Originally Posted by jmenges
What do you make of Anne Graham's check that she made out to Martin Earl for £25 to pay for the diary being dated 18 May 1992 and that the auctioneers have denied that they conduct their sales like Barnett says and failed to locate a Lot number or description of an item such as Barnett claims he bought?
To answer your questions:
1. There is no doubt (as relayed in 'Inside Story', p. 237) that the 1891 diary was sent to Mike Barrett by Martin E. Earl on 26 March 1992. It would, no doubt, have included an invoice for payment, presumably to be paid within 30 days. The invoice was not paid by the end of April and so I assume a chasing letter was sent which resulted in Anne Graham paying by cheque on 18 May 1992.
2. It is true that Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite & Litherland, has said of Barrett's account of purchasing the Victorian scrapbook in an O&L auction that, "we do not have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes
". Unfortunately he did not explain what the problem with Barrett's account was. In his affidavit, Barrett says that after his winning bid, "I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid £50. The ticket was stamped.....I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased."
On this forum back in August, a poster, who was an antique dealer based in the north of England during the 1990s, and who said the method employed by the auction houses he attended during that time was nearly identical, confirmed that if you replace the word "ticket" with "receipt" in Barrett's affidavit then Barrett's account would be generally consistent with how auction houses worked at that time. So it is possible that Kevin Whay was misled by a poor choice of word by Mike Barrett.
3. Kevin Whay also stated that a search of O&L's records was carried out "on both sides of the alleged sale date"
and found that "no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett's statement exists
". The problem here is that in his affidavit Barrett identified the sale date as being in January or February 1990. So that means that the search of O&L's records would have been carried out on either side of Jan/Feb 1990. Which naturally suggests that the records of the O&L auction carried out on 31 March 1992 would not have been searched.