Replies

Are you trying to suggest that the Mauthner's sold all their Van Goghs in 1933? The report above simply states Grandma Mauthner sold her last Van Gogh (not Taylor's) in 1933. It is highly doubtful that the Mauthners, obviously a very wealthy family, were so hard up that they had to sell all their very valuable Van Goghs in a single year. My hunch is Taylor's painting was sold in 1929, which is why that date pops up in a few places in the written and oral comments of the family's lawyers.

I haven’t the faintest idea. The information isn’t there. Taylor contends that, based on her provenance from Sothebys, the painting passed legally through three post Mauthner hands, the last in 1933, and that it was never illegally seized. What happened to it from 1933 to 1963 is unclear. The Orkin’s attorney contends that Mauthner owned the painting through the 1930’s (fled Germany in 1939) , based on catalogs of van Gogh’s work in 1928 and 1939, and was still listed as owner in 1970, obviously a mistake. I don’t know what you base a 1929 sale.

Nazi oppression could not have motivated Grandma Mauthner in 1929. Even your suggestion that her assistance to her nephew was motivated by "German oppression" gets into dicey legal reasoning. Are you saying that all monies spent to leave Germany -- even if it amounts to enormous proceeds from the legal and voluntary sale of an expensive painting allowing the beneficiary to live a life of luxury -- are reimbursable under the 1998 law? You might have a case if it can be proven the sale was made after Hitler became Chancellor. Not before.

Nazi oppression wouldn’t have forced a sale in 1929, unlike 1933 Jews could legally be art dealers then. Of course other than your speculation, there’s noting to indicate a sale in 1929. I didn’t suggest a forced sale to benefit her nephew, documentation from the German gallery did. Yes, the courts have held that sales in the 1930s, mostly post 32, were consummated under extreme duress and invalid, not legal and not voluntary. Most of the art world is OK with that assessment. As to her heirs living a life of luxury, I’ve no idea what sort of life they lived, though I’m glad they got out.

I don’t know what you base a 1929 sale.

I meant to say 1928. The lawyers staked out a timeframe from 1928 to 1939.

The preeminent artworld authority on van Gogh, Dr. J. Baart de la Faille, confirmed in his catalogues raisonnes of both 1928 and 1939 Margarete Mauthner was the owner of the van Gogh painting during the 1930s...

Think about it. This passage was just written by the Mauthner lawyers. There is a logical error in it. Can you spot it? How could de la Faille "confirm" in 1928 that Mauther owned the painting "during the 30s?"

When lawyers make an error like that it is usually to establish something, and my hunch is they want to establish by virtue of this silly catalog (rather than get authoritative documentation from Margarete Mauthner's own records) that the Mauthners owned the painting in the late 1920s. It's deceptive and so leads me to think they actually already know she sold the painting in the late '20s.