Author |
Topic: Interesting artifact up for auction. PT109 |
|
|
TED WALTHER |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 1:09pm
|
Hey! That gives me just enough time to win the lottery and buy this and PT 48!!!!
Take care,
TED
|
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
Will Day
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 2:33pm
|
If it gets down to the nitty-gritty, Frank can always sell his hair.
Will |
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 3:17pm
|
LMAO Will, your just jealous because I have hair. This is a good thought though, I could probably make some good bucks. Hey, Ted if you hit the lottery, I'm not greedy, you buy the boat and name plate, and donate the boat to me.............
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
29navy
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 3:54pm
|
Just saw this. I Passed it on to Frank Thompson, who is the head of the curator shop at the Navy Museum in DC. Asked him if this is still NAVY property. Said he'd have to run it by the lawyers.
My question is how come this has never surfaced before? Why didn't it arise when the popularity of PT 109 was at it's highest, during the early 60s? You would have thought that he would have said "Hey, look what I got!" I'm sure this could have gotten at least a meeting with President Kennedy.
Charlie |
Total Posts: 600 | Joined:
Dec 28, 2006 - 3:02pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|
Jerry Gilmartin |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 4:53pm
|
I thought you guys should read the text that accompanies the announcement that I linked to on my original post. It tries to explain how the plaque came to be available. I am just posting the text straight from their website (see below) I agree with Charlie, it does sort of smell fishy, but I think they could easily establish it as the bona fide item if they had somebody from the late Mr Mannings family provide a certification. It does look like it would be easy to fake such a thing IMO without the proof.
"The order to remove all identifying elements from the PT 109 came after Toyko Rose, the English speaking radio announcer who worked for the Japanese, began listing the boat numbers and crew members from sunk or captured vessels on air in order to intimidate listening American officers. Quartermaster Guy Manning (1918-1984) was a member of the original squadron to man PT 109, and he accompanied the ship from the United States to the Solomon Islands in 1942. Manning removed the nameplate and it has remained in his family for 70 years."
Jerry Gilmartin |
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm | IP
Logged
|
|
smallwi
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 4:59pm
|
All:
Interesting, there is hope here guys. If the item is legitimate, it was than taken from a US Navy vessel in service. This act is theft, hence the plague could be legally a stolen item. Does anyone have time next week to call the Oddice of the Judge Advocate in DC? I will send an email to the auction house to let them know that they are attempting to sell stolen US Government property. That should put a kink in their style long enough to potentially get the Navy to intercede and take the item back into their possession as rightful owner.
Bill Smallshaw |
Total Posts: 133 | Joined:
Jun 21, 2007 - 3:02pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|
Jerry Gilmartin |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 5:42pm
|
Whoa Bill!
I dont know if I would characterize this as "Theft". I found some more info about QM Manning. This is quoted from Gene Kirklands "PT King" website under "The Unknown History of PT109":
"Bud Larson and most of his crew were due for rotation home, so CDR Westholm decided that the 109- his old squadron flagship- would be assigned to the new skipper. By now, only ENS Bud Larson, quartermaster Guy Manning, and torpedoman Jack Edgar remained of the boat's original crew; on the evening of April 20 these three, along with Roy Dunkin, George Lewis, William Jackson, James Bartlett, and William McMillan'were detached from duty, destined for two weeks rest and relaxation in Australia. Lenny Thom was left in temporary command with a skeleton force aboard. For the next five days, the PT 109 spent most of the time moored in the bushes along the banks of the Maliali River on Florida Island, occasionally shifting berths to take on water or fuel. On the morning of April 25, Ensign Thom took the boat to Sesapi to pick up 109's new CO'a twenty-six year-old Harvard grad who introduced himself to Thom as Jack Kennedy"
So evidently the boat crews were given a direct order from above to remove all identifying marks from the boats to prevent Tokyo Rose using them as propaganda material. So how would "removing all identifying marks" equate to "stealing from the government"? I imagine he was told to trash it, and elected to hold onto the plaque rather than trash it.. But of course nobody alive really knows the true story., so maybe it could be either one. I still think it should be in a museum.
Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin |
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TED WALTHER
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 6:21pm
|
Jerry;
I am with you on this one, PT 59's builders plate still exists also, and I doubt if it was "donated" to PTHQ/PT Museum by the boats civilian owner in New York. If they were told to remove them by Westy and Monty, and even if it was only RON 2 and RON (3)2(however, PT 118's RON 6 plate still exists also), it constitutes a verbal lawful order, and you and I know volation of a verbal lawful order is punishable under then Navy Regulations(today the UCMJ).
Guy Manning did not do anything wrong, he did what he was told to do: ie; He removed it.
Take care,
TED
P.S. Charlie: Thanks for notifing your POC. As I said previously, I notified Kim, so we have two guys on the case for the Good Old Navy
|
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
smallwi
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 6:46pm
|
Don't agree guys. The item was purchased on a government contract, it is government property. Taxpayers paid for the item, no family has the right to sell it for personal profit. I also doubt on officer told an enlisted man to remove the item and keep it so his family could profit from physically holding the artifact. There was similar case recently with a different type of artifact, family tried to sell to make a large sum, don't recall the specifics. Government siezed the item.
I am sure the individual was a very nice person. But that unto itself does not justify someone selling an item of this nature. Fact remains it was removed from a US Navy vessel while the vessel was still in US Navy service. It may well still may be US Navy property, if it is real....
Bill
Bill Smallshaw |
Total Posts: 133 | Joined:
Jun 21, 2007 - 3:02pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|
Jerry Gilmartin |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 7:16pm
|
Bill,
I kind of see your point. The US Govt is infamous for never releasing the rights of ownership for various and assorted items. While on the one hand, I am certain that literally hundreds of PT Boat Nameplates were taken by their crewmen (as well as just about anything else -ships bells, searchlights, radios, steering wheels- that were considered to be a good souvenir) just before the several hundred PT Boats were burned at Samar. Also the items that were removed from those boats (like engines, propellers and shafts, gun mounts,torpedo racks, steering gear, etc) were lined up and pushed into a big ditch on Samar and covered over with a bulldozer to prevent the native Phillipinos from salvaging them. Not to mention the hundreds of brand new jeeps and tanks and ammo, and fighter planes and main reduction gears and everything else literally dropped into the ocean if just for the reason they did not want ot have to inventory them upon their return to the States. I have personally witnessed the US Govt selectively choosing to enforce the "Mis-use of Govt Property" law only to when it suits them as opposed to every instance that it could apply, so the lawyers would most likely have a chance at convincing somebody in charge that the Govt has the right to sieze the property back. I dont think that the Quartermaster can be called a "thief" but I do agree that the nameplate could possibly be claimed still by the US Government as their property. Essentially, there was no official property transfer or release from the US Govt, for that nameplate, and the family should not be allowed to profit from the sale of the item, since they dont have any such proof of ownership. This same thing would apply to that recent PT Boat Ships Bell from PT648 that sold for over $1000 on ebay a couple of months ago, or to the PT Boat Steering Wheel that sold for a large sum a couple of years ago. If the PT648 Bell had sold for $20,000 would the price have made it wrong? So $1000 is OK but $20,000 is where we draw the line. Where do we draw the line? Why not the same outrage for all of these instances? This same situation can apply to literally thousands of Military artifacts that are for sale right at this moment on eBay and hundreds of other places.Those same items were likely still US Government Property as well, but we didnt hear any outrage over those lowly items.. But this one is different. It is linked to a US President, who had not even reported to the boat until after the name plate was gone! (Kind of funny in a way) I just dont favor the connotations of calling him a thief for just following orders. I also dont favor selective enforcement of a law only when it suits the special interests. Thanks for letting me vent. Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin |
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|