A hoard of stolen art revealed, postmortem

For every rule, an exception.
We've often commented skeptically when detectives and journalists speculate about secretive collectors having artworks stolen to order for their private galleries -- and normally, those thefts turn out to be something far less organized, and far more mundane.

And then there are cases such as Melvyn Kohn -- aka William M. V. Kingsland. There was a NY Times article on him the other day, but online it's pay-per-view (but interestingly enough, I've just discovered that the corrected version is available gratis here). The man died suddenly this spring, mourned and lionized (obituary here) but also, it turns out, little known and intestate. His property, including much in the way of art and antiques, eventually went to auction, leading to the discovery that some, then more, then yet more, pieces were stolen. Some items scheduled to be sold have been withdrawn, while one whole auction is in the process of being reversed.

In addition to the NY Times article, there's been coverage in the Harvard Crimson (two of the paintings were stolen from Harvard) and the Boston Globe. Interesting that the Copley went so cheap at auction, but one just doesn't expect to find a genuine Copley turn up out of nowhere nowadays. The New York Sun also has an article that clarifies how the material was dispersed, with the City of New York selling the Kingsland material outright to Christie's and Stair Galleries, who then resold it on their own accounts.

As one might expect, some of those who knew Kingsland have been quoted as saying one can't be sure he knew what he had was stolen. Everything considered, however, that has it exactly backwards. What I would like to know: was anything of significance in the collection not stolen; did the man steal the stuff himself, and if not, what kind of relationship might he have established with those who would steal for him?

Posted by David on October 26, 2006 9:51 PM