REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

His personal attacks notwithstanding, Dan, when Peter says a particular CDV was stolen from the NYPL, or a certain letter was stolen from the BBHOF Library, you can pretty much bet they were.

That is 100% bullcrap. I have seen him waffle back and forth a number of times . He sounds good but doesn't have a clue about a lot of stuff and literally makes it up. Karma .....

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

That is 100% bullcrap. I have seen him waffle back and forth a number of times . He sounds good but doesn't have a clue about a lot of stuff and literally makes it up. Karma .....

You're hardly the disinterested observer, Leon. Show me an instance of his "waffling" on an item.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You're hardly the disinterested observer, Leon. Show me an instance of his "waffling" on an item.

Here is a copied email from a good hobby friend - Nash said mine was in the collection previously (I concede it had an NYPL mark on it....but that is it)....and they have it now so it's mostly water on the bridge...but Nash is wrong on this. According to this story of his there were only 6 in total? Mine is/was #7....



"Here is a link to the article:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=13664

Here is the article that I think is important:

The New York Public Library has two examples of the card pasted into the scrapbooks and score-books ofHenry Chadwick and two other copies that are believed to have been owned by Harry Wright (one of which was already stolen and recovered by the FBI). When the copy owned by Samuels is returned they will have five in total minus one more example still missing. That copy was used in an illustration in Harold Seymour and Dorothy Seymour Mills’ 1960 book Baseball: The Early Years, and is still missing.

Nash makes is sound like all of the examples in the library are accounted for. The one missing card is pictured in Seymour's book. I have a copy of that book and it is definitely not picture of the one that you have."


.

[Runscott]

Deleted this one by accident, but have already discussed with the person involved.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

Here is a copied email from a good hobby friend - Nash said mine was in the collection previously (I concede it had an NYPL mark on it....but that is it)....and they have it now so it's mostly water on the bridge...but Nash is wrong on this. According to this story of his there were only 6 in total? Mine is/was #7....



"Here is a link to the article:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=13664

Here is the article that I think is important:

The New York Public Library has two examples of the card pasted into the scrapbooks and score-books ofHenry Chadwick and two other copies that are believed to have been owned by Harry Wright (one of which was already stolen and recovered by the FBI). When the copy owned by Samuels is returned they will have five in total minus one more example still missing. That copy was used in an illustration in Harold Seymour and Dorothy Seymour Mills’ 1960 book Baseball: The Early Years, and is still missing.

Nash makes is sound like all of the examples in the library are accounted for. The one missing card is pictured in Seymour's book. I have a copy of that book and it is definitely not picture of the one that you have."


.

You are claiming--or your good hobby friend is claiming--that Nash is in error. I don't see an example here of "waffling."

And you concede that "your" card did have an NYPL stamp? When did you realize that it did? If it was before Nash published his findings, you yourself should have contacted the Library. If it was after, you should thank him for righting a wrong.

[Michael B]

Can we take a break while I go to the snack bar for some raisinets? I don't want to miss anything.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You are claiming--or your good hobby friend is claiming--that Nash is in error. I don't see an example here of "waffling."

And you concede that "your" card did have an NYPL stamp? When did you realize that it did? If it was before Nash published his findings, you yourself should have contacted the Library. If it was after, you should thank him for righting a wrong.

Ok, he was wrong. Sorry that is different. So you admit he was wrong on that but otherwise his stuff is well researched and everything else is correct?... Cool.

Yes, Nash started the ball rolling on the mark and Chris B did the final input. I knew there was a mark there the same time the rest of this board did, regardless of what anyone believes. Finding the mark was fine, no issue with that actually. I wish it was found earlier it would have saved me some heartache. The issue is everything else that went with the debacle not the finding of the mark. After my write off I should come out fine on it so my CPA says. I still lost some money but that wasn't the issue. Having people say I knew something when I didn't is what was ridiculous. ....A person could say the sky is up and some knuckleheads would argue it...Such is life..

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

Ok, he was wrong. Sorry that is different. So you admit he was wrong on that but otherwise his stuff is well researched and everything else is correct?...

I don't know whether he was wrong or not. Your friend said he was wrong.

The bottom line is this: You were trying to sell a stolen card--a card to which you did not have good title. Nash informed you of that fact, and that led to the card being returned to its rightful owners--the public library of my home town.

Thank you, Peter.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I don't know whether he was wrong or not. Your friend said he was wrong.

The bottom line is this: You were trying to sell a stolen card--a card to which you did not have good title. Nash informed you of that fact, and that led to the card being returned to its rightful owners--the public library of my home town.

Thank you, Peter.

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.