E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Potomack Company via AP
This undated image provided by the Potomack Company shows French Impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir's "Paysage Bords de Seine," which was purchased for $7 at a flea market in West Virginia.
The Renoir painting that caused a sensation when it was bought at a flea market for $7 may have been stolen from a museum six decades ago, and an auction house has put its sale on hold.
Pierre-Auguste Renoir's painting "Paysage Bords de Seine" was due to go to auction through the Potomack Company on Saturday, but its sale was put on hold after a Washington Post reporter discovered documents in the Baltimore Museum of Art's library showing it was on loan there from 1937 until 1951, when it was stolen.
The Impressionist work, whose title translates as "Landscape on the Banks of the Seine," was purchased two years ago at a West Virginia flea market.
The buyer, a Virginia woman who has not revealed her name, took it to auction house The Potomack Co. in July, and experts there confirmed it was by the French master Pierre-Auguste Renoir. The frame of the painting includes a "Renoir" plaque.
"I originally bought it for the frame," the buyer admitted to NBCWashington.com earlier this month. "I was trying to rip it apart... I was like, well, maybe I should wait." The buyer's mother encouraged her to get it appraised.
It was expected to fetch $75,000 to $100,000 at auction.
"The rest of the auction will go on, but the Renoir has been withdrawn," said Lucie Holland, a spokeswoman for The Potomack Co.
Read the story on NBCWashington.com
Potomack said that the London-based Art Loss Registry had said that the painting had never been reported stolen or missing and the FBI's art theft website did not list it as stolen either. There was also no police report from the theft.
The FBI is now investigating.
'Caught by surprise'
The Renoir came to the Baltimore museum through one of its leading benefactors, collector Saidie May. Her family bought it from the Bernheim-Jeune gallery in Paris in 1926.
The Washington Post found records in the museum's library on Tuesday that showed May had lent the paintings and other works to the museum in 1937, Potomack said.
After the newspaper told it of the findings, the Baltimore museum checked its files and found a loan record showing the Renoir had been stolen on November 17, 1951. What happened to it after the theft is unknown.
Doreen Bolger, the museum director, said the museum's probe into what happened to the painting was in early stages.
May died in May 1951 and the art collection was willed to the museum. As its ownership was going through legal transfer, the painting was stolen while still listed as on loan.
The Mona Lisa Foundation, based in Switzerland, is claiming Leonardo da Vinci painted an earlier version of the Mona Lisa. Is she or isn't she? NBC's Jim Maceda reports.
"We were caught by surprise," Bolger said on Thursday.
"At this point we just want to make sure that the painting winds up where it belongs and that we provide all the information we can to law enforcement about this issue," Bolger said.
She said that she would be happy to show the painting again if it is ultimately returned to the museum.
NBC News staff, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Summer's over, but drought persists; two-thirds of contiguous US affected
- Lucky 13 brings $202 million for Powerball ticket sold in Iowa
- Authorities hunting for 73-year-old accused of killing his daughter-in-law
- Video: Helmet camera captures soldier shot in firefight
- No fix for 'Jesus rifles' deploying to Afghanistan
Leave a Comment:
One sometimes dreams of finding some fabulously expensive work of art, or collectable antique at a garage sale, except that I never stop at such events, and I would be unable to tell the difference between junk and treasure.
I'd be the one bringing a velvet painting of Elvis in to an appraiser's office.
I go to flea markets to buy stuff I actually need, like tools and even clothes. It is a great way to keep your cost down and recycle. A lot of older tools have awesome quality at extremely low price.
Sadly, I would have probably passed on that Renoir.
No Police report that it was stolen? The Museum doesn't deserve t get it back. If they want it back they can buy it at auction. As for the jacka55 Washington Post reporter that stole the joy of finding hidden treasure from a garage sale treasure hunter, well, use your imagination on what he/she should do with a rolled up paper.
MTpolitico; you are applying modern day thinking to a situation that happened over 60 years ago...this is not logical Captain.
I kind of doubt she bought it at a Flea Market - no mention in the story of which flea market it was. She just sat on it for two years? Wouldn't the first thing you would do is go on line and see if what you bought had any value?
Some amateur crook stole it and with no connections to the art world, found he/she couldn't sell it. I wonder where grandma or husband worked 60 years ago?
I don't agree. It could take a very good while to authenticate. I would say she was probably wondering if something just as this would happen, maybe that is why she sat on it! Also even if her granpappy stole it, why was it not reported? Even without connections to the so called "Art World" anything can be sold online anywhere in the world.
Also even though this was 60 years ago... I am pretty sure we had police and they filed reports if something went missing especially something that rare and expensive. The muesem failed to take care it... end of story..
J_P_PatchesPal - if MTPolitico is applying modern thinking to an old situation, you're applying your own experience/mind-set to the buyer. Why would you have a flea-market painting appraised if all you wanted was the frame? And why should they mention the flea market where it was purchased? Outside of law enforcement/those investigating, who cares?
I often go to flea markets to get things for my crafts projects, so does every other craft/multi-media artist I know. And we all have stuff we bought sitting around, sometimes for years, waiting for the right time/project.
So no, the first thing you would do might not be to get something appraised. A friend of mine bought a vase at a flea market intending to break it and use pieces in her mosaic project. If someone more knowledgeable hadn't urged her to get it checked out, the vase would be part of a coffee table right now. Turns out it was a valuable Roseville piece but my friend had no idea, not being familiar with pottery makers.
Don't know if the person who brought it to the flea market had some ancestor who was a thief, but don't tag the buyer as suspicious just because the first thing you would do is to get something appraised.
They didn't report expensive stolen things to the police 60 years ago, J_P? Their loss, I say. You have to make at least half an effort. Seems perfectly logical to me.
I have never been to a museum of fine art, I took was art appreciation class in college because I had too, that or Movie critic something. I'm not interested in famous artists, but even I would have recognized Renoir and the dates on the frame and would have immediately had the thing appraised. Something fishy here.
60 years ago they did not have police, or the police did not take written reports of serious crimes, like the theft of a valuable painting?
I think it is not MTpolitico who is failing to use logic, mr patchespal.
Finders keepers I was always told ... Personally I wouldn't hang it in my dog house !!
"I don't know art, but I know what I like." ---Jack Nicholson as the Joker
LOL...because someone does not find this painting appealing to them they are an uncouth slob, The only uncouth slob I see here is you plork.
The fact is that this painting sold for $7.00 at a flea market even with Renoirs name on it.
Without Renoirs name and without any documentation to indicate that it is from Renoir this painting would have been worthless, So here is what is left, Take away the renoir name and it is just another painting that not too many people wanted otherwise it would not have sold for $7.00 at a flea market.
I'll be waiting for an explanation as to why this theft was not reported to any law enforcement agency. Further I hope the museum sees fit to give this woman a decent reward for finding a painting that they LOST. They lost track of a very small painting and so it must have been stolen?? This painting is hanging crooked (so to speak).
Possibilities--either the Baltimore museum has lousy security and record-keeping and/or (but likely "and") stolen from the inside. If the painting was not on display a theft might have gone unnoticed for quite awhile if done by someone inside the institution. It would be interesting if the trail can be tracked down, but so often we don't get follow up on stories like this.
Kind of reminds me of when I used to "drink and paint".
I guess I have no taste in art - it looks to me like maybe it's worth about $7, but I wouldn't even pay that for it. Just looks like bad finger painting to me. Oh, well.
If the lady can prove that she came upon the painting legitimately, then she should be held harmless and it's now hers.
Has anyone stopped to think that the "thief" could have simply been someone in charge at the museum? Think about it, once the original owner died and "willed" it off to the museum, who would really care what happened to any of that artwork. Come to think of it there was probably plenty of other artwork that disappeared...
@ MRZ: Then you realized that painting was interfering with your drinking?
Many painters...great painters...drank a lot, but most drank Bourbon.......barump-ump.
Isn't there a statute of limitations for such things? Or does this not apply to expensive art?
It may apply to the crime itself but it doesn't mean the painting is any less stolen property.
True, Statutes of Limitations apply to the crime, Stolen property is always stolen property...I wonder who the museum stole it from?
Gee, no report of loss or theft, went missing 60 years ago...I could say the say thing, it was mine, someone stole it 35 years ago! Just because an internal record say something, if it was not officially reported, it should not just be handed back to them. Anyone can claim such things about anything valuable. Who's to say those records from the museum are not faulty?
In 1951 the BMA (or any other museum) had only manual records. They admitted as much. However, stolen pieces of art, especially to the caliber of a Renoir does not have the limitations that family owned less well known art has. That said, it is clear that the Renoir was donated and it disappeared. There is a document that shows it was donated to the BMA. The auction house should have done more research (calling the FBI, BMA) before releasing a sensational and too-good-to-be-true story that the FBI saw and decided to investigate.
That's kind of what I thought... who says they didn't alter there records upon hearing the news. A person working with old relics could certainly pull that off. That is why the need of an OFFICIAL police report is so important. Also how do we know it was stolen... with a painting so small it could have easliyl been stored and when inventory and cleaning began it could have been tossed... Mistakingly of course. I mean with the way the muesem kept records it wouldn't surprise me!
What a bummer. Thinking you inadvertantly came into a hefty sum of money, only to have it yanked out from underneath you.
That could make for a crappy day.
They screwed up when they started spouting off that they bought it for 7 dollars at a flea market. They will get their 7 bucks back and probably a thank you. And that will make for a crappy day.
I'd want my 7 bucks back-
Seems rather fishy to me, a painting like that gets 'stolen' from a museum while its on loan and is never reported stolen to the police...never investigated.... was there an insurance payout? Did the family raise a stink back then? There is either a lot more information that nbcnews isn't putting in the story or this whole thing stinks to high heaven. I think the lady who bought it at the flea market should get to keep it.
I was also wondering about an insurance claim. If the museum or owner received money for its loss back than they probably had it insured for more than the value of the art and didn't complain. Or the owner may have wrote it off or collected insurance without the museum knowing. No police report..no getting it back is what I say. Finders Keepers.
It went missing while on loan and I would be curious if the family was ever even compensated. Maybe the muesem kept it low key because they collected insurance that wasn't their's. They paid nothing for it.
I would just charge them the $7 that I paid at the yard sale and donate it. Fine art and history are things that should be in museums. But that's just me.
She came by it fair and square...show me the money.
She admitted to buying a Renoir for the frame - so you know she's honest, heh heh. I'm sure she sees it in a different light now, and understand that no one expects a genuine Renoir to be wrapped in a seven dollar deal. Funny...and good to have another Renoir in the public eye.
The frame is interesting.
I agree, I find the frame more appealing than the painting itself, If the painting were painted by some unknown person the painting would be worthless and the frame would still be appealing, ironically the person who purchased it originally purchased it for the frame and was going to discard the painting until discovering it was a Renoir.
It always amazes me that people will put such a high value on something simply because of whose name is on it and not because it actually looks nice.
There is a movie/documentary called "Who the %&#$ is Jackson Pollok". A woman truck driver buys a painting at a garage sale. She buys it as a joke to give to her friend who lives in a trailer park but the painting won't fit thru the trailer door so she takes it home, maybe to throw darts at it. It is sitting in her home and a friend comments on her painting. That looks like a Jackson Pollok. She says who the %&#$ is Jackson Pollok. Art "experts" are in dissagreement. Some say it is and others say no way. She has been offered several million for the painting. If it were a real Pollok it is worth lots more. The problem is the painting has no paperwork proving it is authentic. That is what makes something valuable. If Eric Clapton gives you a guitar but you can't prove it with photos and signed paperwork, it's just another guitar. The funny thing about the painting is there are two fingerprints on the back impressed into some paint sploches. They ARE Jackson Polloks fingerprints. But with no paperwork to authenticate.....it's just a painting. Her son wants her to sell, but she is holding out for the big money.
I picked up 6 frames just like this at a flea market myself! LOL They came with cheesy paintings in them. I know they weren't real but it goes to show you that you could find something like this there!
I was thinking about that film too. I watched it on the DOC channel.
What amazes me are his "paintings" command so much money.
I wonder if I bought a monkey,got it drunk,and then dipped it various colors of paint and then had it roll around on canvas,who would get the money,me or the monkey?
I would say if there is no police report then there is no claim to the property. It's not like the painting has the museum's name on it.
Any employee of the museum could have made those documents and reported it stolen on an insurance claim just to get the money. Something is very weird here.
Yea the frame is interesting. They bought it because of FRAME????? Come on NOW. Then WHY is the RENOIR STILL ATTACHED TO THE FRAME ????
THEY WERE TRYING TO SELL IT for a HUGE PROFIT. They Knew what they had bought. !!!!
The FRAME says RENOIR on it. PLEASE
The buyer might have thought it was a reproduction. If I frame something and slap a plaque on it saying Da Vinci will you fork over your life savings to me? On Antiques roadshow I've seen more than one person with what turned out to be a valuable painting they bought for the frame. And that doesn't mean you necessarily rip the picture out the the frame the minute you get home, person might be waiting to decide what to put in it or just have a long to-do list. As for ownership, art is all about provenance. Even if she were permitted to keep it, it would not be saleable except on black market. If she'd been cagey enough to know what she had, she would have been cagey enough to know authenticity would have to be determined through people with black art market connections.
Considering that the painting was not listed as "stolen", the painting should be returned to the person who paid $7 for it. It's not the fault of the person who paid the $7 for it if the museum did not do its due diligence in reporting it to law enforcement as being stolen.
The person who bought this painting should either be compensated for the painting (10% of the value of the painting for what it would have sold for), returned the painting to this person or they should file a lawsuit against the museum and law enforcement because (1) they legally purchased the item and (2) the painting was missing for 60 years and the museum never filed the theft with any law enforcement agency.
Even if the painting was stolen, the museum has no claim to it because they never filed the painting as being stolen with any law enforcement agency. Not only that, but Federal authorities keep an updated list of stolen artwork. They keep an updated list:
starting when? and that would have to start with a report. there's a 14 year time span during which the painting went missing.
stolen property is stolen property, it was quite a story, buying a real artist painting, at such a low price, and it comes with a complimentary Federal investigation, you can't make this stuff up.
well done to the reporter that did the research into the paintings history, there isn't a whole lot of people that can do that kind of research.
Please have the FBI Probe an embezzlement from my bank account by a US Banks employees later promoted to Regional Vice President so he knows when you will be probing and that persons affiliated wtih that and credit union fraud now WORK AT THE FBI ORLAND PARK< SCHAUMBURG and in 7 years my monies have never been returned.. DID YA KNOW THAT>???
people are @!$%#ing stupid. if you're buying art at least have some knowledge about well known painters. trying to "rip it apart" ahhhh! we dont need another jesus monkey on our hands
It's obvously an early Renoir, c. ~1870. I'll give you $25. I have a special place in my basement for it.
I do not believe it was ever stole but it will be now they will make up paper work so the government can steal it
The truth is that the painting would belong to the museum, not the government.
But since the government is so distasteful to you, don't visit their museums, stop letting them deliver your mail, and start getting to wherever you go without using the roads the government paved. I won't say stop using the government's public libraries: clearly the roads you travel don't lead to them.
Ok..so now you are an expert ? At $7 most people would buy for the frame and never expect a multi-million painting to be in it..life is not the Antique Roadshow...
machspeeddemon SMD
also, you stupid idiot, it was on lone to the museum they said or can't you read.
loan
I can read. I can even comprehend what I read. (Go suck yourself.)
Hahahahah, you go demon!
Well, all this sounds a little questionable..I mean, the claim by the museum when nothing has been done in 60 years with the police/FBI/Inter-pol and so on.
OK...just give her $100,000 finders fee, display it again as the $7 painting and get many more interested people in to look at it. Win-win-win for everyone.
OK...so it wasn't reported stolen to legal authorities when it happened...so the way I see it...the Boston Museum didn't think much of it...otherwise they would have....so the way I see it...failure to do so...and not making it a priority...basically was a subconscious "you can have it"....if the painting is found to be returned to the museum...they should at least give her a $25,000 founders fee...
statute of limitation should be up after 61yrs.let the musuem bid for it now if they really want it...
I'm sure the museum collected from their insurance at the time of the loss. It seems to me they relinquished rights of ownership to that work by doing that. I agree if they want the painting back they should get a bidding number. Clearly it's not one of Renoir's best, just a quick study that he probably should have destroyed, but still a work from a genuine master. Look up Luncheon of the boating party and Dance at the Moulin Gallette.
Isn't odd that the same time the painting was "stolen", was the same year it was willed to the museum(1951)?
I guess the Lady is out $7. now that the FBI has stuck thier nose in it.
Smells of week old fish to me.
Take the painting out of the frame. Keep the frame and sell the painting!
Regardless of being a Renoir or not, like all art new or old the painting is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Give the lady a few hundred and call it even.