previous ownership. It's refusal to own up to incompetence that prevents the recovery.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Even if a librarian sold the items, they are still stolen. In that case, stolen by said librarian.
I think there's ample proof of previous ownership. It's refusal to own up to incompetence that prevents the recovery.

If the monies went back into the libraries coffers, I don't really think it is..........and it would be impossible after all these years to prove otherwise.

As for the contention, nothing was ever deaccessioned, I think that's something else you can never prove. As much as you like to believe, an actual deaccession (I'm sure I'm spelling it wrong every time I spell it) marking is more rare then not. Most don't bother with it when they sell stuff off.

Yes, it's the NYPL, they hold themselves to a higher standard. I think that's a speculative assertion.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Librarians at the NYPL main branch rare books collection--where the items were--don't have "sales."
And the NYPL is juuust a bit different, being the finest library in the country.

You might believe Nash is a snake--and he very well may be. But the NYPL items were stolen, nonetheless.

David- the bulk of the Spalding Collection at the NYPL is housed in the Department of Photos and Prints, and not part of any rare book collection. Small point, I know.

[David Atkatz]

Thanks for the correction, Barry. But my contention stands--nothing was deaccessioned.

[packs]

If they were stolen 30 years ago I would think the statute of limitations for the NYPL or the HOF to file a claim would have long since passed.

I'd like to see his articles criticizing the NYPL and HOF for failing to maintain their collections and failing to follow up on stolen items. That is the real atrocity.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

If they were stolen 30 years ago I would think the statute of limitations for the NYPL or the HOF to file a claim would have long since passed.

The statuate of limitations having passed means that the thief can't be prosecuted. The items, however, remain stolen property, and are always subject to return.

[packs]

Why do you think they don't try to reclaim the items? I thought I read somewhere that they don't want to admit they lost them.