Van Meegeren
SIR,—Having now read Mr. Godley's story of van Meegeren's imitations of Vermeer and other masters, reviewed in your issue of July 6th, I can give an earlier date than he does, by some years, to one at least of them. When in Holland in 1932, going round the collection of Mr. Mannheimer—a currency-manipulating millionaire for Germany, of the First World War—I was able to demonstrate to his uncle, who con- ducted us, that the painting he pointed out as the Hou of the collec- tion---with its frame screwed to the wall for security—was neither a genuine Vermeer, nor even as yet of quite dry pigments. Also, in spite of contrary opinions and certificates he quoted of local art historians and "experts," that it should not be difficult to recover the £44,000 said to have been paid for it "to an agent of a painter named van Mee- geren who rediscovered it." Financier Mannheimer eventually came to a tragic end, and I have never succeeded in ascertaining what became of the picture. Recently, however, the Deputy Director of the Rijko Museum's Historical Document Bureau wrote to me that he cannot tell "where the picture is at the moment," but that "it ii now generally accepted as a falsification." As it is a much closer imitation of the master than any of the others it would be interesting to trace it.
, Van Meegeren, in answer to questions by Sir Oswald Birley who visited him shortly before he died, declared he would never have been taken in by any of his imitations if painted by someone else—and that he doubted any of the long gallery of officials and "experts" would have recognised whose, works they purported to be without the imitation signatures, or initials ; also that the scale of the pictures, and the dis- similarity of the, hands from any of Vermeer's should have betrayed them. I have myself encountered no painters who were taken in—arid know that one partner in an Anglo-American art dealer's firm turned down the much over-praised "Disciples at Emmaus," Mr. Godley romanticises van Meegeren, but as his own mediocre productions sold well without "experts" impeding his fame and fortune, it is difficult to believe his initial purpose was to " expose " them ; rather that he wished to collect vast sums for luxurious living, like any other crook. Nor is there any evidence he would have indulged in such " exposure" except to save himself from probable execution as a colla- borator. An experienced investigator of the faked picture market and its sources, like Commissioner Jean Belin of the French Surete, who has traced scores of false Millets, Corots, &c., in and out of French and other public and private collections, might, I suggest, add very instructively to this van Meegeren story.—Yours, &c.,
Previous page
