Home › News › Local News
Owner of long-missing drum wants to snare it off eBay
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsHow does the owner of a custom snare drum reportedly stolen from Southern California in 1996 find it in South Dakota in 2008?
On eBay.
Dennis Proctor, 55, of Simi Valley was checking his bids on vintage drums on eBay one morning last month when he stumbled across the gold-plated Rogers Dyna-sonic snare he won in a three-day drum solo competition in 1971 in Chicago, he said.
The drum disappeared in 1996 with a fellow musician who borrowed it for a show in Los Angeles, Proctor said. He said he filed a missing property report at that time, but eventually gave up hope of getting it back.
Proctor caught an unexpected glimpse of the drum in 2001, when his girlfriend at the time gave him a copy of a book about Rogers drums, he said. His snare, complete with his name plate, was pictured on page 108. He spoke with the book's author and tracked the drum to a music shop in Atlanta, but the owner had recently retired, and the search hit a dead end.
But there it was on eBay last month, the same 24-carat gold-plated drum that disappeared 12 years earlier. The plaque with Proctor's full name and other identifying information was still attached, along with a price tag for $2,556.
"You could have knocked me over with a feather," said Proctor, a sturdily built man with shoulder-length white hair and a closely cropped mustache.
He was thrilled at the chance to recover a piece of his past. "It's probably one of the very few things I've won," he said.
Fearing someone else would purchase the drum, he clicked on the "buy it now" tab by the listing, he said. He then called the seller and explained his situation in an attempt to get the instrument returned, but the two quickly reached an impasse.
The man selling the drum is Zach Stewart, 18, of Rapid City, S.D., who owns and runs an online drum shop called OlDrums.
In a phone interview, Stewart said he purchased the drum on eBay for $1,500. He said he heard from drum collectors that the instrument had been owned by various collectors before he bought it, and he was surprised when he got a call from Proctor six months after the purchase.
Several weeks later, Proctor e-mailed Stewart a copy of a police report about the drum, which he filed last month after the Ventura County Sheriff's Department couldn't find his original report. After receiving the report, Stewart said he would be willing to sell Proctor the instrument for his cost $1,500 or the equivalent in trade.
"I'm just trying to work with him. If he really wants it back, I want him to have it," Stewart said, explaining he doesn't want to lose his investment.
Proctor is having none of it.
"I don't want to pay someone $1,500 for something that belongs to me," he said. "I'm getting really fed up with this guy."
He said he won't pay for anything other than shipping and insurance, and he plans to contact agencies including the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI for help getting the drum returned.
"I'm going to make the guy absolutely miserable."
Though Stewart could still be liable under a California law that requires people who find lost property to return it when they have knowledge of the owner, any dispute over this drum will almost certainly become a civil matter due to the distance and jurisdictional boundaries involved, said Sgt. William Hammer of the Ventura County Sheriff's Department's Moorpark station.
Under the circumstances, Stewart's offer sounds fair, Hammer said.
Somnath Basu, a business professor at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, said the story of Proctor's stolen drum exposes the double-edged relationship between e-commerce and crime: The Internet made it possible for Proctor to find his snare, but the discovery was laced with obstacles of distance and an owner far removed from the man who allegedly stole it.
"It's a Pandora's box," Basu said of the online marketplace.
Posted by AnaCapa on June 7, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Zach Stewart did not steal the drum. I don't think it's unreasonable for Proctor to give Stewart the $1500.00 he paid for the drum. There must be a statute of limitations for stolen property.
Posted by RedTail on June 7, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree AnaCapa. It's not like Stewart stole it from him. He just bought it from someone else, thinking it was probably sold at one time by its original owner. But I understand Proctor's frustration; I'd be pissed too--I wish he could go after the guy who stole it from him. Lesson learned for Proctor--Never leave or loan valuables to anyone. I think Stewart is being fair; It's not like he is profiting from this. He just unfortunately got in the middle of this mess. Maybe they can track the transactions all the way back to the person that originally sold it.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on June 7, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I do not think its fair at all he has to pay for his own property. Buy it send a check or Cashiers check then put a stop on it and let the law handle the situation. If they track it back far enough they will find who stole it. Alot of work.........and investigating but only fair. I would do what ever is possible to get it back then cancel the payment.........Just my opinion.....
Posted by RedTail on June 7, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhat, If I remember correctly, when you do a transaction on Ebay, you do it through Paypal, which guarantees the transaction. No one sends anything until the money is processed and guaranteed.
I'm sure Stewart will be reading this story and the accompanying comments, so I would think he'll be wary of doing any transaction now. I'm sure there are laws regarding this, so if Proctor doesn't want to pony up the money, then it would probably be wise for Stewart to hang onto his investment and wait until a court can settle this dispute.
Posted by SpiderWoman on June 7, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You kind of feel for both in this story and see both of their sides. Remember that old T Bird that was stolen and turned up on eBay eons later, the police took it away from the seller and reunited the original owner at the CHP office in Moorpark.
Posted by vwhunter on June 7, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot
Stewart’s offer is reasonable, heck his purchase made it possible for Proctor to find it.
You should be able to sell for whatever profit the market will bear, especially when competitive bidding on E-Bay for collectables. It is certainly not an essential for life.
Posted by pawndog on June 7, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
California may have a law requiring a "found" item to be returned to it's owner, but Zach Stewart did not "find" the drum. He purchased it legitimately and honestly. He didn't "steal" the drum, either. Dennis Proctor should be angry with his "fellow musician" who failed to return it 12 years ago, and sue HIM. Even if it had been reported as "stolen" in 1996, the statute of limitations has run out! Dennis should be THRILLED Zack is willing to be a gentleman and part with it for what he paid. Even Sgt. Hammer said that was fair. As far as "profit" on eBay, sometimes you get lucky. Remember, Zach Stewart is a re-seller with an online drum shop business(OlDrums).
Posted by bluedogvan on June 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Proctor should give Stewart the $1500.00. I agree. Stewart didn't steal it. He bought it (he thought) fair and square. Proctor can call it a finder's fee for heaven's sake. Or a reward. Stewart shouldn't reap a loss at Proctor's fortune of finding it again....What do you think Proctor?
Posted by JumpinJack on June 7, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A bona fide purchaser of a fungible good does not have any right to keep it, if it was stolen from a legitimate owner. That's the law.
The poor guy in South Dakota is in possession of stolen property. Doesn't matter if he bought it.
Posted by GitRdone on June 7, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I AGREE WITH PAWNDOG.......GOOD POINT !!
IF ALL ELSE FAILS TRYING TO RETRIEVE "HIS" LOST ITEM FROM YEARS EARLIER, WHY NOT ACCEPT STEWART'S OFFER ?? HE IS GIVING PROCTOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE IT FOR WHAT HE BOUGHT IT FOR. STEWART ISN'T BEING A JERK ABOUT IT, SO LIKE I SAID, IF ALL ELSE FAILS, THEN AT LEAST GIVE STEWART THE RESPECT HE DESERVES AS WELL. THE DRUM WAS PAID FOR BY STEWART , & STEWART IS GIVING PROCTOR THE SAME DEAL HE BOUGHT IT FOR.
Posted by mesantia on June 7, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this guy sells it,isn't that selling stolen property? He has the documentation this guy sent him.
Posted by cast on June 7, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the 18 year old Stewart.Should be mad to give it back.He bought stolen property.It's not fair that you can buy stolen property cheap.Then take a chance and resale for double.Please i'm sure he played a blind eye.Maybe next time Stewart buys anything to resale.He will want to know all the previous owners.Just like when you buy a used car.
Posted by cast on June 7, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i meant he should be made to give it back.
Posted by sparks240 on June 7, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stewart purchaced stolen property. Proctors name is on the drum. Let the buyer beware applies here. He should give it back or be arrested.
Posted by itchthing on June 7, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Something is rotten in Denmark! Why is this guy Proctor so vindictive? How did the press find out about this story?
The drum was never stolen, it was borrowed and not returned, proctor should have sued the guy that borrowed it, Too late now. Proctor screwed up 12 years ago, now he wants this poor kid to pay for his mistakes.
Stewart made proctor a generous offer, he has absolutely now obligation to return the drum, ethically or legally.
Proctor leave the kid alone.
Posted by hemlock1262 on June 7, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stewart bought the drum in an arm's-length transaction. It's his. Proctor can be sure that he'll spend a lot more than $1,500 on attorneys if he wants to go that route. And the FBI? C'mon, let's not be ridiculous, mister. You want your drum? Buy it. Because right now, it's Stewart's.
Posted by peterpan11 on June 7, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why get the police involved? Its a CIVIL matter! Quit calling the police for stupid stuff and let them handle REAL crime that happens.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on June 7, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think "JumpinJack" has it right.
Stolen goods are just that. Stewart has cause for legal action against who he bought the drum from...and so on down the line.
Procter is entitiled to his property back...period.
Of course....it might be a sticky issue that Procter did not pursue more actions against the one he loaned the drum to...although filing the police report should cover that.
Posted by star on June 7, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The drum still belongs to Dennis Proctor. It's still his drum.
It being stolen (and itchthing, you might want to note that borrowing and not returning? Same thing as stealing. Really.) doesn't change that.
Yeah, it stinks. When you steal stuff, there's a victim. Funny how that works.
Posted by WarChiefCVA64 on June 8, 2008 at 1:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A title of ownership on a stolen item never transfers to an innocent purchaser down stream. The is a statuate of limitations on the theft, but ownership is ownership.
Posted by mesantia on June 8, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for clarifying mmshoot.I appreciate it
Posted by Face on June 8, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The collector was foolish contacting the buyer before gaining possession of the drum via PayPal Buy it Now. He should have paid and waited for it to arrive. After arriving he could have opened a dispute with PayPal and showed the police report etc. as having been stolen from him. PayPal would have found in his favor and he would have the drum in his possession and his money he paid returned.
Posted by HavingMySay on June 9, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Face--How fair is that to the guy who has it? It is not his fault and I doubt PayPal would do a refund unless some "breach" was found on the part of the guy selling.
I think this guy must not want it back THAT bad if it is more important to stand on principal and be stubborn than it is to get it in his possession. I say buy it or quit complaining. Whiner! Be happy you found it at all!
Posted by Face on June 9, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is stolen merchandise, regardless of whose possession it is in. They guy might not be guilty of a crime, but he possesses stolen merchandise. Ebay/PayPal are not a fencing operation.
Posted by Face on June 9, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Think of it this way. Say a million dollar famous painting was stolen from a museum 10 years ago. All the sudden it appears on Ebay for 500,000 USD by a guy who bought it from some guy somewhere. Do you think they seller will be getting 500K come time the Feds find out? The drum may not be a Monet, but the same principle applies.
Posted by porcelaingirl13 on June 17, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The kid who was selling the drum did not steal it, why should he suffer (what was he, 6 when it was stolen)? He made a compromise and offered it at a lower price. Why make a kids life "a living hell" because you lent the drum out to another person and it disappeared? Life lesson- Never lend you gold plated goodies to others! geesh.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.