Pins For Sale?

[violetpretty]

This brings up an interesting point. We are taught that our badges really belong to HQ, that we are essentially renting them. So, when a member sells "her" bagde, is the badge considered stolen property and therefore, are sites like fratpin and stores on eBay illegal? Does our HQ (and the HQs of other GLOs) not fight it because we lack the resources or it would be more of a fight than its worth (i.e. we'd lose more money than the badges are worth)?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, our badges are special, for members only, the badges belong to HQ etc.

Originally Posted by violetpretty

This brings up an interesting point. We are taught that our badges really belong to HQ, that we are essentially renting them. So, when a member sells "her" bagde, is the badge considered stolen property and therefore, are sites like fratpin and stores on eBay illegal? Does our HQ (and the HQs of other GLOs) not fight it because we lack the resources or it would be more of a fight than its worth (i.e. we'd lose more money than the badges are worth)?

Pardon the crash, but as a legal matter, I think there is a real question as to just how enforceable the idea that a badge belongs to HQ really is.

With the caveat that I don't know anything specific about Sigma Kappa's policy on the matter, most such policies that I have seen have only been adopted in the last 10 or 15+ years (since the rise of sites like eBay). That being so, they can't apply to anyone who purchased her badge before the policy was in place.

As to those who were initiated after the policy went into effect, it still wouldn't be enforceable unless it was clearly laid out in writing at the time of the purchase of the badge; my guess is that the person purchasing the badge would need to have signed a document acknowledging that the org retained ownership of the badge and that she was simply "purchasing" the right to wear it.

My guess is that orgs don't fight sites like eBay or VintageFraternityPins.com because they know they probably would lose.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Pardon the crash, but as a legal matter, I think there is a real question as to just how enforceable the idea that a badge belongs to HQ really is.

With the caveat that I don't know anything specific about Sigma Kappa's policy on the matter, most such policies that I have seen have only been adopted in the last 10 or 15+ years (since the rise of sites like eBay). That being so, they can't apply to anyone who purchased her badge before the policy was in place.

As to those who were initiated after the policy went into effect, it still wouldn't be enforceable unless it was clearly laid out in writing at the time of the purchase of the badge; my guess is that the person purchasing the badge would need to have signed a document acknowledging that the org retained ownership of the badge and that she was simply "purchasing" the right to wear it.

My guess is that orgs don't fight sites like eBay or VintageFraternityPins.com because they know they probably would lose.

That's exactly what I was wondering.

Also, to Sig Kaps, a triangle that I rescued from eBay, I can't figure out what the engraving on the back means. It says "R 264". It's really strange that it says R and not P (Rho) if it is indicating the chapter, or that there wouldn't be one or two more English letters if it were the member's initials. Our Rho chapter was at Randolph-Macon Women's College from 1917-1940. It's in really good shape, but still possible that it could be from near the time when the chapter closed.