Joe Pepitone Bat

[drcy]

Need a lot more evidence.

We don't know the veracity of Pepitone's tale, or what exactly are his rights and ownership or his evidence. On the other hand, perhaps it's longstanding practice of museums and auctions houses to deal in stuff that wasn't originally obtained on the up-and-up.

Big museums are very thorough and paper-work heavy about things they receive-- from who, ownership, rights, where it came from, expressed conditions, etc.

Not enough info to form an opinion.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by drcy

Need a lot more evidence.

We don't know the veracity of Pepitone's tale, or what exactly are his rights and ownership or his evidence.

It's a P104 model which almost certainly is not a team ordered index bat. So I'm almost certain it's a bat ordered by Pepitone, to his personal specifications.

I think that, from a legal standpoint, it will come down to whether a bat Pepitone ordered from H&B, that the team probably paid for, belonged (belongs) to Joe or the Yankees.

As a GU collector, it brings up an interesting question. There are stories about valuable artwork that was stolen during the last World War, that has been claimed and returned to the original owners. Could a MLB team make the same type of claims? For example, could they sue to recover one of those million dollar Ruth jerseys, stating the garment belonged to the Yankees and was at some point taken by somebody without the Yankees consent?

I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on the return of stolen property. I doubt any of my GU bats or jerseys were sold by the teams that originally owned them.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by drcy

On the other hand, perhaps it's longstanding practice of museums and auctions houses to deal in stuff that wasn't originally obtained on the up-and-up.

If museums trafficked only in legitimately obtained items, their galleries would have significantly fewer items in them.

[drcy]

In museum studies classes we debate these types of issues, but about ancient artifacts that crossed international lines generations ago. In many cases, it's debatable who is the rightful (however you wish to define rightful) owner, and sometimes the popular ethical view and the law differ.

Common international sentiment is that the British Museum should return the Elgin Marbles (giant Ancient Greek marble figures) to Greece, but according to international law the museum is the fair owner. It's also debated if returning everything to its original country is a good thing, and the British Museum argues that it is a "world museum," an international cultural center not simply a national musuem. If the only place you can see Ancient Greek artifacts is in Greece or Peruvian artifacts in Peru, is that a good thing?

[parkplace33]

Suing 50 years after the fact? Low probability of winning.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by drcy

In museum studies classes we debate these types of issues, but about ancient artifacts that crossed international lines generations ago. In many cases, it's debatable who is the rightful (however you wish to define rightful) owner, and sometimes the popular ethical view and the law differ.

Common international sentiment is that the British Museum should return the Elgin Marbles (giant Ancient Greek marble figures) to Greece, but according to international law the museum is the fair owner. It's also debated if returning everything to its original country is a good thing, and the British Museum argues that it is a "world museum," an international cultural center not simply a national musuem. If the only place you can see Ancient Greek artifacts is in Greece or Peruvian artifacts in Peru, is that a good thing?

Some places also have museums that aren't safe for the artifacts (Brazil...)

One of the archaeology shows about Egypt showed Hawas very happy about getting back a bunch of hawks in jars from somewhere.. The intern asked why they needed a few hundred more when they already had 5000+ !
Why? Because they're ours, and they belong here!
Ok, so you'll return the stuff the Egyptians looted from Babylon?

Boy did he get mad!

[Yoda]

Didn't Ted Williams in the Spring order a dozen or so custom-made, personalized bats to start the season. Wonder if the Red Sox paid for them.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by drcy

In museum studies classes we debate these types of issues, but about ancient artifacts that crossed international lines generations ago. In many cases, it's debatable who is the rightful (however you wish to define rightful) owner, and sometimes the popular ethical view and the law differ.

Yeah, this makes me think of the whole mummy craze in the past and even the current fascination to some degree. At one point in time or another people were buying mummies for "medicinal" purposes, to make "mummy brown" paint, to unwrap at parties as a spectacle, etc. You could order a mummy through a newspaper ad and have one show up at your front door. Considering they were once actual living human beings that raises all sorts of issues. Hopefully many of us that choose to be buried don't get desecrated in such ways in thousands of years.

Anyhow, back to baseball. There are all sorts of questionable items out there in the memorabilia world in regards to ownership. It's my opinion that historically significant baseball items belong in the hands of a museum for all to enjoy. I get the legal aspect of ownership and obviously agree with that. So yeah, if you own something you are free to do with it what you wish, well to some degree. Luckily many items over the years have been graciously donated. I guess it circles back to ethical or legal views and both can be right.