What should I do with this dodgy two dollars?

[bagerap]

My wife's family came to the UK from India at the time of partition. Both parents families had lived in Kharagphur for around 80 years which included the period of WWII when U.S.A.F. personnel were stationed there. The American airmen were made welcome in the homes of English speaking residents and my in-laws families were part of that scene.
It was commonplace to sign a currency bill with your name and date (there's a word for this which has fallen below my memory horizon) and the family accumulated a number of these.

Of the few still in family hands, one is still in excellent condition, a two dollar series  of 1928D. And this is where the internet comes into its full glory because I can trace that signatory from his airforce service into civillian life all the way to his time with the Boy Scouts of America.

This is where the story starts to fall apart as he was subsequently relieved of his Scouting duties for the type of things that Scout Masters should not do. This is all a matter of public record and the reason that I'm not publishing an image of the note.

Here's the quandry. My wife wants to part with it and wishes for me to sell it. Gut instinct tells me that the signatories unsavoury past will probably enhance the value, but I'm morally reluctant to sell it at all.

Your thoughts please.

[quaziright]

Really? I'd imagine the persons unsavoury past would make this note very undesirable. I certainly would not want to buy something signed by a known paedophile. It would take a certain kind of pervert imho to pay more than $2 for it. However I don't know how the market dynamics for such items work, so My interest is piqued as to the typical profile of buyers for these things

[bagerap]

"It would take a certain kind of pervert imho to pay more than $2 for it."

I think that it's probably the same mindset as those who buy the autographs of murderers.

[quaziright]

"It would take a certain kind of pervert imho to pay more than $2 for it."

I think that it's probably the same mindset as those who buy the autographs of murderers.

Quite true. I was thinking of the people who buy hitler related items for instance. I imagine, if it's non-museum entities, it's often closeted or not so closeted right wing extremist individuals or organisations. However because of hitlers notoriety and immense (and heinous) historical footprint, I can still imagine reasonable people possibly buying them for maybe not so sinister reasons related to academics for instance.

But in your particular notes case, the person is not so historically important I imagine. Besides that, I wouldn't even know where the market exists for such pieces. But I'm guessing you might have a better idea than me ?

[Figleaf]

This is a subject that comes up regularly. Here are some examples.

In 2009, Norway issued a commemorative for Knut Hamsun, winner of the nobel prize for literature, convinced supporter of Hitler and Quisling and accused of treason.

Karl Goetz, a hardened nazi, produced a series of satyrical medals advocating racial discrimination and nazism. One of them, especially disgusting, figured in a 2009 catalog of a special exhibition of the British Museum.

Italian neo nazis issued a series of medals with a portrait of Benito Mussolini in the 1970s, looking like Italian coins.

I could go on, with coin issued for bloodthirsty dictators from Stroessner to Genghis Khan. The point is that these are all accepted items to collect for decidedly non-criminal institutions like the British Museum as well as for members of this site, including myself. I think the main argument is that rather than deny or trying to change history, you should learn from it. It is a point FosseWay made recently concerning the destruction of the Colson statue.

Peter

[quaziright]

Those are all flawed comparisons because all were issued by official govt at the time or people in very high positions of power. The satirical medals were part of the museum catalogue going to my previous post.

The person in question seemed to be your run of the mill paedophile. The note in itself has collector value, but his signature? Hmm, who would value it?

That said, I don't mean to question anyone's right to buy/sell such pieces and similarly I don't doubt the possibility someone in the end may pay up for it. I'm intrigued where is the market for this type of piece where the person is mostly unknown. To me, it would seem like a hard sell to get anything for it. Most would probably consider it as a mutilated note I imagine

[bagerap]

This note is but one among 20 or so, all signed by young U.S. airmen stationed at that time in India.Together they make an interesting historical collection. They are my wife's property but I think that I'll sell them for her, having quietly disposed of the errant scoutmaster.

[eurocoin]

Just sell it as part of a lot without any further background info. I guess the word you were searching is 'short snorter'.

[bagerap]

Thank you, I've been racking my brains for that term for months.

[quaziright]

This note is but one among 20 or so, all signed by young U.S. airmen stationed at that time in India.Together they make an interesting historical collection. They are my wife's property but I think that I'll sell them for her, having quietly disposed of the errant scoutmaster.

I see, as a collection, it certainly has historic value. More importantly, its a positive story to sell. My personal instinct would be to not include this note into the collection. However, you could always tell the buyer the story of that particular note and if he/she still wants it, then who are we to argue.. perhaps they want to build a balanced story that people are not black or white and the collection as a whole would illustrate that nicely

[FosseWay]

Alongside coin and token collecting, I am interested in family history. Over nearly 20 years, I have accumulated census records, BMD certificates, military service records, newspaper articles, you name it, on over 50,000 people who are either related to me or are the spouses of relatives. Purely statistically, any group of 50,000 individuals randomly selected from the past 500 years or so will include some seriously rotten apples. My tally is likely to be higher because on one side of my distant ancestry I plug into the British aristocracy and European royalty. I don't know whether the incidence of unpleasant individuals is greater in the upper echelons of society, but it is certain that it is easier for people in a position of privilege to abuse that power if they are that way inclined.

Over the years I've come across everything from petty criminals who you actually end up feeling sorry for when they're transported to Australia, to slave owners in the US (and probably in England too, it's just most of my info doesn't go back as far as people like Colston), to appallingly behaved absentee landlords in Ireland, to members of the Nazi party, and everything in between. I *could* just censor everything bad that my relatives did by "choosing" not to go down that line. Now my research is purely for my own enjoyment, much as my coin collecting is. I'm not looking to publish my family history for wider perusal, but if I were, what would be more valid: sanitising it to remove any possible potential for offence to anyone reading it, and thereby painting my family out to be a great deal more virtuous than it (or anyone's) was, or fessing up to the murderers, oppressors and genocidal maniacs and letting people draw their own conclusions?

The aspect of the OP's conundrum that most resonates with me is the idea that someone (even someone entirely innocent of the original crime) may make financial gain from a short snorter traceable to a paedophile simply because of that notoriety. I wouldn't want to feel that I'd made money on the back of something like that, so I understand completely where you're coming from. I also see that that particular object is not necessarily a fundamental part of a whole in the same way as my objectionable relatives are a fundamental part of my extended family history, so there is no "academic compulsion" if I can express it that way to keep it for completeness' sake.

But, however unpleasant the crimes committed by the individual concerned were for his victims, society is such that I doubt some virtually anonymous pervert would attract any attention, and therefore any premium on a sale. It's not like it's signed by Hitler (or Jimmy Savile, for a more subject-relevant example - if you're not up on recent British social history, google him).

So, to cut a long ramble short, if you don't want the item, just sell it as it is, no names, no pack drill. You won't get a premium over what you'd get for any similar short snorter. Then if the buyer wants to research it, they can, and can come to their own conclusions.