That's a fishy story. It seems that it would be tough to sell stolen antique toys, so perhaps that wasn't the motive.

Was this just an act of vandalism? Does his wife hate his toy collecting/hoarding?

The article does say that the thieves were slowly selling items through at least one secondhand shop. That's how the thieves were found.

>Nevertheless, my mind finds it impossible not to link the victim's surname with his deep and costly obsession with toys.<

This is all you can say? Is your mind a fuckin' computer, Charles? Devoid of any human connections of what the loss of 45 years of collecting might mean to this man?

Everytime I read one of your postings I realize what fuckwads philosophy majors are. You're so fucking analytic you have no humanity left.

Just because you spent $350,000 on something doesn't make it worth $350,000.

@ 4, it doesn't say anywhere that he spent $350,000. Give it another read.

that sucks :(

my mom is a big time collector with about 3 antique shops worth of stuff in her house (all well organized and cared for, not some hoarders shit) and i always worry about something like this happening

You spell kid with only one 'k'. Totally different.

Why would you keep anything worth $350k in your garage?

So sad, all the material crap they collected over years was stolen. And yeah, if you are keeping nearly half a million dollars worth of anything in your garage you weren't smart enough to keep it.

@8: Even worse - he kept it in his daughter's garage, and kept it there even after she moved out of the city and left the house vacant. $350k worth of stuff in the garage of an empty home.

#5 it doesn't say anything about where the $350,000 figure came from.

And?

@11,

The article mentioned that the thieves sold a few carousel horses, estimated at $4,500 each. Is it really that hard to imagine that the rest of his collection was also highly valued?

Charles, perhaps he was KIDDing about the whole thing (see what I did there?).

If he weren't married and didn't have a daughter, this would be the plot of 40 Year Old Virgin II ( 50 Year Old Virgin ?).

If only he'd poured that money into sports memorabilia or antique cars or quilts or furniture! He wouldn't be an object of ridicule any longer because those things are adult.

After helping out with this documentary, this all makes perfect sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8oVdRZI9…
(trailor)

@ 11, so you make an assumption? That's smart.

Bit snarky we are today, eh? Antique toys are sometimes valuable. Collectors often grossly overestimate the value of their collections.

Agree with @3. It happens all the time: I start reading something on SLOG, and the author's lack of human connection makes me go "WTF? Who thinks like that?" so I look to see who wrote it, and .... 100% of the time it's Mudede.

If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a lot of theories about human behavior, then everything looks like an expression of those theories. (I read that somewhere)

I bet the American Pickers did it.

His wife did it.

Better toy collecting than piracy, eh?

#17 getting serious about this, eh? I didn't say anywhere that he spent $350,000. Give it another read. If you spend X on something, that doesn't make it worth X later. Impenetrable truth. May or may not apply to this situation.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment about how that $350,000 estimate is probably unreliable, regardless of how they came to it. "I paid X for it" is just the classic line, and I thought it funny to imagine that being this guy's methodology (it kind of fits, really, what with him storing his antique toy collection in the garage of a vacant house).

Notice how HE was the one valuing his horses at $3500? Granted, the thieves didn't go through the proper channels, but they still only managed to fence them for a couple hundred dollars. Who knows, though, maybe he hoards antique toys and is ALSO an expert antique toy appraiser. Yeah.

Even if this guy could get $350,000 out of his collection, it would cost him a good chunk of that to do so, whether in time, auction fees, listing fees, and whatever else.

I didn't say anywhere that he spent $350,000. Give it another read.

Um... okay...

Just because you spent $350,000 on something doesn't make it worth $350,000.

So... even though you wrote "Just because you spend $350,000 on something..." you "didn't say anywhere that he spent $350,000." Yeah. Right. And it's all tongue in cheek, eh?

W7ingman, I can take your pedantry and superior attitude (well, most of the time), but when you just lie, and take me for being too stupid to realize it, then I have to tell you that you're fucked. If there's a slog happy the next time I'm in Seattle and you're there, I will tell you so to your face.

You take everything too seriously, Matt.

And yes, it was tongue it cheek.

There is a new site around called whatsbeenstolen.com I wonder what kind of reward you would offer for something like that?