Wright Letters

[1lovediane]

So what? How did the halper letter leak out of harry wright's possession? Ditto the Hunt letter? The granddaughter of Harry Wright is asking these questions? I would suggest that the hobby take its collective heads out of the six feet deep sand? We need a comparison of the halper and hunt letters, written from devlin to wright? will anybody cooperate? Also, take a look at the halper items from wright, chadwick, spalding, et al. and take a look at similar items in other catalogue auctions? how come a lot of these artifacts have binder holes? did harry wright use a binder in 1877?

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by 1lovediane

Also, take a look at the halper items from wright, chadwick, spalding, et al. and take a look at similar items in other catalogue auctions? how come a lot of these artifacts have binder holes? did harry wright use a binder in 1877?

*
*

That's an interesting point.
When exactly did binders come into play?

[Rich Klein]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/sp....html?_r=1&hpw

Regards
Rich

[philliesphan]

I own a Harry Wright contract amendment for Chas. Ferguson for the 1888 season, that was obtained from the Halper sale. Do I now need to worry about being the rightful owner of this item, which is fully handwritten and signed by Harry Wright?

m

[barrysloate]

You don't have to worry yet. It may be fine (but you might want to delete your post).

[Freddie Maguire]

Originally Posted by philliesphan

I own a Harry Wright contract amendment for Chas. Ferguson for the 1888 season, that was obtained from the Halper sale. Do I now need to worry about being the rightful owner of this item, which is fully handwritten and signed by Harry Wright?

Originally Posted by barrysloate

You don't have to worry yet. It may be fine (but you might want to delete your post).

All due respect to Mr. Sloate, but I find this type of response to "philliefan" who obviously is genuinely concerned with the ramifications of having a stolen item-and, he probably has a right to be concerned-a little disturbing.

By suggesting he "remove his post" aren't you encouraging the very behaviour that created the environment for this type of criminal activity to flourish?

I think we should all be concerned with the New York Public Library recovering their rightful property.

Furthermore, we should probably take stock of our own collections. Going over some of your old auctions Mr Sloate, I think you might have a problem with the Harry Wright tintype you sold in 2002. I believe there are 2 missing from the Spalding Collection. How can you be sure one of them wasn't the one you sold? Or, how about the Knickerbocker Challenge letter in the same auction? Was it found in a grandma's attic perchance?

We all need to address this and take the appropriate actions. I'm sure the FBI won't stop at the Hunt Auction.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Freddie Maguire

I think we should all be concerned with the New York Public Library recovering their rightful property.

Furthermore, we should probably take stock of our own collections. Going over some of your old auctions Mr Sloate, I think you might have a problem with the Harry Wright tintype you sold in 2002. I believe there are 2 missing from the Spalding Collection. How can you be sure one of them wasn't the one you sold? Or, how about the Knickerbocker Challenge letter in the same auction? Was it found in a grandma's attic perchance?

We all need to address this and take the appropriate actions.

Precisely what are you suggesting we do? Stop collecting? We're talking here about items that HAVE NO IDENTIFYING MARKS WHATSOEVER ON THEM connecting them with the NYPL or any other institution. Perhaps some might be stolen items, perhaps not. While I respect the concern you express that stolen items be returned to their appropriate institutions, don't auction houses and collectors have a right to in good faith transact business without having to worry that years later someone will come knocking on their door demanding they return items? Can't one say that institutions have an obligation to (i) publicize that which is missing so as to put good faith purchasers on notice they might be transacting in stolen goods and (ii) peruse publicized auctions to search for their stolen items.

I'll give you a specific example. Sotheby's around 1991 sold the collection of Jim Copeland. In the sale was an extensive 19th century collection, including non-one-of-a-kind items with no identifying marks that matched items in the original inventory of the Spalding collection (housed at the NYPL). In addition to the auction being highly publicized, I was told at the time NYPL was specifically asked to go through the auction catalog to ascertain if any lots might be items stolen from them. It's now 18 or so years later. I bought some of those 19th century items. If anybody should ever come knocking on my door saying I bought items stolen from the NYPL, I would in the most vigorous way resist returning anything. The NYPL had its chance to do something and didn't. I bought the items in good faith and now, years later, as a practical matter would stand little chance of being made whole if I had to return an item.

Mention in this thread too has been made of the Halper sale (again at Sotheby's) about ten years ago. At the time it is was by far the biggest sale ever of 19th century baseball memorabilia (and remains so today). It was publicized to the hilt. If in fact there were items stolen years earlier from the NYPL or any other institution, then don't you think those institutions had some affirmative obligation to check the auction catalog to see if it contained any stolen items? Good faith purchasers have rights too, and it seems to me that if an institution does not timely take certain actions, they shouldn't years later be able to demand return of an item and leave the good faith purchaser to bear the loss.

[Freddie Maguire]

What about this lot from REA May auction? It's an 1889 letter from George Stallings to Wright removed from a scrapbook.

Why did no one ever ask about this one being a stolen letter? I wonder if this is the Hunt consignor putting this one in REA a few months earlier to test the waters? Or maybe it was found in another grandma's attic.

http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2009/911.html

[Freddie Maguire]

x

[1lovediane]

Mr. Maguire: It's great to see that some person is finally connecting the dots! I underestimated some of the hobbyists.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by 1lovediane

Mr. Maguire: It's great to see that some person is finally connecting the dots! I underestimated some of the hobbyists.

I think some dots have been connected for a long time.

Not an easy topic to discuss in a public forum.

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

I think some dots have been connected for a long time.

Not an easy topic to discuss in a public forum.

*
*

Jim, what you say is true, some collectors have been aware of some of the Hijinks going on.

However, it's the investors, the flippers, the recluse and the newbies that are beginning to notice the tip of the iceberg.

As Count Dracula would say ... Velcome to Reality Vorld.

[Boccabella]

Update...letters removed:

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...m-auction.html

[Freddie Maguire]

I guess the FBI asked David Hunt to reconsider his position. Is water-boarding still legal?