Bill Mastro's upcoming sentencing

[wonkaticket]

Leon,

I have to side a bit with Jeff on this one. For years you and others have been on here defending Mastro & Allen on a personal level or from the likes of O'Keefe and others who have been critical of these guys.

Each and every time you have kicked the can down the road...if they get caught I'll change my mind, if they get found guilty I'll change my mind then I'll write that letter no excuse for crime etc. Now it's I got a nice gift from Bill unexpected and appreciated, but now you've changed your tune on that and it's I'm it sending back. Hopefully to Bill not to Heritage as an internet only lot (kidding).

Look I get what it may be like to have a friend turn out to be a con man it has to be hard to wrestle with that torn feeling. However all that aside if you do really stand for what you say....then all bets should be off.

Here's what's disappointing to me about your stance. I'm going to be direct with you as most on here won't because they view you as some hobby god, or from fear of getting the boot. You call Jeff a hypocrite but be careful you may be just as guilty of hypocrisy as him.

You preach about ethics and fraud, yet take and publicize a gift from one of the biggest frauds the hobby has ever known. Sort of like blasting evil dictators then grabbing dinner and show with Stalin and posting selfies.

You beat up on folks for pimping their auctions/items but you not so much. You want people's names in their posts so they are on record for their statements. Yet in the Saco River thread after you jumped the gun and said some nasty things you locked and hid the thread.Then there's the whole Peck & Snyder card mess that's traveling the hobby rumor circles of you potentially having a card connected to Mastro that may have been stolen from the NYPL. Are you aware of this? If so I haven't seen you say much about that on here? Seems to me for a guy who is doing 99.9% more than others to clean up the hobby you would want to address or dispel any doubt to your items validity if there's any truth to the rumors. I know I would want the air cleared. My point Leon is these things could also be viewed as hypocrisy not to beat you up.

At the end of the day your choice write a letter or not nobody can make you it's your decision I respect that. But I do have to wonder why someone as outspoken and as passionate about this hobby would choose to be silent on something so important.

Cheers,

John

P.S. Leon if you don't write a letter you should at least have to give back your FBI windbreaker.

[Leon]

John- just like everyone, you have a right to your opinion. There is nothing you have said that I am not aware of. The Peck and Snyder card has been examined and no mark is discernible. Just like it says in the description.

"There is surface marring or erasure on the back in the same upper quadrant. This could be a library stamp, a collector stamp or the mark of some retailer."

It has been examined and whatever was erased can't be made out with any known equipment today. It has been tested. I only know where I got it and have an invoice for it. If you know more please let us know. I know the provenance of it for the last 25 yrs and that is all.

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Leon,

I have to side a bit with Jeff on this one. For years you and others have been on here defending Mastro & Allen on a personal level or from the likes of O'Keefe and others who have been critical of these guys.

Each and every time you have kicked the can down the road...if they get caught I'll change my mind, if they get found guilty I'll change my mind then I'll write that letter no excuse for crime etc. Now it's I got a nice gift from Bill unexpected and appreciated, but now you've changed your tune on that and it's I'm it sending back. Hopefully to Bill not to Heritage as an internet only lot (kidding).

Look I get what it may be like to have a friend turn out to be a con man it has to be hard to wrestle with that torn feeling. However all that aside if you do really stand for what you say....then all bets should be off.

Here's what's disappointing to me about your stance. I'm going to be direct with you as most on here won't because they view you as some hobby god, or from fear of getting the boot. You call Jeff a hypocrite but be careful you may be just as guilty of hypocrisy as him.

You preach about ethics and fraud, yet take and publicize a gift from one of the biggest frauds the hobby has ever known. Sort of like blasting evil dictators then grabbing dinner and show with Stalin and posting selfies.

You beat up on folks for pimping their auctions/items but you not so much. You want people's names in their posts so they are on record for their statements. Yet in the Saco River thread after you jumped the gun and said some nasty things you locked and hid the thread.Then there's the whole Peck & Snyder card mess that's traveling the hobby rumor circles of you potentially having a card connected to Mastro that may have been stolen from the NYPL. Are you aware of this? If so I haven't seen you say much about that on here? Seems to me for a guy who is doing 99.9% more than others to clean up the hobby you would want to address or dispel any doubt to your items validity if there's any truth to the rumors. I know I would want the air cleared. My point Leon is these things could also be viewed as hypocrisy not to beat you up.

At the end of the day your choice write a letter or not nobody can make you it's your decision I respect that. But I do have to wonder why someone as outspoken and as passionate about this hobby would choose to be silent on something so important.

Cheers,

John

P.S. Leon if you don't write a letter you should at least have to give back your FBI windbreaker.

[calvindog]

We're all famous!

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=39278

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by calvindog

We're all famous!

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=39278

Ughhhh....

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

We're all famous!

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=39278

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

That overlay does seem to match up perfectly. If it is really the Libraries card I hope they get it back.

This is the part of the law I do not get. Mastro stole insane amounts of money and might get up to 30 months. Then you have a guy that sells a 1/4 ounce of weed to someone and gets more jail time that the guy that done millions of dollars of damage.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

That overlay does seem to match up perfectly. If it is really the Libraries card I hope they get it back.

This is the part of the law I do not get. Mastro stole insane amounts of money and might get up to 30 months. Then you have a guy that sells a 1/4 ounce of weed to someone and gets more jail time that the guy that done millions of dollars of damage.

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear. I have a call into the Library now. I have spoken with Heritage and we will pull the card if need be, no worries. We never wanted to sell a card without a clean bill of health. Unless you are a fraudulent person, as Peter Nash is, you wouldn't want to do that.

And John, you can spin this any way you want to but there is not one iota of anything I did wrong. I said I couldn't talk about some things. Everything I have heard and seen until today said the card was fine. If you don't believe me that is your call.

And not that I need to answer the question about the letter, doesn't change my view one bit.

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Leon

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear. I have a call into the Library now. I have spoken with Heritage and we will pull the card if need be, no worries. We never wanted to sell a card without a clean bill of health. Unless you are a fraudulent person, as Peter Nash is, you wouldn't want to do that.

And John, you can spin this any way you want to but there is not one iota of anything I did wrong. I said I couldn't talk about some things. Everything I have heard and seen until today said the card was fine. If you don't believe me that is your call.

And not that I need to answer the question about the letter, doesn't change my view one bit.

Changing your opinion based on new information is often the right thing to do.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear.

Honestly Leon, of all the things you said, this is the one that really stands out to me as the most concerning, especially the way you phrased it.

"If they ask for it back...". Only if they ask for it to be returned? I find that an odd caveat to make, unless you are aware of the fact that public libraries in the past have not always been on top of recovering their stolen items, even when they've been proven to be stolen. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through.

"If it's proven it's stolen..." What does that mean exactly? What burden of proof are you putting on this? Are you talking about legal proof? If the FBI tells you it's stolen?

As far as I'm concerned we have all the proof we need that the card was stolen, the only thing we don't have is "proof" from a court of law or government agency. If that's what you're talking about, then I think honestly you're just trying to find excuses not to give up the card. For instance, if I witness someone committing a murder, do i need to wait for a jury to decide if he's guilty before I do? Of course not, I can know something to be true even if legally it isn't acknowledged to be so.

In that spirit, let's look at the evidence. Here are the images that people are saying prove that the NY public library stamp was erased:









Ok so from what I can see the card has a bunch of red ink marks on the back. Oddly enough all the ink marks line up PERFECTLY with the NY public library stamp and match the color of the ink used. Oddly enough there are no red marks outside where the stamp would have made them. Also we know the NY public library has a rich history of items exactly like this one being stolen from its coffers.

The combination of these three facts alone makes the odds that these ink marks got there some other way astronomical, like 1 million to 1. And if someone took the time to erase the stamp and hide its true provenance, then the odds are nearly 100 percent that it's stolen.

So I don't get it Leon. Why not just say, "holy crap, you're right, I'm gonna make it right no matter what. Hell, I'll donate it back if that's what it takes!" Why are you putting so many conditions on the return? IF it's proven, IF they ask for it... You don't need to wait for someone to tell you, you and I know more about cards than any FBI agent or judge and we know that card was stolen regardless of whether it's legally acknowledged.

I don’t see how someone who truly was doing more than 99.9 percent of the hobby to combat fraud would be asking us to wait for another opinion or promising to return it on the condition that the library makes a formal request. Someone who was doing more that 99.9 percent of the hobby would donate it back to the library if that’s what it took to get it back in the right hands.

Right now the only thing that’s 99.9 percent is my certainty that the card was stolen.

EDIT: I'd like to apologize in advance if this comes off as too fiery. Want to add that I'm not saying Leon knew anything about the card or wouldn't take action to make sure it was handled the right way. Just pointing out my concerns about the way the issue is being discussed...

[Leon]

Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

Honestly Leon, of all the things you said, this is the one that really stands out to me as the most concerning, especially the way you phrased it.

"If they ask for it back...". Only if they ask for it to be returned? I find that an odd caveat to make, unless you are aware of the fact that public libraries in the past have not always been on top of recovering their stolen items, even when they've been proven to be stolen. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through.

"If it's proven it's stolen..." What does that mean exactly? What burden of proof are you putting on this? Are you talking about legal proof? If the FBI tells you it's stolen?

As far as I'm concerned we have all the proof we need that the card was stolen, the only thing we don't have is "proof" from a court of law or government agency. If that's what you're talking about, then I think honestly you're just trying to find excuses not to give up the card. For instance, if I witness someone committing a murder, do i need to wait for a jury to decide if he's guilty before I do? Of course not, I can know something to be true even if legally it isn't acknowledged to be so.

In that spirit, let's look at the evidence. Here are the images that people are saying prove that the NY public library stamp was erased:


Ok so from what I can see the card has a bunch of red ink marks on the back. Oddly enough all the ink marks line up PERFECTLY with the NY public library stamp and match the color of the ink used. Oddly enough there are no red marks outside where the stamp would have made them. Also we know the NY public library has a rich history of items exactly like this one being stolen from its coffers.

The combination of these three facts alone makes the odds that these ink marks got there some other way astronomical, like 1 million to 1. And if someone took the time to erase the stamp and hide its true provenance, then the odds are nearly 100 percent that it's stolen.

So I don't get it Leon. Why not just say, "holy crap, you're right, I'm gonna make it right no matter what. Hell, I'll donate it back if that's what it takes!" Why are you putting so many conditions on the return? IF it's proven, IF they ask for it... You don't need to wait for someone to tell you, you and I know more about cards than any FBI agent or judge and we know that card was stolen regardless of whether it's legally acknowledged.

I don’t see how someone who truly was doing more than 99.9 percent of the hobby to combat fraud would be asking us to wait for another opinion or promising to return it on the condition that the library makes a formal request. Someone who was doing more that 99.9 percent of the hobby would donate it back to the library if that’s what it took to get it back in the right hands.

Right now the only thing that’s 99.9 percent is my certainty that the card was stolen.

EDIT: I'd like to apologize in advance if this comes off as too fiery. Want to add that I'm not saying Leon knew anything about the card or wouldn't take action to make sure it was handled the right way. Just pointing out my concerns about the way the issue is being discussed...

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Leon

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear.

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

[autograf]

There you go Joann.......throwing some logic on the fire.......

I'd agree on the thorough vetting of it. On the surface, it sure looks like the NYPL card. What recourse would Leon have with who he bought it from and their consignor? I'd pursue that avenue too.

Hopefully it gets resolved soon.........

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

It's not a question of whether they want it back. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through. Recovering a stolen item back isn't an easy process when you're a government-owned institution, you have a lot of bureaucracy to get through.

Only reason I take issue with it is because in the past libraries have had things stolen from them, and even when it's proven, the libraries haven't had the resources to formally request the return of the item. it's actually really sad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

Wow, it seems like years since you have posted. Welcome back. How is your law practice going?

[JMEnglish27]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

This. Leon's a good guy in my book. I dunno how his integrity can be in doubt. FBI looked at it, told him it was fine, now it turns out it might not be, so he's in wait-and-see mode. What's he supposed to do, take a polygraph in the town square?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

+1 I've said the same thing many times.

[CW]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

This amazes me as well. It's as if Nash thinks by doing all this research and exposing all these other "frauds", it either creates a diversion to the fraud he has committed, OR he thinks it will somehow vindicate him and people will think, "Yeah, that Pete Nash... he's not so bad!"

Yet another bizarre facet to this crazy hobby we all love.

[wonkaticket]

"There is surface marring or erasure on the back in the same upper quadrant. This could be a library stamp, a collector stamp or the mark of some retailer."

Forgive me Leon. Perhaps I'm reading into things but why would Heritage go out of their way to mention "library mark" as the first possible option for the removed blemish on the back of this card? Especially for a card that you say has past the scrutiny of review by whom I assume to be the proper authorities.

I would guess I may have a few cards that would have what an auction company may describe as "unidentifiable blemishes" but I wouldn't expect "library mark" as the first possible speculation. Only reason why I can think of is. If I were aware or the auction company was aware the item in question had potential issues. Otherwise why speculate?

Anyways enough about this card, my posts were more to say lots of things can be viewed as hypocrisy. Also your silence and back and forth support of these guys is troubling and confusing to me. However as said its my opinion and your entitled to do as you see fit. I may question the motives but I can reset your decision.

Cheers,

John

[atx840]

Originally Posted by Leon

It has been examined and whatever was erased can't be made out with any known equipment today.

Let's figure it out.

Definitely erased, oval in shape and I believe the word library.

[Leon]

I have to speak to Heritage for approval but we will get it pulled until we get it all sorted out. And for the record I have never seen anything like that overlay copy before. Had I seen it displayed like that the card wouldn't be in the auction...at least until it was given a clean bill of health. That is why it was in there until now.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have to speak to Heritage for approval but we will get it pulled until we get it all sorted out. And for the record I have never seen anything like that overlay copy before. Had I seen it displayed like that the card wouldn't be in the auction...at least until it was given a clean bill of health. That is why it was in there until now.

Com'on Leon really?

Man I hate this but I almost have to give Nash credit here. You're on Jerry's video talking to Scott about the FBI taking your card for review as possibly being stolen from the NYPL. It's then returned to you and what they said nothing? Just tossed it on your table with no input or feedback.

No that can't be the case because you just said above it passed the review and you know all about the cards 25 year history...now this is all new to you? You never have seen this spot?

Hell not long ago there was noise of a stolen Delahanty photo from the Detroit Public Library. There were no details but having just bought a Delahanty photo from Legendary, within minutes I had done the following. Contacted Doug made him aware asked for the photos history, contacted the Feds to get info and made plans if it was stolen to work with DPL to return. In the end it was all good not my photo mine came from a known collectors collection and wasn't even the photo in question. I even updated folks here for added measure.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=203147

My point in 30 mins I knew all there was to be known about my item having a brief but uncalled for scare from a single newspaper article. You're telling me federal agents ask to see your item and return it and you never gave it a second thought or review. Yet the auction description clearly says this was on somebody's mind. You're either the most laid back "laissez faire" guy in the world. Or this is a bit of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil pass the hot potato.

If you are innocent and did get duped, and this is stolen. I'd make sure my next gift from Bill was a check. I also wonder if that is the case does your view on a letter now change being a possible victim?

Cheers,

John

[conor912]

Not good