Discussions about provenance often arise in the context of thefts committed during WWII, as well as mysterious losses of artworks and cultural objects during that time. This is not surprising, due to the fact that the Nazi Party looted a fifth of all art in Europe. Works not stolen were sometimes hidden in order to protect them from plunder. It has taken decades to restitute stolen objects, and there are many works still missing from rightful owners.
One of the first cases involving Nazi loot was Menzel v. List, 298 N.Y.S. 2d 979 (1969). Erna Menzel sued the Lists, good faith purchasers, for the return of a Chagall painting, Le Paysan à L’échelle, stolen from her vacated apartment in Brussels. The Menzels had fled their home in 1941 when the Nazis entered Belgium and plundered cultural property across the country. Amongst other allegations, the Lists argued that the Menzels had abandoned their property and asserted that they bought the work in good faith. The court ruled that the painting was not abandoned, and thus, the Nazi Party never gained title to the work. Ultimately though, the court had to make a determination between “two innocent parties,” and decided in favor of the original owner, Menzel. Despite the work’s return to Menzel, not all hope was lost for the good faith purchasers. The Lists recovered damages from the gallery that sold the work to them, the Perls Gallery. (The well-known gallery acquired the work in Paris in 1955, but its whereabouts between 1941 and 1955 is still unknown, demonstrating the importance of conducting thorough due diligence prior to an acquisition.)
During the decades following WWII, a number of disputes concerning Nazi loot came before US and international courts and committees, but a major resurgence of cases began decades later. In the 1990s, the international community began reexamining Nazi plunder in detail. The reunification of Germany and influx of information from the states formerly part of the Soviet Union resulted in the release of records about loot, and it sparked an increased global awareness about issues related to war-era thefts. During the same decade, non-binding legal instruments, like the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art were drafted.
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer
One of the most famous disputes over Nazi loot was Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004). The issue before the Supreme Court dealt with a very narrow exception for immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but the underlying facts of the case involve a number of paintings that share a similar sad history.
The litigation was filed by Maria Altmann, the niece of prominent Jewish manufacturers and art collectors, Ferdinand and Adele Bloch-Bauer. Their art collection included several works by Gustav Klimt, a prolific member of the Vienna Secession and a dear friend of the family. Adele died in 1925, and her will directed her surviving husband to donate six Klimt works to the Austrian State Gallery upon his death. During the probate of Adele’s will, it was determined that the works belonged to Ferdinand. The year after his wife’s passing, Ferdinand stated his intention to gift the works in accordance with his wife’s wishes, but he never did. In 1938, when the Nazis annexed Austria, Ferdinand fled Vienna, and the Nazis seized all of his property, including his art collection.
Following the war, Ferdinand attempted to recover his artwork, but he passed away in Switzerland in 1945. He left behind a short will in which none of his artwork was bequeathed to the Austrian gallery. On May 15, 1946 Austria enacted the “Annulment Law” (Federal Law Gazette 106/1946), a law that declared “null and void” all transactions and other legal actions carried out by the German Reich in the course of the financial or political penetration of Austria that resulted in the confiscation of property without fair compensation.
In 1947, Maria Altmann was named as an heir to Ferdinand’s estate. Along with the other heirs, she sought to reclaim Ferdinand’s property. The attorney for the heirs attempted to recover three Klimt paintings from the Austrian State Gallery, but the gallery claimed that the works were bequeathed to it by Adele Bloch-Bauer in 1926 and that Ferdinand only had permission to possess the works during his lifetime. The Austrian lawyer mistakenly believed that Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer’s intention to donate the paintings was binding, and thus, the works ended up being erroneously donated to the museum.
In 1998, after the seizure of two works on loan from Austria to the Museum of Modern Art in New York (see United States v. Portrait of Wally, 663 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), the Austrian National Gallery opened its archives to researchers. In 1999, journalist Hubertus Czernin contacted Maria Altmann with information proving that neither Ferdinand nor Adele had donated the works to the Austrian State Gallery. In the meantime, Austria passed a restitution law intended to return works donated under duress. A committee was formed and recommended the return of hundreds of works. However, it voted against returning the Klimt paintings. Altmann protested and requested arbitration, which was rejected. She then commenced litigation.
The Austrian government filed a motion to dismiss, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The district court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Altmann had the right to proceed with the litigation in the United States. Ultimately, the parties agreed to a binding arbitration in Austria. In 2006, the panel ruled in Altmann’s favor for 5 of the 6 works. Four of the works were sold at auction that year, and the fifth was purchased by Ronald Lauder for the Neue Galerie in NY. Lauder purchased the work for $135 million, then the highest price paid for a painting.
Provenance is central to nearly all matters related to stolen art. For instance, a detailed provenance of an illuminated manuscript looted during conflict was essential in the eventual settlement of a $105-million-dollar lawsuit, Western Prelacy of the American Apostolic Church of America v. J. Paul Getty Museum, No. BC438824 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2012), against the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, California. The Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America filed a suit in 2010 alleging that the museum purchased eight illustrated pages that were once part of a 750-year-old Bible. The manuscripts were known collectively as the Zeyt’un Gospels Canon Tables, but they had been stolen during the Armenian Genocide sometime between 1915-1923.
The Canon Tables, part of the Zeyt’un Gospels, were created in 1256 by T’oros Roslin, a revered High Middle Ages illuminator. It is one of only seven known preserved manuscripts bearing Roslin’s signature, and it is the earliest of his signed works. Through the centuries, the Zeyt’un Gospels were regarded as a cultural treasure, believed to wield powers that would shield and guard everyone associated with them. During the Armenian Genocide, the church hierarchy paraded the Zeytun Gospels through every street in Zeytun to create a divine firewall of protection around the city. The remaining part of the Zet’un Gospels were in Yerevan, Armenia, while the Canon Tables surreptitiously journeyed to the United States.
Page from the Canon Tables, Zeyt’un Gospels
The prelacy demanded return of the manuscripts from the Getty Museum, but they needed to establish their ownership rights first. Provenance research revealed that in the late nineteenth century, the Zeyt’un Gospels were in the joint possession of the Sourenian Family and the Church of the Holy Mother of God. The manuscript made its way to Marash (modern day Kahramanmaraş) in 1915 where Turkish authorities deported Prince Asadur Agha Sourenian, then in possession of the manuscript. In 1916, Dr. H. Der Ghazarian, a family friend of the Sourenians, borrowed the manuscript when the family was exiled to Syria. Four years later, in 1920, the doctor and his sister fled Marash, but they were forced to leave the manuscript behind. It was found by a Turk who took the rare item to Melkon Atamian for the purpose of selling it. Before refusing to handle the sale and returning the manuscript, Atamian cut away and removed the eight Canon Table folios illuminated by Roslin. Between the late 1960s and early 1980s, the manuscript (without the Canon Tables) changed hands several times, until it came to rest at the Mesrob Mashtots Matenadaran in Yerevan, Armenia, where it remains today. Contemporaneously, the illuminated Canon Tables removed from the manuscript were in the United States. Gil Atamian, the heir of Melkon Atamian, claimed to have inherited them upon his uncle’s death in 1980. He anonymously exhibited the works in 1994 at the Walters Gallery and the Pierpont Morgan Library in a show entitled “Treasures from Heaven: Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts.” That same year, the Getty Museum purchased the Canon Tables from Atamian.
Due to the Church’s ability to trace the passage of the pages, it demanded restitution and confirmed that the missing pages were the same as those in possession of the Getty Museum. As a result, a settlement was reached in September 2015, with the agreement acknowledged the Church’s rightful ownership of the Canon Tables. The Church then donated the illuminated pages to the Getty Museum in order to guarantee their preservation and exhibition. (For more information about the Zeyt’un Gospels, Guggenheim Fellowship winner Heghnar Zeitlian Watenpaugh’s The Missing Pages was released just last year.)
Although much of the focus of looting during WWII focuses on the wide-scale looting committed by the Nazis, Germany also suffered extensive losses of its own cultural heritage items. For example, it is estimated that the Soviet armed forces stole and transported more than 2.5 million objects from Germany to the USSR, and these items were held in secret until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The items became known as “trophy art” within Russia. American servicemen also stole valuable property throughout Europe during WWII.
One well-known restitution was for property stolen from the Church of St. Servatii in Quedlinburg, Germany (see United States v. Meador, No. 4:96-cr-00001 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 1996), aff’d, 138 F.3d 986 (5th Cir. 1998)). An American Army Officer, Joe T. Meador, stole a number of rare and valuable treasures and shipped them home to Texas. The stash comprised of 12 medieval religious treasures, including a 16th century manuscript with a jewel-encrusted cover.
Church of St. Servatii, Quedlinburg, Germany
Apart from their physical beauty, the Quedlinburg Treasures have great historical importance to Germany. Quedlinburg has a rich history dating back to at least the 10th century when it was ruled by Heinrich I, a 10th-century Saxon ruler who united an early configuration of German-speaking states (Heinrich is generally acknowledged as the founder of the medieval German state). The town’s treasure, containing extraordinary examples of medieval high craftsmanship, was located in the Schatzkammer (treasure chamber) of Quedlinburg’s cathedral for a thousand years. Saxon Queen Mathilde began building the town’s cathedral, St. Servatii, after the death of her husband Heinrich I in 926. The Quedlinburg Treasure was gathered at the church during the queen’s life. Subsequently, it became so large that it filled an entire treasure chamber. A millennium later, after Allied air-strikes on Germany began, the treasures were moved to a cave outside of the town for protection.
The treasures were hidden by church officials during the war, but the hoard was discovered by American forces, and then it went missing from Quedlinburg during the final weeks of WWII. The church reported the objects as missing, and the US Army even investigated the theft, but officials were unable to locate the missing pieces. Eventually, the United States abandoned its efforts when Quedlinburg became part of East Germany, and the objects were finally discovered decades later.
Unbeknownst to the church, Meador had found these items and absconded with them. An unofficial history of the 87th Armored Field Artillery Battalion states that Lieutenant Meador was assigned to Headquarters Battery, one of three units that organized teams to search the town for weapons, radio transmitters and other contraband. The unit’s history states that ”an intoxicated soldier,” discovered a “cave on the outskirts of the city” filled with ”valuables, art treasures, precious gems and records of all sorts.” Guarding this ”Nazi loot,” the history states, became an ”important” task for the 87th Battalion.
Meador evidently did not guard the property well, but rather took the opportunity to commit a crime. He mailed the precious objects to his family in Texas, with instructions that they not open the package. In references to the boxes he sent home, Meador wrote to his parents, “One is a box that contains a book, the cover of the book has a statue of Christ on it. By all means, if it gets home take extra good care of it. I have an idea that the cover is pure gold and the jewels on the cover are emeralds, jade and pearls. Don’t ask me where I got it! But it could possibly be very very [sic] valuable.” While still in Germany, he later lamented, “Now that the war is over it is harder to get things.” After his return from the war, Meador kept the treasures in a safe deposit box for decades.
Upon Meador’s death in 1980, the objects passed to his brother and sister, who then began selling the works. However, the lack of provenance led to problems. Reputable sellers would not deal with the objects, as experts realized that the works were the missing property from Quedlinburg. It consequently became impossible for Meador’s heirs to sell the property on the open market. Furthermore, due to the attempts to sell the works privately, the identities of Meador’s heirs were discovered, and several lawsuits were filed for the restitution of those objects. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement in 1992, and the heirs returned all the works in exchange for $2.75 million. Before the objects were returned to Germany, they were exhibited in the Dallas Museum of Art.
Another case involving property taken from Germany was the ownership dispute between a German museum and an American collector. (Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon, 678 F. 2d 1150 (2d Cir. 1982). The case was particularly complex because the works belonged to Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar (KZW), a museum located in East Germany, a country not recognized by the United States. After East Germany was finally recognized, New York federal courts ruled that KZW is the rightful owner of the works.
Portraits of Hans and Felicitas Tucher
As during many conflicts, important cultural items are stored for safekeeping. During WWII, KZW kept a number of works in a castle. In 1945, thirteen works were stolen from the castle, including two portraits by Albrecht Dürer. After the war, an American serviceman returned home and sold the Dürer works to a NY art collector. Purportedly unaware of their stolen nature, Elicofon bought the works for $450 and displayed them in his home. He discovered the paintings’ attribution from a friend who had seen them in a book about artworks stolen from Germany during WWII. Afterwards, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchess of Saxony-Weimar, and KZW demanded the return of the paintings. Elicofon refused. The lawsuit involved complex questions of international law due to the fact that the United States did not recognize East Germany at the time of the lawsuit’s filing in 1969. The case took over a decade to litigate, but it was finally resolved in 1981 when the Eastern District of New York granted a summary judgment motion in favor of KZW and compelled Elicofon to transfer ownership and possession of the works to the museum.
The two works, painted by Dürer in 1499, originally comprised a diptych. The portraits are of Hans Tucher and his wife Felicitas, members of a prominent Nuremberg family. The couple is shown in lavish clothing. The husband wears a ring on his thumb, in addition to another ring evidencing his marriage to Felicitas in 1482. His wife holds a carnation with a bud and a flower. Her waistcoat is held by a buckle engraved with his husband’s initials. The inscription in the top right of the portrait reads “FELITZ. HANS. TUCHERIN, 33 JOR. ALT. SALUS.” In 1824, the two portraits were included in the inventory of the museum in the Jägerhaus of Weimar. Until 1927, the works were part of the private art collection of the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. In 1927, title to the Grand Duke’s art collection was transferred to the government of the Land of Thuringia. Until 1943, the Dürer paintings were on exhibition in the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar, the predecessor museum to KZW. But in 1943, officials of the museums feared that the museum might be bombed, so the works were moved to a storeroom in the castle at Schwarzburg. In June 1945, a United States Army regiment was stationed at Schwarzburg Castle. The disappearance of the paintings coincided with the departure of the American troops in July 1945. Subsequent to Elicofon’s return, a number of other looted artworks were returned to the KZW, including works by Jacopo de’ Barbari and Johann Tischbein.
Amineddoleh & Associates is currently working with a client to restitute an important cultural object that was removed from Germany during WWII, and the firm has previously assisted other parties with similar matters.
In addition to offering compelling information to historians and art lovers, provenance often plays a central role in ownership disputes. Essentially, you cannot demand the return of an object, if it wasn’t yours to begin with. Without proof of ownership, a party lacks legal standing to successfully make a claim for restitution. (“Standing” is a requirement of Article III of Constitution. It is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. In simple terms, courts use “standing” to ask, “Does this party have a ‘dog in this fight?’”) For this reason, determining provenance is vital in lawsuits involving stolen property because only parties with an ownership interest can demand restitution.
Oftentimes provenance is central to matters related to Nazi-looted art. But proving ownership can be extremely difficult for individuals victimized by the Nazis because of the events that occurred during WWII. The displacement of art during the war was vast; it is estimated that 20% of art and valuables in Europe were looted by the Nazis (this includes items such as musical instruments, jewelry, furniture, porcelain, books, and other personal property). Sadly, most owners lack documentation to support their restitution demands. As people fled their homes and countries, they left behind not only their property, but paperwork associated with those items. Without that documentation, it is an incredible burden to make a claim for restitution because it is nearly impossible to prove ownership. But for the small minority of owners able to successfully demand return of their property, crucial evidence is sometime found in the most unexpected of places.
Landscape with Smokestacks
That was exactly what led the Goodman (Gutmann) Family to pursue a restitution case against Daniel Searle, a collector who had purchased a stolen Degas landscape. The Gutmanns (a wealthy banking family) had an enviable art collection that the Nazis coveted. Landscape with Smokestacks was placed in storage by the Gutmann Family in 1939 in order to save it from Nazi seizure. However, it was eventually taken by the Nazis after the work’s custodians perished in concentration camps. The Degas painting then resurfaced in Switzerland after the war, and then was acquired by a New York collector in 1951. It was eventually sold to Daniel Searle in 1987, with the assistance of the Art Institute of Chicago.
Interestingly, the Gutmann heirs began a quest to recover an impressive art collection after one of the heirs discovered his true identity. Simon Goodman, whose father had moved to England and changed his name from Gutmann to Goodman, had grown up unaware that he was Jewish or that his family owned an incredible art collection. He had discovered this information after receiving a collection of boxes after his father’s death that contained information about his family’s looted collection and ownership information about some of the pieces.
The Degas painting was on the inventory of missing family treasures. During their research, the Gutmann heirs came across a photograph of the work. “Monuments Woman” Rose Valland heroically recorded information about plundered art, and after the war, presented one of the surviving Gutmann family members with images of their looted property. Although only a black-and-white photo, it was used to establish the provenance, verify legal ownership claims, and resolve the legal dispute. The lawsuit lasted over two years, and ended with a settlement. Searle donated a fifty percent ownership interest in the work to the Art Institute of Chicago, and ceded a fifty percent interest to the Gutmann heirs. As part of the agreement, the museum purchased the Gutmann’s interest based on the market value. It was the first dispute over Nazi-looted art settled in the U.S.(For more information about the Gutmann Family’s provenance research and legal battles, Simon Goodman’s The Orpheus Clock is a gripping book about his family’s struggles.)
Determining provenance can be very challenging. Over time, information about a works’ ownership is lost. Sales documents and receipts are lost, first-hand knowledge about transactions slowly disappears as individuals involved in a sale pass away and memories fade. It is especially challenging to piece together a provenance when parties conceal this vital information. Thieves (whether they are individuals or groups) attempt to erase the truth about works, or create a false provenance, so that they can lay claim to the property. This is exactly what the Nazi Party did as it stole art and valuables across Europe.
An image of the Monument Men with recovered artwork (AP Photo/National Archives and Records Administration)
In 1943, the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program (MFAA) was established under the Civil Affairs and Military Government sections of the Allied armies. Its members, better known as the Monuments Men, worked to protect artworks, archives, and monuments in Europe. 345 men and women served in this group, including well-known art professionals, including curators and historians from the National Gallery of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Harvard and the New York City Ballet. With an overwhelming task to protect sites and return works to rightful owners, the Monuments Men faced an incredible hurdle. Making things even harder were limited resources and a short timeframe in which to conclude their work. Although many works remain missing to this day, the Monuments Men were able to return more than five million looted cultural items.
The first museum in the United States to hire a full-time provenance researcher was the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. In 2003, they hired Victoria Reed to serve as Curator for Provenance. She has been instrumental in conducting research that has led to the return of a number of stolen arts or payment of financial settlements to rightful owners, such as with Eglon van der Neer’s Protrait of a Man and Woman in an Interior. (Following the MFA’s lead, a number of other institutions have hired provenance researchers to examine items in their collections.) While the MFA Boston is closed, Dr. Reed is posting daily tweets about artworks from the museum’s collection that feature interesting provenance information.
Our founder has served as counsel on a number of stolen art matters. One of the cases in which she served as lead litigation counsel involved a civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture occurs when government agents seize property suspected of being involved in criminal activity. The property owner doesn’t have to be charged with a crime, so the case is actually against the property itself which is why some forfeiture cases have unusual names. Case in point: United States of America v. The Painting Known and Described as ‘Madonna and Child’ attributed to the Florentine Painter Active In The Ambit of Cimabue, Circa 1285–1290, held by Sotheby’s in New York.
The three-decade long disappearance of the thirteenth century painting is a tale about the development of provenance in a legal battle. The story begins in 1977 with the purchase of the panel from a religious mission in London. Co-owners of the painting sold partial interests in the work to other art collectors so that each of the parties owned a percentage of the work. After its purchase, the parties placed the work in a jointly-rented safe deposit in Switzerland, and tried to market the work to sell it.
Unbeknownst to the other parties, one of the co-owners moved the painting to his own safe deposit box in the mid-1980s. In early 1990, he was brought to court. There was an order from an English judge restraining him from selling the painting. However, he used aliases to market the painting. Eventually he hid the painting and he fled to France, and a series of legal conflicts and international police investigations began. The situation quieted down and the co-owner died in Florida in 2006. He left his interest in the painting to his wife who eventually consigned the work in Sotheby’s in 2013.
Due diligence at Sotheby’s revealed that the painting was stolen after the Art Recovery Group discovered that the work appeared in its database of stolen art. The January 2014 sale was stopped. In June of that year, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a complaint against the stolen painting, and Sotheby’s voluntarily forfeited the work. At that point, anyone with an ownership interest was invited to file a claim with supporting documentation. Although there was a gap of over twenty years during which time the painting was hidden, there was substantial documentation supporting our clients’ claims. We developed the evidentiary record in the form of an extensive provenance by supplying the original purchase and sales documents (from the 1970s), bank records from the safe deposit, signed and notarized affidavits, police and INTERPOL reports, the power of attorney allowing one of the owners to sell he work on behalf of the consortium of owners, postmarked letters from the time of the painting’s disappearance, one of the owner’s wills that specifically named the piece, a 1990 article in the Antiquities Trade Gazette, and court decisions against the thief.
With such strong proof of ownership, the case was resolved in the spring of 2015; title was returned to the legitimate owners, and the work was auctioned at Christie’s, with proceeds going to the rightful parties. The co-owner’s widow thought she would be able to sell the work painting because the other co-owners had lost track of the piece over the long lapse of time. However, ownership is part of the permanent provenance that accompanies a work.
Our civil forfeiture case cleared any clouds on the title and the current owner (the individual who purchased the painting at auction) has perfect title because a US court made a definitive ownership determination (as Christie’s noted in its catalog.) The only unanswered question now is attribution (we will address attribution in future posts). The lack of provenance prior to the 1977 purchase makes it particularly challenging to identify the attribution. As of now, the author is identified as “a close follower of Duccio.”
From a legal perspective, provenance is important for a number of reasons. A series of blog posts during the next couple weeks will examine a variety of objects with interesting provenances, discuss the importance of provenance in legal disputes, present the role of provenance for authentication matters, and provide guidance for collectors. This first post will examine the establishment of provenance, notable histories, and a few interesting objects.
Provenance is an ownership history– the life of an object and its owners, wrapped into one. A provenance may consist of documents related to a work’s sale, such as purchase and sales agreements, bills of sale, or receipts. Exhibition, auction or museum records also supply important details, as the objects may have been listed in a contract, a catalog, a magazine, a newspaper or an advertisement. Another valuable resource is documentation memorializing the transfer of ownership within a family, like through a trust or will. Similarly, information from insurance policies may provide important details about ownership and location.
Copyright: artemodernapordenone.it
Some provenance information can be more personal in nature. For example, letters or journal entries offer important information about an object’s movements through time; these writings also provide insights about the personal connections people had with their work. For example, Vincent van Gogh’s frequent correspondences with his brother shed light on the painter’s activities and processes. Famed collectors have also been known to record their purchases in letters, journals or scrapbooks. Photographs may also play an important role in tracing a work’s movements, and they have provided serendipitous proof in a number of art law matters (we will discuss some of these matters in future blog posts). Yet, even without other sources, a provenance can be ascertained from the object itself. An object may bear an artist’s signature and date, in addition to sales labels, museum stamps, collector’s marks, or other distinctive visual clues.
An ideal provenance traces a work back to the artist’s hand, to the moment when a work sprang to life. However, a complete provenance is atypical for works older than a century. Provenances can provide important context for objects. In some instances, provenances may be even more interesting than the objects themselves. Some objects have passed through the hands of famous dealers, respected collectors, celebrity personalities, and even royal families. With each movement or transaction, the owners become part of the artwork’s history.
Last year, an exhibition opened at the Met Cloisters entitled The Colmar Treasure: a Medieval Jewish Legacy. The individual items on display were not extremely costly, but the story of the trove is riveting, yet tragic. A cache of rings, brooches, and coins was hidden in the 14th century in the wall of a house in the idyllic French town of Colmar. While renovating a shop in 1863, on a street known as the rue des Juifs (the Street of Jews), workmen stumbled upon a small cache of medieval jewels and coins. Based upon the location of the treasure and the appearance of a Jewish Ceremonial Wedding Ring, historians were able to piece together a tragic tale. The collection tells the story of the Jewish minority community in the picturesque French town. When the Plague struck in 1345-1349, townspeople all along the Rhine accused Jewish citizens of poisoning wells. Colmar burned its Jewish citizens to death. Following the massacre, the emperor exploited the opportunity to claim ownership of Jewish assets. From this, historians presume that the owners of the treasure hid it behind a wall for safekeeping. Historians have not identified the owners. No one can be certain why the items were left there for centuries, the history of the town suggests that the owners were victims of the scapegoating or fled from Colmar before they could remove the property. The discovery behind the wall allows us to understand the treasure’s context and a bit of its past.
Recently, another work appeared from behind a wall. We reported on it last year when the New York Times featured an article about a 17th-century painting by Arnould de Vuez, discovered during the renovation of an Oscar de la Renta boutique in Paris. Read our earlier blog post to learn about the object’s identification. However, the work’s journey is still not clear.
On the other hand, some works have fully developed provenances that date back for many centuries. Titian’s Allegory of Marriage (also known as the Allegory of the Marchese del Vasto) has graced many important collections during its 480-year history. It has been owned by eleven different owners, originating in Italy before moving on to England and France. Titian painted the work in 1540 in Venice, and then it moved to the Palazzo Ducale for its commissioner, Alfonso d’Avalos. It then went to Vincenzo Gonzaga in 1627. Next, it moved to Murano with famed Flemish art dealer Daniel Nijs, before it transferred to Charles I, who displayed it at the Palace of Whitehall from 1639-1649. (The French King may have acquired it at auction in Spain). It remained at Whitehall until it was sold to Louis XIV in 1683 and then displayed at Versailles Palace. It was then owned by Duc d’Antin from 1715-1737, held at Hôtel d’Antin. The painting then returned to Versailles with Louis XV from 1737-1752. Finally, it was transferred into the Royal Collection in 1752, and then moved to the Louvre (perhaps in 1785) where it is still on display. The journey of this masterpiece is extraordinary because it changed so many hands, but we are still able to trace it directly back to the artist without any gaps. (This is also valuable for the authentication process– a topic we will address in a later blog post.)
Establishing a strong provenance is important not just for fine art, but for other collectibles and luxury items, including jewelry, musical instruments, and even carpets or furniture. In 2010, a set of playing cards was sold at auction for millions of dollars. The cards were not made for playing, but were created as works for a Kunstkammer, a collector’s cabinet. Although estimated to sell for $150,000 to $250,000, the item realized £2,421,123. The high price was due to the rarity of the set—it is one of only five sets of silver cards, and it is the only complete one. But making the set even more valuable is its extraordinary history. The parcel-gilt silver cards were created in Augsburg, Germany in 1616.
Legend has it that the cards were eventually in the possession of Infanta Carlota Joaquina of Spain, Princess of Portugal and Brazil, and the daughter of King Carlos IV. When Napoleon forced the Spanish King to abdicate, the princess became claimant to the throne of Spain and Spanish America. It is believed she took the set with her when she was exiled from Europe and fled to Brazil. It is thought that Princess Carlota gifted the cards to the wife of Felipe Contucci, a man who helped her try to take the Spanish crown after Napoleon forced her brother to abdicate. Contucci passed the cards down through the family. Although the provenance is hard to prove, when the cards were sold in 2010, they came in an early 19th-century leather box with a brass plate with this provenance engraved on it.
Carpets and tapestries are luxury items with prices greatly influenced by provenance. Persian carpets have been collected over the centuries and may command very high prices at auction. In 2019, Christie’s sold a pair of silk and metal-thread Polonaise carpets for millions of dollars. It is likely that the carpets have been together since their creation over four centuries ago. The carpets were woven under the instruction of the ruler of the Safavid Dynasty, Shah ‘Abbas I of Persia, with each carpet typical of the elegant designs produced in Isfahan during the shah’s reign. At the time, Isfahan was the capital of Persia; today it is a city still renowned for its elegant art and architecture.
Carpets and tapestries are luxury items with prices greatly influenced by provenance. Persian carpets have been collected over the centuries and may command very high prices at auction. In 2019, Christie’s sold a pair of silk and metal-thread Polonaise carpets for millions of dollars. It is likely that the carpets have been together since their creation over four centuries ago. The carpets were woven under the instruction of the ruler of the Safavid Dynasty, Shah ‘Abbas I of Persia, with each carpet typical of the elegant designs produced in Isfahan during the shah’s reign. At the time, Isfahan was the capital of Persia; today it is a city still renowned for its elegant art and architecture.
The carpets made their way to the Polish court to the Elector of Saxony, Augustus the Strong (who would eventually serve as King of Poland). Interestingly, Augustus was known for his patronage of the arts. He built palaces in Dresden, including the Green Vault, one of the earliest public museums in Germany (and one that was recently the victim of a high-profile and devastating theft). After returning to Poland after a two-year sojourn through Italy and France, Augustus worked to amass a collection, including Persian carpets, to display his wealth and power.
Travelers during the 17th and 18th centuries noted the sophistication and beauty of carpets coming from Isfahan, and a number of the “Polonaise” style carpets ended up in Europe where they were popular with 17th century courts and gifted to high-ranking officials. They were particularly popular in Poland. (In fact, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a Polonaise carpet on display.) In 1695, Augustus gave the carpets to Count Lothar Franz von Schönborn, Prince-Elector and Arch-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire. The Schönborn family commissioned beautiful Baroque buildings in southern Germany, including the Schloss Weißenstein (Weissenstein Palace). The summer palace came to house one of the largest collections of Old Master paintings in Germany, including works by Rubens, Titian, and Van Dyck. It was in this palace that the two Polonaise carpets remained for centuries. Interestingly, the original palace inventory labels remain on the carpets, bearing proof of their royal provenance. The two carpets sold at Christie’s were particularly coveted because of their pristine condition and vibrant colors. However, the royal provenance makes the items especially valuable. Each of the Polonaise carpets sold for nearly £ 4,000,000 last year.
It is a privilege to work with clients, including major collectors and dealers, to assist them with investigating their unique property. We work with some of the world’s leading provenance experts to examine works ranging from paintings, antiquities, illuminated manuscripts, photographs, automata, and even clothing. No two matters are alike, and we pair our extensive network of experts with our extensive expertise in art, cultural heritage, and intellectual property law. It is a pleasure to assist our clients in navigating the sometimes overwhelming art market.
Photo: Leila Amineddoleh NOT performing on a destroyed Fazioli piano
Instruments, like fine art, must be carefully handled. Unfortunately, accidents do happen. A rare $194,000 Fazioli piano was destroyed when movers dropped it during its transit from a recording studio. The piano’s iron frame smashed when the 1300 pound instrument fell as movers attempted to lift it on to a trolley. The force of the break, compounded by the high tensions in the piano’s strings, was so strong that it split the piano’s lid in two.
The instrument belonged to Canadian virtuoso Angela Hewitt. Her F278 Fazioli piano was the only one in the world with four pedals. The pianist kept the instrument in her home in Italy. Fazioli Pianos originate in Sacile, near Venice, an area famed for woodworking. “There are six or seven top companies making good quality pianos. Different pianos appeal to different people according to tone and touch. The Fazioli is good for Bach,” said Simon Markson, managing director at Markson Pianos.
Hewitt said she will choose a new Fazioli in the next few months, writing, “I hope my piano will be happy in piano heaven.” Speaking of her destroyed piano, Hewitt said, “It was my best friend, best companion. I loved how it felt when I was recording — giving me the possibility to do anything I wanted.” Italian engineer and pianist Paolo Fazioli, the owner of Fazioli Pianos, deemed the instrument “unsalvageable.”
Similar to appraising unique fine art items, valuing an exquisite piano is challenging. Each piano is unique. And like with fine art, an instrument’s provenance (ownership history) affects its value. Here, the Fazioli piano’s value would have been boosted by the fact that it was owned and played by such a talented and well-known pianist. According to Terence Lewis, co-owner of London’s Jaques Samuel Pianos, “If that piano went to auction unbroken that [the piano’s ownership by Hewitt] would have given it a very large premium.”
It is important that all owners of valuable instruments properly insure their property. As Ms. Hewitt told CNN, she is handling insurance issues now. This serves as a reminder to all owners: it is important to regularly appraise valuable property and update insurance policies.
Our previous post focused on the artistic and financial value of musical instruments. Like other movable pieces of art, due to their unique characteristics, musical instruments are very susceptible to loss or theft – although thieves may not always know the value of what they have stolen. Some items take years to track down, while others disappear altogether. In 2013, a Manhattan violin shop was sued for losing a 176-year-old fiddle valued at $400,000. The owner had consigned the instrument years before but the shop never found a buyer. When the owner returned to claim her property, she was eventually told that the violin had been lent to an individual for a trial and they never returned. The instrument essentially walked out the door, never to be seen again.
In the UK, a couple has spent 15 years stealing musical instruments from stores, including a rare guitar worth £11,000. The woman tucked inside her fur coat before waving goodbye and leaving. Despite being photographed on CCTV, they continue to “steal expensive musical instruments to order.”
However, theft is most often one of opportunity rather than premeditation. Robert K. Wittman, former FBI agent on the Art Crime Team, states: “What [the thieves] are interested in doing is trying to make a quick flip and make as much money as they can off it.” As a result, victims of instrument theft should file a police report immediately and quickly notify local dealers, repairers, and pawn shops – that way, once the thief tries to sell his loot, he will get caught. However, police departments may not be aware of the value of a musical piece, which means that proactivity and partnering with seasoned industry professionals is essential. Law enforcement officers generally understand that cars, jewelry and certain paintings are worth millions – but they may not realize that instruments can also command such high prices.
Lawyers specializing in art and cultural heritage are uniquely poised to understand the sentimental and monetary value of these items and ensure that they are protected as much as possible before and during their recovery. Moreover, as time is of the essence in these cases, specialized attorneys can point the police in the right direction and intercept likely buyers before an unauthorized sale takes place.
Connoisseurs, collectors, and lovers of musical instruments alike must be vigilant and know the risks posed to their belongings. Amineddoleh & Associates represents a considerable number of clients in musical matters– the firm’s attorneys are always pleased to work with clients to protect and recover musical property.
Carpets and tapestries are luxury items with prices greatly influenced by provenance. Persian carpets have been collected over the centuries and may command very high prices at auction. In 2019, Christie’s sold a pair of silk and metal-thread 
