Art dealership Vecht

Recommendation concerning the request for the restitution of nine works from the Netherlands Art Property Collection: NK 2102, NK 2103, NK 2145, NK 2161, NK 2702, NK 2845, NK 206, NK 210 and NK 948 A-B

Report number: RC 1.19

Advice type: NK collection

Advice date: 30 March 2005

Period of loss of ownership: 1933-1940

Original owner: Art dealership

Location of loss of ownership: The Netherlands

NK 2145 – Courtyard in a town by A. Lutz (photo: RCE)

Download PDF

Recommendation

In letters dated 5 February and 4 October 2004, the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science asked the Restitutions Committee for advice concerning the applications dated 10 December 2000 and 25 June 2004 respectively, submitted by C.V. and his brother J.V. (hereinafter to be referred to as: the applicants) for the restitution of the nine abovementioned works from the Netherlands Art Property Collection.

As both claims pertain to the same complex of facts, the Committee decided to merge both applications into a single recommendation request.

The facts

The state secretary at first deferred the recommendation request to await the Ekkart Committee’s recommendations with regard to the art trade. In a letter dated 5 December 2003, the state secretary informed the Lower House that she would adopt the recommendations and would submit the applications for restitution from art dealers to the Restitutions Committee. The state secretary then submitted the first recommendation request applications to the Restitutions Committee on 5 February 2004. Occasioned by the first recommendation request, the Committee asked the Origins Unknown Agency that research be carried out into the facts, and the results of this were laid down in a preliminary research report dated 23 April 2004. The contents of this report was sent to the applicants for comment, without first being assessed by the Committee, on 26 April 2004.

On 21 June 2004, a hearing took place attended by applicant C.V. On this occasion he handed in documents, also on behalf of applicant J.V. A report was drawn up of this hearing which the applicants responded to in a letter dated 9 August 2004. A second version of the report was occasioned by that response. The report was laid down by the Committee on 13 September 2004. As a result of the hearing the applicants submitted an additional application for restitution on 25 June 2004, which was submitted to the Committee in a letter dated 4 October 2004 by the State Secretary of Education, Culture and Science. In a letter dated 1 September, applicant C.V. provides an extensive clarification of his applications for restitution, thereby submitting further documentation. Occasioned by the more detailed facts and arguments thus obtained, the Committee drew up a new version of the research report on 26 November 2004. This report was sent to the applicants and was accepted by them, with the exception of the comment on the inventory list (see below, Special considerations No. 1). The passage concerned was adapted as stated in the definitive version of the report. The contents of all abovementioned documents and pieces of information are supposed to be included in this recommendation and to be part of it.

General considerations (with regard to private individuals and art dealers)

a) The Restitutions Committee has drawn up its opinion with due regard for the relevant (lines of) policy issued by the Ekkart Committee and the government.

b) The Restitutions Committee asked itself whether it is acceptable that an opinion to be issued is influenced by its potential consequences for decisions in subsequent cases. The Committee resolved that such influence cannot be accepted, save in cases where special circumstances apply, since allowing such influence would be impossible to justify to the applicant concerned.

c) The Restitutions Committee then asked itself how to deal with the circumstance that certain facts can no longer be ascertained, that certain information has been lost or has not been recovered, or that evidence can no longer be otherwise compiled. On this issue the Committee believes that, if the problems that have arisen can be attributed at least in part to the lapse of time, the associated risk should be borne by the government, save cases where exceptional circumstances apply.

d) Finally, the Committee believes that insights and circumstances which, according to generally accepted views, have evidently changed since the Second World War should be granted the status of nova (new facts).

General considerations (solely with regard to art dealers)

e) Involuntary sales shall also include sales without the art dealer’s approval by Verwalters or other administrators not appointed by the owner, from the old trading stock placed under their administration, in so far as the original owners or their heirs have not enjoyed the full benefit of the transaction and in so far as the owner has not expressly waived his rights after the war ended.

Special considerations

The applicants are the grandsons of the Jewish art dealer A.V., who had run a gallery in Amsterdam since 1921. The trials and tribulations of this gallery before, during and after the Second World War have been described extensively in the abovementioned research report dated 26 November 2004. Here the following will suffice: Due to the impending war A.V. closed his art dealership in 1939. He sent part of his trading stock to the United States and Great Britain. The rest was stored in a warehouse on the Nieuwe Keizersgracht in Amsterdam. There is an inventory list of the goods stored there (Appendix 3 to the research report). C.V. pointed out – in a letter dated 21 December 2004 in response to the research report (26 November 2004 version) – that, in deviation from the probability assumed in the report that the inventory concerned the pre-war stock, it is equally possible that the list was drawn up in the framework of the transfer to the NAGU on 13 February 1942. This comment is justifiable. However, so many years later and without other proof, the correct view of the matter can no longer be ascertained. This is the government’s risk (see ‘General Considerations’ under c above). At the occupying force’s order the goods stored were returned to the gallery and the business was reopened in 1941. On 12 March 1941, A.V.’s gallery was forced to comply with an ordinance concerning ‘Removal of Jews from Business’. On 13 February 1942, the art dealership became controlled by the NAGU (Niederländische Aktiengesellschaft für Abwicklung von Unternehmungen). On that same day the NAGU appointed R.F. Groeninx van Zoelen (one of A.V.’s contacts), and after the former was imprisoned by the occupying forces in June 1942 the German H. Wieth as Verwalter. The latter only held the post for a short while as on 2 November 1942 the gallery was sold to M.R.J. Brinkgreve (an acquaintance of Groeninx van Zoelen). The purchase price of (21,774.73 guilders, according to Brinkgreve in a post-war statement) was paid by Brinkgreve to the Vermögensverwaltungs- und Renten-Anstält (VVRA) with a loan repaid using money taken from the gallery.
After the war the gallery was returned to A.V. in accordance with the agreements concluded on 13 May 1946 and 5 November 1948 between Brinkgreve and the former. Brinkgreve hereby declared that V. was the only party legally entitled to the purchase price paid to the VVRA. V. contacted the VVRA and eventually received a total of 68% of the purchase price, which – according to the VVRA amounted to 21,255.94 guilders. A.V. then contacted the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (hereinafter to be referred to as the SNK) concerning the artworks he had lost. The correspondence between A.V. and the SNK’s director, J. Jolles, ground to a halt because V. could not indisputably prove to the SNK’s satisfaction that he was the former owner of the goods and that he had lost them under duress during the occupation.
On the basis of the story the story provided ad 1 and 2, the Restitutions Committee determines that this is a settled case so that the applicants’ requests are admissible.
The Netherlands Art Property Collection (NK) currently houses ten NK numbers which are linked to the provenance name V. The applicants have currently applied for the restitution of nine of these objects. The following discusses each of these objects.NK 2145: A. Lutz, Courtyard in a townThe inventory list (Appendix 3 to the research report), which the Restitutions Committee assumes was drawn up before 13 February 1942, lists ‘2 paintings by Lutz’ under Inventory number 976. Because only a few works by this artist are known to exist, the Committee assumes that Courtyard in a town is one of these two paintings. Because of the annotation ‘v’ alongside the number on the list it can be assumed that both paintings belonged to A.V.’s old trading stock up until the drawing up of the list at the start of 1942. The painting was purchased from V.’s gallery together with another painting by Lutz on 28 August 1942 by the German firm Pongs. It can no longer be ascertained who at gallery V. was involved in the transaction and whether the transaction took place with the approval or cooperation of A.V. According to Appendix 19 to the research report, Pongs then voluntarily sold the painting to Fritz Sinn in Krefeld. The painting returned to the Netherlands in May 1948. In as far as necessary, referring to Point c of the ‘General Considerations’, the Restitutions Committee concludes that the painting Courtyard in a town by A. Lutz belonged to A.V.’s old trading stock and the latter lost the property involuntarily. The Restitutions Committee will therefore recommend that the application be granted.NK 206: Glazed pottery jug, decorated in blue and white with floral motifs and a bird in a medallionThe abovementioned inventory list mentions two jars and one jug (respectively Numbers 31, 321 and 994). The descriptions on this list are too brief to be able to ascertain whether one of these objects is the jug claimed. An ‘Intern Aangifteformulier’ [Internal Declaration Form] drawn up by the SNK states that NK 206 was voluntarily sold to the Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte. The qualification ‘voluntarily’ did not, the Restitutions Committee assumes, originate from A.V. A so-called ‘Witte Kaart’ [White Card] which accompanies the form states that Kunstzalen A.V. sold to the Talon Museum in Kiel. Because both the form and the accompanying card do not state the date of sale and the question also remains unanswered whether the sale came about through or with the approval of A.V., and there is no other proof available, the question with regard to the involuntary nature of the loss of property cannot be answered with certainty. The risk of this uncertainty should in this case, in accordance with the ‘General Considerations’ under c be lodged with the government. In this way the distribution of the risk is reinforced by the circumstance that A.V. had recognised NK 206 as his former property at a ‘claim exhibition’ and that in a letter to the SNK dated 29 June 1950 he recognised ‘1 Hamburgsch aardewerk kruikje, blauw decor’ [1 pottery jug, blue decor from Hamburg] ‘als te hebben toebehoord tot de inventaris van mijn zaak’ [as having belonged to the inventory of my business]. The Restitutions Committee will therefore recommend that the application be granted.
NK 2845: Verbrugghen, Still life with a vase of flowers

This painting is not listed on the abovementioned inventory list. Nevertheless, the Restitutions Committee assumes that the painting belonged to A.V.’s old trading stock on the basis of the following facts. The painting was sold by V.’s gallery on 15 October 1940 to Alois Miedl’s gallery (Kunsthandel voorheen J. Goudstikker N.V.). Kunsthandel voorheen J. Goudstikker N.V.’s accounts reveal that this did not concern consignment and that the painting, along with dozens of others, was resold the very same day, at a profit, to E. Gritzbach, who was a buyer for Hermann Göring. At the time of the sale/resale, A.V. had already closed his gallery. However, the business had not been closed down yet and he was still the director and owner of the business. It is currently no longer possible to ascertain whether this sale should be seen as a voluntary trading transaction by V. in his function as art dealer. Owing to the German Miedl’s dubious reputation it cannot be ruled out that the sale was involuntary. Although Miedl helped Jewish families during the Second World War and was himself married to a Jewish woman, he was clearly also pro-Nazi. He benefited from the war through massive profits made trading with the Germans, whereby he made particular efforts for the art collections of his friend Göring and of Hitler. Taking into account the ‘General Considerations’ under c the risk of the lack of further evidence is that of the government. The Restitutions Committee will therefore recommend that the application be granted.

NK 2702: Master of the Aachen altarpiece, The Mass of St. Gregory

The painting does not occur on the abovementioned inventory list which means it is impossible to ascertain whether it was part of the old trading stock. It is not likely that it was part of A.V.’s private collection as this primarily consisted of modern art. No declaration form in A.V.’s name has been found for this work either. Nevertheless, the painting was sold to the Dutch Kunsthandel P. de Boer shortly after the start of the occupation in June 1940, by V.’s art dealership. The former sold the work to W.A. Hofer on 19 September 1940 for the benefit of Göring’s collection. It is known that Kunsthandel De Boer regularly came to the aid of Jewish colleagues. Due to the elapsed time between the purchase and sale of the work by De Boer this transaction does not suggest a consignment, but more a voluntary trading transaction from A.V.’s gallery’s trading stock. Taking these facts into account and partly in the light of the consideration included in the text of the art trade recommendations of the Ekkart Committee that ‘the art trade’s objective is to sell the trading stock so that the majority of the transactions even at the Jewish art dealers’ in principle constituted ordinary sales’, the Restitutions Committee assumes that the sale was a voluntary trading transaction by A.V. in his function as art dealer. The Restitutions Committee will therefore recommend that the application be rejected.

NK 2161: J. Leemans, Still life with gun and other hunting attributes

The painting does not occur on the abovementioned inventory list which means it is impossible to ascertain whether it was part of the old trading stock. It is not likely that it was part of A.V.’s private collection as this primarily consisted of modern art. No declaration form in A.V.’s name has been found for this work either. Nevertheless, the painting was sold to the Dutch Kunsthandel P. de Boer shortly after the start of the occupation in July 1940, by V’s art dealership. The former sold the work to the Museum in Krefeld in May 1941. It is known that Kunsthandel De Boer regularly came to the aid of Jewish colleagues. Due to the elapsed time between the purchase and sale of the work by De Boer this transaction does not suggest a consignment, but more a voluntary trading transaction from A.V.’s gallery’s trading stock. Taking these facts into account and partly in the light of the consideration included in the text of the art trade recommendations of the Ekkart Committee that ‘the art trade’s objective is to sell the trading stock so that the majority of the transactions even at the Jewish art dealers’ in principle constituted ordinary sales’, the Restitutions Committee assumes that the sale was a voluntary trading transaction by A.V. in his function as art dealer. The Restitutions Committee will therefore recommend that the application be rejected.

NK 210: Delft plate with blue and white decor, painted in the centre with the Apostle Peter and an angel

Due to the brief descriptions on the abovementioned inventory list it cannot be stated with any certainty whether NK 210 belonged to the old trading stock. The list includes, under Number 548 ‘4 Delft plates’. It is possible that one of these plates is NK 210. A list in the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz reveals that NK 210 was sold in ‘1943 by Gallery Brinckgreve, Amsterdam (previously V.)’ to the Schlossmuseum in Berlin. It is unknown whether A.V. agreed to the sale. He did recognise the plate as his former property at a post-war ‘claim exhibition’. The lack of further information is, taking the ‘General Considerations’ under c into account, the government’s risk. The Restitutions Committee will therefore recommend the granting of the application.

NK 948 A-B, Chinese vase and cover with blue and white decor of floral motifs and landscape

Due to the brief descriptions of the objects on the abovementioned inventory list it is impossible to say with any certainty whether NK 948 A-B belonged to the old Kunstzalen A.V.’s trading stock. The bottom of the vase bears the number ‘1942-57’. This number occurs on a list of purchases by Kunstsammlungen der Stadt Düsseldorf. According to this source the vase was purchased in 1942 from V’s gallery. Owing to the year this transaction was concluded in it is reasonable to assume that it was concluded by one of the Verwalters. Any involvement on A.V.’s part cannot be ascertained. V. recognised the vase as his former property at a post-war ‘claim exhibition’. He thereby commented that if the lid was new the vase was his property. The SNK file contains a handwritten expert opinion which concludes, among other things, that the lid is indeed new. The correspondence between V. and the SNK after the war concerning this vase ground to a halt because V. could not to the SNK’s satisfaction prove his property rights nor the fact that he had lost his property under duress. On the basis of the above, it is the Restitutions Committee’s opinion that the applicants’ claims to the vase are sufficiently plausible and it will recommend granting the application.

NK 2102: C. Netscher, Portrait of a woman and NK 2103: C. Netscher, Portrait of a man

These two paintings by Contantijn Netscher do not occur on the abovementioned inventory list. The supposition by applicant C.V. that the ‘2 paintings attributed to Van Dijk’ which do occur on the list could possibly be both Netschers did not stand up under scrutiny. Research in the photographic documentation at the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie and at the Iconografisch Bureau in The Hague’s did not lead to any relevant information. The paintings by Netscher also do not occur in a trio of exhibition catalogues from A.V.’s gallery (catalogues from 1914, 1933 and 1935). It therefore remains unclear when both paintings entered the gallery’s property. Both works were submitted to the auction of 13 June 1944 by Kunstzalen A.V., according to auction house Mak van Waay’s records. There they were purchased by gallery Bierich & Co of Hamburg. At the time of the auction, Brinkgreve owned Kunstzalen A.V. The Restitutions Committee assumes that the sale at auction took place entirely under his supervision and that both paintings did not belong to A.V.’s old trading stock. The Committee is supported in this by the circumstance that the name ‘V.’ does not occur in connection with paintings in the SNK’s documentation; furthermore that, in as far as can be ascertained, A.V. did not report the loss of both paintings and finally that the SNK never contacted A.V. with regard to these paintings. The Restitutions Committee will therefore recommend that this application be refused.
Against the background of the total sum of the damages incurred by the applicants the Restitutions Committee has been unable to find any leads for the idea of adding the obligation to pay any sum to its recommendation to grant the applications submitted.

Conclusion

The Restitutions Committee recommends that State Secretary of Education, Culture and Science restitute the objects NK 2145, NK 206, NK 2845, NK 210 and NK 948 A-B to the heirs of A.V.

The Restitutions Committee recommends that the State Secretary of Education, Culture and Sciences refuse the applications to restitute NK 2702, NK 2161, NK 2102 and NK 2103.

So laid down at the meeting on 7 March 2005,

B.J. Asscher (Chairman)
J.Th.M. Bank
J.C.M. Leijten
P.J.N. van Os
E.J. van Straaten
I.C. van der Vlies
H.M. Verrijn Stuart

Summary RC 1.19

APPLICATION FOR THE RESTITUTION OF NINE NK WORKS FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE AMSTERDAM ART GALLERY VECHT

In an application dated 10 December 2000 and an additional application dated 25 June 2004, two grandsons of the Jewish art dealer A.V. asked the State Secretary of Education, Culture and Science for the return of nine works:

A. Lutz, Courtyard in a town (NK 2145)
Glazed pottery jug, decorated in blue and white with floral motifs and a bird in a medallion (NK 206)
Delft plate with blue and white decor, painted in the centre with the Apostle Peter and an angel (NK 210)
China vase and cover with blue and white decor of floral motifs and landscape (NK 948 A-B)
P. Verbrugghen, Still life with a vase of flowers (NK 2845)
The Master of the Aachen altarpiece, The Mass of St. Gregory (NK 2702)
J. Leemans, Still life with gun and other hunting attributes (NK 2161)
C. Netscher, Portrait of a woman (NK 2102)
C. Netscher, Portrait of a man (NK 2103)

The State Secretary initially put the application on hold, in anticipation of the recommendations of the Ekkart Committee in relation to restitution applications from art dealers. After the publication of recommendations regarding the art trade, the application was referred to the Restitutions Committee in February 2004.

Facts

The applicants are grandsons of the Jewish art dealer A.V., who closed his Amsterdam art gallery in 1939 because of the threat of war. He sent part of his trading stock to the United States and Great Britain, and stored another part in a warehouse in Amsterdam. At the instructions of the occupying forces, the business was reopened in 1941, and the items that were stored in Amsterdam were brought back to the shop. In February 1942, the Niederländische Aktiengesellschaft für Abwicklung von Unternehmungen(NAGU) took over the business. A business relation of A.V. was appointed Verwalter, all of which was done in order to maintain the business in the best possible condition. However, after a few months, that Verwalter was interned. He later declared in this regard:

‘Long before the war, from 1929 onward I believe, I was friends with A.V., who had a business at Rokin in Amsterdam. This A.V. was of Jewish blood. In 1941, the Germans made it impossible for people with Jewish blood to continue to do business, as the Germans excluded them from commerce. Mr A.V. then asked me to help him, and I attempted to save his business, in which I succeeded by joining the Wirtschaftsprufstelle as a Treuhänder, so that I could be appointed as manager of Mr V.’s business. This was, I believe, in February 1942. (…)
I was manager of that business until June 1942, after which I was arrested as a hostage by the Germans’.

A new Verwalter was then appointed for a short time, after which the NAGU sold the gallery to a Dutch businessman early in November 1942. That businessman paid the purchase price to the German looting organisation Vermögensverwaltungs- und Renten-Anstalt (VVRA) using money from a loan that was repaid with funds that were subsequently withdrawn from the art gallery.

After the liberation, a settlement was agreed between the original owner A.V. and the businessman who had bought the gallery. Under that settlement, the original owner took over the business again, and it was established that he was entitled to the purchase price paid during the war. Finally, the art dealer was paid 68% of the purchase price by the VVRA. In addition, A.V. recognised a number of works at a claim exhibition that he believed had been part of the former trading stock of his gallery. He submitted an application to the SNK for the restitution of those works. That application was finally dismissed because in the SNK’s view the art dealer was neither able to prove that the works in question had been part of the old trading stock, nor that he had lost ownership of them involuntarily.

Discussion of the advice

In its advice, the Restitutions Committee concluded, based on this account, that the case had not been settled and as such it deemed the applicants admissible. The Committee then considered whether the criteria for restitution of the works had been met. Pursuant to government policy, a plausible case must be made that a claimed work was part of the trading stock of the art gallery at the time, and that loss of ownership was involuntary. The Committee was able to use an undated inventory of the gallery that was found in the files, and which may have been drawn up in connection with the transfer to the NAGU in 1942, as a starting point for determining which objects belonged to the old trading stock of the gallery.

Despite the existence of the inventory, the facts surrounding several objects involved in this case proved difficult to ascertain. It was often unclear whether certain works of art described in the inventory corresponded to claimed works. This meant that for some of the works whose restitution had been requested it remained unclear whether they had been part of the former trading stock of the business. In addition, it was sometimes uncertain whether the objects had been sold voluntarily or involuntarily. With reference to its general considerations (item C), which place the risk that certain facts can no longer be ascertained owing to the passing of time with the government, the Restitutions Committee recommended that several of the objects in question be returned. The works concerned were those registered as NK 2145, NK 206, NK 210 and NK 948-AB.

For painting NK 2845, more details were revealed during the research, namely that it had certainly been part of the trading stock of the art dealership at the start of the war, and had been sold by A.V. himself. The buyer was the art dealership of Alois Miedl, a German residing in the Netherlands who had a dubious reputation, owing to his art purchases for high-ranking Nazis. Partly in view of this circumstance, the Committee did not rule out the possibility that the sale was effected under duress, and as such the Committee recommended that the work be returned.

For paintings NK 2702 and 2161, it became apparent during the research that A.V. had sold the works at the start of the war to Amsterdam art dealer P. de Boer, of whom it is known that he regularly came to the assistance of his Jewish colleagues. The Restitutions Committee therefore assumed that these sales came about voluntarily, and recommended that the restitution application for these two works be rejected. As regards paintings NK 2102 and NK 2103, the research into their provenance did not provide any clarity as to when they became part of the trading stock of the art dealership. However, the Committee deemed it reasonable to assume that they were part of the new trading stock, and were sold in 1944 under the responsibility of the new owner. The Committee recommended that the restitution applications for these works of art also be rejected, based in part on the consideration that they had never been reported as missing and that there had been no contact with the SNK after the war about their restitution.

The Committee therefore advised in its meeting on 7 March 2005 that five claimed objects be returned and that the applications for the remaining four works be rejected. In her decision of 22 April 2005, the State Secretary adopted the Committee’s advice.