Stolen Property?

Hi all,

Is this more of the same stuff that was stolen from the PRO some time ago?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...2269246691&rd=1

Or could it be a forgery of some kind. Just wondering.

regards

[Rick]

WW: The seller notes that it comes from the Charles Donald collection. Chas Donald collected information on vR and Voss for, gosh, 50+ some years. He had a most extensive collection, and I suspect someone is merely breaking it up to sell piece-meal. Kind of a shame, really. But I suspect the document in question is legit and not a forgery. I also doubt it was stolen from the PRO. R.

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the information. When I see historic documents like this for sale (especially on Ebay), all kinds of buzzers, lights, and whistles start going off in my head. Thankfully they seem legit and on the level. I still felt that it was important to inform my "colleges" of the situation. Today more then ever, there seems to be unscupulous individuals who cash in on our most valued aviation history, at the expense of the future generations of historians.

regards

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
Before I would bid on this, I would like to know, Who wrote this document, to whom it was addressed, the date. I am most curious and cautious. Further, I am not very confidant of of things from the Charles Donald Collection.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

I still felt that it was important to inform my "colleges" of the situation. Today more then ever, there seems to be unscrupulous individuals who cash in on our most valued aviation history, at the expense of the future generations of historians.

Surely you're not suggesting collectors are "cashing in" or should be prohibited from adding to their collections by buying, selling, or trading? And where does that "our" valued aviation history come from? I didn't see you or anyone else out there offering to turn over their paycheck to save the set of fug boots I have upstairs from going to the rag pickers. Private collectors' love of aviation history is strong enough that we put our own hard earned cash on the line to preserve what we can. Are you suggesting all historical items should be restricted to government ownership or public museums? Better think again. There is very little in most of those museums that wasn't previously in a private collection. Left to the government there would be darned little left. My father talks about standing in Kingman, Arizona, in 1947 and seeing WW 2 aircraft nose to tail and wingtip to wingtip from horizon to horizon. If not for private collectors, every one of those aircraft would have been melted down years ago. They sure were making a strong effort at it in '47, just as they were in 1920 with an earlier generation of aircraft.

And the PRO in Britain? Its been discussed on this site and written up in various publications how they purged literally tons of documents, "our most valued aviation history", that they deemed surplus by loading them (temporary storage?) into dumpsters while refusing access to the private collectors who would gladly have saved those combat reports, pilots' logs, situation and after action reports, photographs, etc., at no charge to the the government at all. Some were saved in spite of the bureaucrats and most of what you see on the open market falls into that catagory. How much more there could have been!

Forgive me for not sharing your view towards those "unscrupulous individuals who cash in", but I figure if they payed for it, preserved it, and protected it, even if only for awhile, then its not "ours", its theirs and they have every right to recoup their expenses in saving and preserving that item ("cashing in" on it) when the time comes. If they want to donate it to a museum, where it will most likely go into one of dozens of drawers with dozens to hundreds of similar items, few if any of which will ever be available to the general public which finances their acquisition and maintenance, that's fine. (I'll save the museum horror stories for another time.) If he wants to sell it to a like minded private collector, that's fine too. It gives everyone, not just the privileged bureaucrats and academics, the ability and the right to actually touch, and look at, and to own, for just a little while, a piece of history. By my way of thinking, that's a good thing. And if there's more of it today than ever before, then that's a good thing too.

[FinnN]

I recently got ahold of a copy of TB Graves' book of copies of reports relating to von Richthofen. I'm pretty positive included in it is a photocopy of that report, I'll take a look this evening to see if it matches the marks and rust stain. Is there any possibility that this is one of the ones that went permanently missing thanks to Mr Graves?

By the way, Graves' name comes up every now and then here about his theft from the PRO - does anyone know the full story? Suprisingly my few searches on Google hasn't brought anything other than a few passing mentions.

Have fun
Finn

Originally posted by Matt Witt@Sep 14 2004, 01:16 AM
[b] Surely you're not suggesting collectors are "cashing in" or should be prohibited from adding to their collections by buying, selling, or trading?

Hi Matt,

I will try to cool you down a bit. Firstly, I believe that I was taken out of context. The topic of this thread was "stolen property". Here is a good example of what I was eluding to:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/index.ph...+records+office

I did not mean to alienate all collectors of aviation memorabilia, as I am a collector myself. I agree with all your statements, but If you believe that it is o.k. for the private collector to own items that were stolen from a important research facility, such as the PRO, then I will have to take issue with that. Again, collecting "ligit" artifacts, sold honestly by private individuals, does a great service to our community as a whole. Hope this helps clear up my position.

regards

[Flying to intercept fighters attacking wingedwarrior]

I have to chime in here. As a sort of collector, and more of a researcher, author and friend of many a museum director -- I have experienced collectors/dealers/pirates who were little more than thieves, and collectors who were saints in their selfless retrieval, preservation, and even generous sharing of our collective history. I have known museum directors who put forth their own money with only good intentions for the future of items -- as I have heard the horror stories of museum directors who used their position to plunder and profit from the very institutions they vowed to protect and guard!!! And cared not a fig for what happened to the items!


So there is room for blame in all categories. Individuals -- whether collectors, museum people, archivists, family members! -- some are good and some are the scum of the earth when it comes to these irreplaceable items. So there! I am delighted to be informed of anything that comes up on ebay, and yes, we must keep in mind that it may be there illegally. I have had too many situations where a little doubt was a healthy thing. So "Judge not lest ye be judged and watch for wolves in sheep's clothing" in assuming that all collectors are lovely angels come to the rescue.

Cheers,
Scarlett

Hi Scarlet,

Feel free to fly my wing anytime..... thanks for the cover (as WW limps back to base&#33

regards

[FinnN]

Just had a closer look at the eBay lot and it's not one of the original reports. At the top it's titled "Department of (Defense?)" on the subject of "Richthoven's (death?)"- so presumably the source is from the US. I can't make out a lot of the text due to the scan being low resolution, but right at the bottom it says that a cutting is attached from December 1924. The actual date is very blurred, but looks most like 1932 to me. Would a 'minute paper' be something a student wrote up for a class or is it something else?

Have fun
Finn