Options
card returned to nypl
begsu1013
Posts: 1,943 ✭✭
(spent a few minutes looking for the old thread from a few months ago and couldn't find it. if anyone recalls the title, please remind me.)
figured this was certainly worth sharing and glad it was returned.
was selling off his collection to pay for his daughters college tuition and this one woulda added a decent chunk of change,
but in returning and doing so, he taught his daughter something far more important than any college could.
it was the right thing, so cheers!
figured this was certainly worth sharing and glad it was returned.
was selling off his collection to pay for his daughters college tuition and this one woulda added a decent chunk of change,
but in returning and doing so, he taught his daughter something far more important than any college could.
it was the right thing, so cheers!
0
Comments
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>Not sure of the value, but sure it would have been real EZ to say screw it and try to sell it and keep the money. >>
He did, got caught, caught a lot of flak for it on his boards and elsewhere & that's why he's returning it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not sure of the value, but sure it would have been real EZ to say screw it and try to sell it and keep the money. >>
He did, got caught, caught a lot of flak for it on his boards and elsewhere & that's why he's returning it. >>
To say he got "caught" is a bit of an overstatement.
It's not like he was hiding. I've read this entire story and I spent some time talking to Leon in Chicago about it. He was probably the 3rd owner or so after the alleged theft of this card from the library collection. It changed hands a couple different times through auction houses in public auctions, him being the most recent owner of it.
Clearly the chain of custody was pretty suspect on this, but again it's not like he was hiding that he owned it, the FBI talked to him about on multiple different occasions and never took the card. There's no question about whether he had anything to do with it leaving the library in the first place, he was just in possession of it here at the end (again after winning it in an auction).
Ultimately he's out probably $10k plus on that purchase, and isn't getting that money back. I think it's easy to throw stones at the guy, but if you do all the research and line up what's been said over time regarding this thing...he took a shot on it and missed. He didn't have to give it back, but in the end he did what I think everyone believes was the right thing. And he knew it was the right thing, too, which is why the card went back.
I don't really know him very well, but all the innuendo around him and his reputation as it relates to this card isn't appropriate.
It's not like he was hiding. I've read this entire story and I spent some time talking to Leon in Chicago about it. He was probably the 3rd owner or so after the alleged theft of this card from the library collection. It changed hands a couple different times through auction houses in public auctions, him being the most recent owner of it.
Clearly the chain of custody was pretty suspect on this, but again it's not like he was hiding that he owned it, the FBI talked to him about on multiple different occasions and never took the card. There's no question about whether he had anything to do with it leaving the library in the first place, he was just in possession of it here at the end (again after winning it in an auction).
Ultimately he's out probably $10k plus on that purchase, and isn't getting that money back. I think it's easy to throw stones at the guy, but if you do all the research and line up what's been said over time regarding this thing...he took a shot on it and missed. He didn't have to give it back, but in the end he did what I think everyone believes was the right thing. And he knew it was the right thing, too, which is why the card went back.
I don't really know him very well, but all the innuendo around him and his reputation as it relates to this card isn't appropriate. "
+1000
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
this is only from a brief synopsis that i've read and do not assert that it's 100% fact, but...
1. apparently the card was in a sgc 4. (as the nypl mark/stamp was obviously attempted to be "removed")
2. someone/some agency ran some tests on it and was discovered that some remnants of the nypl stamp was still on the card.
3. this obviously would knock the grade down from a 4.
4. knowing the card was probably gonna need to be returned and that the card was stamped it could be sent back to sgc for a review w proof of stampage
5. card knocked down to a sgc 2.
6. collect from the sgc garauntee?
again, don't know if it's true in it's entirety, but pretty cunning of using the rules to your advantage, if so.
<< <i> I would seek reimbursement through the auction house which sold the stolen card. >>
Its hard to seek reimbursement from an auction house that's no longer in business. Mastro Auctions.
And the owner of the auction house Bill Mastro has been sentenced & will be headed to prison soon.
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
less rewarding as well. at least you'd have a chance find a nickel in the bins at laguardia.
IMF
<< <i>
<< <i> I would seek reimbursement through the auction house which sold the stolen card. >>
Its hard to seek reimbursement from an auction house that's no longer in business. Mastro Auctions.
And the owner of the auction house Bill Mastro has been sentenced & will be headed to prison soon. >>
Jay-- So I guess it's a good thing he is not in Leon's shoes
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Not sure of the value, but sure it would have been real EZ to say screw it and try to sell it and keep the money. >>
He did, got caught, caught a lot of flak for it on his boards and elsewhere & that's why he's returning it. >>
To say he got "caught" is a bit of an overstatement.
It's not like he was hiding. I've read this entire story and I spent some time talking to Leon in Chicago about it. He was probably the 3rd owner or so after the alleged theft of this card from the library collection. It changed hands a couple different times through auction houses in public auctions, him being the most recent owner of it.
Clearly the chain of custody was pretty suspect on this, but again it's not like he was hiding that he owned it, the FBI talked to him about on multiple different occasions and never took the card. There's no question about whether he had anything to do with it leaving the library in the first place, he was just in possession of it here at the end (again after winning it in an auction).
Ultimately he's out probably $10k plus on that purchase, and isn't getting that money back. I think it's easy to throw stones at the guy, but if you do all the research and line up what's been said over time regarding this thing...he took a shot on it and missed. He didn't have to give it back, but in the end he did what I think everyone believes was the right thing. And he knew it was the right thing, too, which is why the card went back.
I don't really know him very well, but all the innuendo around him and his reputation as it relates to this card isn't appropriate. >>
This is bang on, Leon is the one that is out 30K on this transaction.
Then someone posted this on his board, he got caught, and everything changed.
The guy who made this photo overlay did a better job than the FBI's Fine Art Crime Team!
<< <i>From what I read he offered the card for sale after the FBI got involved in an attempt to pass the hot potato. Said he had no idea that the erasures and red marks were from the NYPL and that "It has been examined and whatever was erased can't be made out with any known equipment today."
Then someone posted this on his board, he got caught, and everything changed.
The guy who made this photo overlay did a better job than the FBI's Fine Art Crime Team! >>
That's exactly what I've heard and read too. I also listened to the recording, in which he didn't say the card "might" be stolen, he acted like he was sure it was. In the same recording, the only concern he mentioned was whether it would be taken away from him.
<< <i>If I owned a $30,000 card, I would be fully sure there was an issue before agreeing to return it for no compensation. Pretty understandable. >>
Amen, that's almost one year income for the median American household.
<< <i>If I owned a $30,000 card, I would be fully sure there was an issue before agreeing to return it for no compensation. Pretty understandable. >>
If I owned PSA's number one trading card rarity, with fewer than 50 copies known, and I had an incomplete provenance for my card, and one of those 50 copies was famously stolen from a library that stamps its cards, and mine had markings on the back not original to the card, and the FBI was asking me about it and suggesting that mine might be the stolen copy, then I would be fully sure that mine wasn't the stolen copy before offering it for sale at public auction with a description that included a disclaimer that the markings on the back might be a library stamp. Just in case.
<< <i>
<< <i>If I owned a $30,000 card, I would be fully sure there was an issue before agreeing to return it for no compensation. Pretty understandable. >>
If I owned PSA's number one trading card rarity, with fewer than 50 copies known, and I had an incomplete provenance for my card, and one of those 50 copies was famously stolen from a library that stamps its cards, and mine had markings on the back not original to the card, and the FBI was asking me about it and suggesting that mine might be the stolen copy, then I would be fully sure that mine wasn't the stolen copy before offering it for sale at public auction with a description that included a disclaimer that the markings on the back might be a library stamp. Just in case. >>
You know what I would have done? I would have returned the card the minute I realized it had a trace of stamp and I would have donated my life savings to the NYPL.
<< <i>
<< <i>If I owned a $30,000 card, I would be fully sure there was an issue before agreeing to return it for no compensation. Pretty understandable. >>
If I owned PSA's number one trading card rarity, with fewer than 50 copies known, and I had an incomplete provenance for my card, and one of those 50 copies was famously stolen from a library that stamps its cards, and mine had markings on the back not original to the card, and the FBI was asking me about it and suggesting that mine might be the stolen copy, then I would be fully sure that mine wasn't the stolen copy before offering it for sale at public auction with a description that included a disclaimer that the markings on the back might be a library stamp. Just in case. >>
Agreed. Don't understand those who don't think trying to sell that card AFTER he was told it was likely stolen is a sketchy move.