Heritage Auctions Sells Stolen Pulitzer Medals

[DC Dawg]

Heritage Auctions was consigned three gold Pulitzer Prize Medals that were awarded to Newsday in 1953, 1970, and 1974. These were the first three of 19 Pulitzer Prizes won by the newspaper. In various articles (see all of the articles here), Heritage President Jim Halprin alleges that the medals were consigned from a Long Island coin dealer who claims to have purchased them from an estate sale. The coin dealer has hired an attorney and has not commented.

 

Newsday was alerted to the auction when a duplicate appeared on eBay then was directed to Heritage's website to see the sale of the other three. It was thought the original medals were stored in a safe in the newspaper's Melville (Long Island) corporate offices while authorized replicas are on display at in their New York City offices. After opening the safe, a locked box found inside the safe had to be drilled open. The box was empty. All three medals were tracked down by the FBI and will undergo authentication from Medalic Arts, the creator of the medals.

 

In one article, Halprin claimed that Heritage verifies their consignments, without commenting further on this consignment. Halprin said that Heritage will perform their own investigation into this transaction.

 

Listing of the medals on the Heritage website:

• 1953 Newsday Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal
• 1970 Newsday Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal
• 1974 Newsday Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal

EDITORIAL: I would think that a Pulitzer Prize from a newspaper that is still in existance should be something that would raise suspicion. I would think that prestigious awards, like the Pulitzer, would undergo more scrutiny. This would be easy to investigate. The name of the newspaper is engraved on the medal, wouldn't the first thing to do is to call Newsday? Heritage was probably so ecstatic to get such a prize to auction, their eyes probably glazed over and put it up for acution without doing proper due diligence--at least this is how it appears!

[MikeInFL]

I'm not sure your portrayal of Heritage as not having done "proper due diligence", or even the appearance of doing so, is fair.

 

To wit, how much due diligence should an auction house do for a consigned item? When would such due diligence end? How do you know some measure wasn't actually done -- as Halprin suggests.

 

I just don't know how you can make Heritage responsible for auctioning stolen material, and I suspect (but don't know) that the responsibility lies with the consignor, and, in my opinoin, that should be the focus of your "editorial" rather than inferring that Heritage is in the wrong...Mike

[kryptonitecomics]

I agree with Mike.....if I purchase a coin from a guy on the corner, and then consign it to Heritage and it is later discovered that the coin was stolen.......Heritage isn't the one the cops are going to hunt down

 

People sell Oscars and Super Bowl rings on Ebay....it has the persons name on it but that doesn't mean the original owner did not authorize the sale?

[CHABSENTIA]

Recently there was an article that NGC received a coin for grading that was stolen 10 years ago..It was a very valuable coin and was recognized by the President of NGC.

 

There has also been an article that PCGS has discovered counterfeit Morgans.They were Morgans with Vams .They were counterfeited long ago apparently with used Dies.They went undetected for decades and were onlt discovered when many of the same errors were submitted at one time which is highly unusual.

 

Form time to time there are Hollywood Oscars put up for Sale.They are not supposed to be put up for sale without giving the Motion picture association first chance even though they are acquired legally.

 

T his sort of thing goes on all the time.

[MAULEMALL]

I'm not sure your portrayal of Heritage as not having done "proper due diligence", or even the appearance of doing so, is fair.

 

To wit, how much due diligence should an auction house do for a consigned item? When would such due diligence end? How do you know some measure wasn't actually done -- as Halpern suggests.

 

I just don't know how you can make Heritage responsible for auctioning stolen material, and I suspect (but don't know) that the responsibility lies with the consignor, and, in my opinoin, that should be the focus of your "editorial" rather than inferring that Heritage is in the wrong...Mike

I also have to agree with Mike...

 

 

 

And believe me I am not too happy about it.

[gmarguli]

Recently there was an article that NGC received a coin for grading that was stolen 10 years ago..It was a very valuable coin and was recognized by the President of NGC.

 

This was at the 2004 FUN show. It was a 1919-S SLQ in PCGS MS67FH. The coin went thru NGC about 6 months later and was recognized by Mark Salzberg based on a picture he had been shown. The coin was fairly easily identifiable as there aren't too many of these coins floating around.

 

 

There has also been an article that PCGS has discovered counterfeit Morgans.They were Morgans with Vams .They were counterfeited long ago apparently with used Dies.They went undetected for decades and were onlt discovered when many of the same errors were submitted at one time which is highly unusual.

 

While PCGS claimed discovery of them being counterfeit, David Lange - who works for NGC - did publish that they were likely contemporary counterfeits well before the PCGS announcement.

 

 

Form time to time there are Hollywood Oscars put up for Sale.They are not supposed to be put up for sale without giving the Motion picture association first chance even though they are acquired legally.

 

I'm not sure when this rule went into place, but the earlier Oscars are without limits on their resale. Also, I've read reports where the rule may be unenforceable for the newer given Oscars.

 

 

As for Heritage selling these and their amount of due diligence, I see no reason why they should have suspected they were stolen. They very well could have been owned by an individual legally.

[DC Dawg]

I just don't know how you can make Heritage responsible for auctioning stolen material, and I suspect (but don't know) that the responsibility lies with the consignor, and, in my opinoin, that should be the focus of your "editorial" rather than inferring that Heritage is in the wrong...Mike

I am not saying Heritage is responsible. I am saying Heritage is complicit in the transaction--legally it is called being an accessory after the fact. As noted by the ANA a few months ago in the case of Dwight Manley versus Donald Kagin regarding the sale of rare gold bullion, Kagin was told he needed to have better investigated the consignment of rare gold bars before trying to sell them. The result of the case said to all dealers that they need to take that extra step, especially on rare and unusual item.

 

I would call an original Pulitzer Gold Medal an unusually rare item. The yearly prize is very coveted in the journalism industry and not something that is sold like just any medal. It is the same as if someone tried to sell an Olympic gold medal or the gold medal from the Nobel Foundation. Before selling the item, the suggestions in Manley v. Kagin should provide precedence for due diligence.

 

It is my opinion that Heritage did not do its due diligence in this consignment by not verifying the pedigree of this medal. All Heritage had to do was call Newsday in their Melville, New York corporate offices and inquire into the matter. Even with Internet delays, it took me less than 30 seconds to find Newsday's main number and within a minute, I had the operator on the phone. It was less than 90 seconds to be connected with the writer responsible for the story published in Newsday starting from the time I read your note. I am sure that if Halprin or anyone else at Heritage called Newsday to verify the medal's pedigree, they would have had their answer and not be publicly involved in a public criminal investigation.

 

Heritage and its executives are members of the ANA and PNG. According to the code of ethics of both organizations, Heritage is responsible for the due diligence necessary to prevent something like this happening. Heritage is wrong and should be made to face the same fate as Don Kagin in his case.

 

Scott

[MikeInFL]

Scott,

 

So you're using the precedence of Manley v. Kagin against a Heritage consignment which probably predates the ruling?

 

Also, please tell/show me where ANA/PNG rules state that due diligence is necessary, and to what extent they are required?

 

It is just not right to liken Heritage to a fence. It is one thing to be lacking in due diligence, quite another to suggest complicity or prior knowledge.

 

You levy serious accusations with virtually no evidence, even if they are portrayed as opinion.

 

Frankly, I think you should reconsider your previous post...Mike

 

p.s. Do you really understand what you are implying? I'm not a lawyer, but I am fairly sure that to be an accessory after the fact, generally, means you have knowledge of a crime being committed -- a fact which has been anything but proven. For future reference (bold emphasis mine) here is the US Code that defines the term:

 

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT - Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon’s apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

See also: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/1/sections/section_3.html

[gmarguli]

Why would you assume that this medal would fall under anything to do with the ANA or PNG? Is it numismatic related in any way?

 

And yes, I realize that they were sold in a coin auction. However, if a watch were sold in that auction, I wouldn't call a watch a numismatic item.

[BankNote1]

I wonder why they call Heritage "The Evil Empire"!

[DC Dawg]

Mike... The code of ethics is clear for both the ANA and PNG. They are posted on their respective websites. You seem to like to quote caselaw out of context, so go look up the ethics rules for yourself. The same for the ethics rules that were affirmed in Manley v. Kagin--the same ethics rules that were in effect when the auction was consigned and held (even if we approximate six month from consignment to auction).

 

Maybe my wording was off. I was because this is not the first time you nit picked over something I wrote--and I have not seen you do that with anyone else which also is . I gave you the courtesy of explaining why I have this opionion. You don't have to like my opinion. Right now, I am not in the mood to nitpick words with you.

 

Scott

[DC Dawg]

Why would you assume that this medal would fall under anything to do with the ANA or PNG? Is it numismatic related in any way?

 

And yes, I realize that they were sold in a coin auction. However, if a watch were sold in that auction, I wouldn't call a watch a numismatic item.

 

Greg, Numismatics is "the study or collection of coins, tokens, and paper money and sometimes related objects (as medals)." Thus, a medal being sold by a member of the American Numismatics Association and the Professional Numismatics Guild would qualify as something that would fall under the purview of those organizations.

 

To demonstrate a strengthening of the ties, FIDEM (the International Art Medal Federation) Congress 2007 was the ANA.

 

Scott

[MikeInFL]

Mike... The code of ethics is clear for both the ANA and PNG. They are posted on their respective websites. You seem to like to quote caselaw out of context, so go look up the ethics rules for yourself. The same for the ethics rules that were affirmed in Manley v. Kagin--the same ethics rules that were in effect when the auction was consigned and held (even if we approximate six month from consignment to auction).

 

Maybe my wording was off. I was because this is not the first time you nit picked over something I wrote--and I have not seen you do that with anyone else which also is . I gave you the courtesy of explaining why I have this opionion. You don't have to like my opinion. Right now, I am not in the mood to nitpick words with you.

 

Scott

 

Scott,

 

I'm sorry I upset you, and I apolgize if you think I am singling you out, but your allegations and inferences are anything but correct -- and judging by the responses thusfar it doesn't seem that I am in the minority -- and I cannot let them go unchallenged.

 

Just so you know, I challenged you to find the bylaws because I checked and didn't find any such burden of due-diligence in either. Specifically, the PNG says (again, bold emphasis mine):

 

6. To refrain from knowingly dealing in stolen numismatic items.

From: http://www.pngdealers.com/ethics.html

 

The ANA says nothing in their bylaws, specifically, on the topic of stolen items or due diligence -- I can only assume these fall under "criminial offense" as shown below...

 

Interestingly enough, the ANA bylaws DO comment on defamation of character:

 

Section 3.

(a) Any member committing any unethical act in hs/her dealings with others, unjustly defaming the character of any other member, interfering with the activities of the Association, committing a criminal offense, engaging in conduct unbecoming a member, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the welfare of the Association, violating any of the providision of these Bylaws or any codes adopted by the Board of Governors, or failing to respond to a compalint made pursuant to Seciton 4 of this Article III, shall be subject to discipline, up to and including expulsion, as herinafter provided.

From: http://www.money.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutANA/FederalCharterBylawsCodeofEthics/0605_bylaws.pdf

 

So, in my opinion, unless Heritage is shown to KNOW these items were stolen, it is YOU who should be worried about ANA bylaws, because the way I read your response, you state/infer what Heritage did was illegal and defamed their character in so doing.

 

Again, it is one thing to suggest someone didn't do enough due diligence, it is quite another to suggest that Heritage violated ANA/PNG or US law when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they have.

 

Please don't be angry for my "nitpicking" your post, and I apologize if that's how you feel about it, but I will not stand idle while you levy baseless allegations, even if they are portrayed as opinion. And I hope, if the tables were turned, that you would defend others againt such remarks...Mike

[CHABSENTIA]

You are correct. It was the FUN show.Don't know about the NGC announcement before PCGS.I know in the article that PCGS took credit for it.

 

 

The ruling for the Oscars was changed and you are correct that there were no limits earlier. The MPA wanted it changed to preserve the Integrity of the Oscar etc.Whether it will stand is debatabe, I suspect it will not as the ruling not only gives them first refusal but allows them to repurchase it for a few dollars.

 

THe above happens every day and unless it can be proven that Heritage knowingly received Stolen goods and then tried to auction it they will not abd should not be held responsible.

 

Something of this nature being Auctioned is going to create attention and if there is any question then it will come to light.

[DC Dawg]

I'm sorry I upset you, and I apolgize if you think I am singling you out, but your allegations and inferences are anything but correct -- and judging by the responses thusfar it doesn't seem that I am in the minority -- and I cannot let them go unchallenged.

 

. . .

 

So, in my opinion, unless Heritage is shown to KNOW these items were stolen, it is YOU who should be worried about ANA bylaws, because the way I read your response, you state/infer what Heritage did was illegal and defamed their character in so doing.

If you think I am wrong and I have aggrieved anyone by my statements, you are free to contact the ANA and report me. If you want, I will send you my ANA membership number via a private note to make your filing easy.

 

Again, it is one thing to suggest someone didn't do enough due diligence, it is quite another to suggest that Heritage violated ANA/PNG or US law when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they have.

The ONLY reason am I responding to you is to set the record straight: I NEVER said that Heritage violated any law or rule. I ONLY questioned Heritage ethics. If you look at the post that outlines my OPINION, I said "Heritage is wrong and should be made to face the same fate as Don Kagin in his case." While you are nitpicking my words, you should read the statement released by the ANA in the case of Manley v. Kagin. To summarize their ruling, all the ANA did was to give Kagin a slap on the wrist, tell him he needed to do better and went on their way. If you are interested, you can read my opinion about that case here.

 

I think this has run its course--especially in a public forum. If you have any more to say to me regarding this topic, please feel free to PM me.

 

Scott

 

[Conder101]

While PCGS claimed discovery of them being counterfeit, David Lange - who works for NGC - did publish that they were likely contemporary counterfeits well before the PCGS announcement.

NGC stopped slabbing them in 1998 because they felt they were contemporary counterfeits. That was several YEARS before PCGS came to the same conclusion.