SMU May Have Some 'Splaing to Do

[Stallion]

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... RN20091022

[CalallenStang]

This is the perfect story to drum up interest in the museum.

"Come see art that the Nazis stole from the Rothschilds."

If I were not affiliated with SMU, that would draw me in to see the museum. Of course, I'm a history geek, so that may not be true for normal people.

[couch 'em]

I doubt most people know who the Rothschilds are.

Isn't there a statute of limitations on this stuff?

[smupony94]

I doubt most people know who the Rothschilds are.

Isn't there a statute of limitations on this stuff?

They can sue to get it back. I hear JT was taking the case

[EastStang]

I hear Gary Vodicka is using that information to get another stay on building the Bush Library. After all we know that Bush is somehow behind this.

[mrydel]

I hear Gary Vodicka is using that information to get another stay on building the Bush Library. After all we know that Bush is somehow behind this.

You would think so by the headline.

BTW Eaststang. I have been in your fine city this week. Too much going on to say hi, plus my wife threw away all my contact info and I erased my pms. You have a beautiful town, however, and the people are very nice.

[Dooby]

What an unfair article. The article says nothing about how SMU came into possession of these paintings and burries the fact that these paintings had previously been recovered. Obviously, they are speculating about it being returned to the Rothschilds, but this art was clearly under Allied control at some point.

So, I am not sure how this is "lost" Nazi art.

This is from meadows website:

Provenance
Possibly Marqués de Villamanrique, Seville (?); Rothschild Family Collection, Paris (before 1941); Confiscated by the Nazi ERR in Paris from Rothschild Collection, inventory nos. R 1170, R 1171 (1941); (Justa) ERR Buxheim (1945); (Rufina) Munich Central Collecting Point under Allied Control (1945-46); Likely restituted to Rothschild family (after 1946)*; [Art Market, Paris] (1967); H. Schickman Gallery, New York (by 1972); Meadows Museum, gift of the Meadows Foundation, Incorporated, 20 September 1972.
*We are indebted to Mr. Robert M. Edsel and Ms. Patricia A. Teeter for providing the Rothschild and Nazi-era information.

Previously Published Provenance
Marqués de Villamanrique, Seville (?); Conde de Altamira, Seville and London; George Granville, Marquis of Stafford, Stafford House, London; Dukes of Sutherland, Stafford House, London, catalogue nos. 120 and 121; Cromarties, 4th Duke of Sutherland (to February 1913 – the 4th Duke died 27 June 1913); Julius Böhler Gallery, Munich (from 1913 – pair split up); (Justa) Ownership Unknown; (Rufina) Bernat [Bernart or Bernard?} Back, Szeged, Hungary (by 1917); returned to Böhler (by 1928) for sale (1929); Private Collection, France (as a pair??, to 1967); [Art Market, Paris] (1967); [H. Schickman Gallery, New York ({}{}to 1972)]; Acquired by the Museum, 20 September 1972, gift of the Meadows Foundation, Incorporated.

[Peruna_Ate_My_Rolex]

Looks like Oscar's cousin, Johann, has been up to no good.

[Alaric]

I doubt most people know who the Rothschilds are.

They're the ones who left interest rates too low for too long

[George S. Patton]

And the connection between the paintings and the Bush Library is.......

That might be one of the sorriest headlines I've ever read. If there was ever an agenda behind that, you just read it. This is such garbage coming out of the world media and how much it still hates Bush.

Ok, that's fine, folks. We get it. You hated Bush. He's been out of office for 10 months. Of course, they are using this to paint a black over the painting stuff and Bush by basically telling us, "See that university, which is involved in the stuff, will even have the evil Bush library. What a bad, bad univrsity.''

Go shove it, Reuters!

[smupony94]

Looks like Oscar's cousin, Johann, has been up to no good.

Hiding paintings in the litter box again

[OR-See-Nee]

Very poor journalism and poor headline writing.

The article states that SMU wasn't aware of the art's Nazi-related history.

The article states that SMU fully cooperated with the organization to determine whether the art was plundered.

The article states that SMU publicly acknowledged the art's history upon confirmation.

The article does not quote anyone from SMU.

This is more of a PR piece to promote this obscure organization than journalism, and why Reuters is publishing this I don't know.

Disgraceful.

[that's great raplh]

I doubt most people know who the Rothschilds are.

speak for yourself

[smupony94]

I doubt most people know who the Rothschilds are.

speak for yourself

Only because you have more money than they do

[RednBlue11]

like just about all paintings found to be stolen by the Nazi's it is virtually impossible to trace the owner history before the 40's...not surprising that this accident happened.