Stealing Rembrandts: The Untold Stories of Notorious Art Heists

“Stealing Rembrandts” by Anthony Amore and Tom Mashberg is an interesting, informative, entertaining account of a litany of thefts over the centuries that have targeted works by Rembrandt around the world. The subject is clearly near and dear to the authors’ hearts.Some interesting biographical information about Rembrandt and insights concerning his methods and career are included, as well as facts about Dutch history and culture. The text was enhanced by several pages of black and white photographs, including some of artworks referenced in various chapters of the book. The book also contains an “incomplete” “List of Known and Reported Thefts”; it may be worth noting that at least one of the works on this list has been recovered since the book’s publication: “Child with a Soap Bubble” (stolen in 1999) was recovered in 2014, and it’s attribution to Rembrandt has been called into question, but I’m not sure whether it’s officially been deattributed.Since the authors are a security expert and a former newspaper reporter (professions that are notoriously fastidious), I had high expectations that I wouldn’t have to read the material so carefully. However, I was disappointed to find several inconsistencies. The discrepancies are relatively minor, but since they weren’t explained by the authors, I found myself reading with closer scrutiny, which detracted from the degree of relaxation and enjoyment I would have preferred.I found the extensive recollections of thief Myles Connor were very boring, and I was actually offended by an analogy the authors made between Rembrandt himself and this crook, as if each were a “master” “undone by a minion”: from page 141, “While Connor was in jail all those years, a petty criminal associate who was supposedly guarding his antiques was in fact selling them off, piece by piece to feed a heroin habit. (An echo of how Rembrandt himself was plunged into penury when his own beloved art collection was sold at auction in the 1650’s to pay off his enormous debts.)” I don’t know if this is a matter of the authors falling under the spell of the storied romance and intrigue of a criminal icon, but Rembrandt, a creative genius who dedicated his life and honest career to his art, deserves better than to have his economic misfortune compared to the vagaries of a common crook who was deprived of misbegotten gains which he neither created or legally owned. (Myles himself is quoted at the bottom of page 141 as posing the rhetorical question, “… how can I then complain if property is taken from me, especially if it’s stolen property that I did not even own?”)It’s not my intention to memorialize every typographical error in the text. However, for the benefit of other readers, here are a few examples, by page and line number, of text that confused me. Some may not be errors, or may have since been corrected (I read the 2011 hardcover edition).:Page 9: The second complete sentence of the text refers to £140,000 (GBP) in 1962 being the equivalent of “about $3.4 million in 2011 dollars” (USD). This would be a conversion rate of one British pound being equivalent to about twenty-five American dollars. I doubt it. By comparison, page 65 states £100,000 (GBP) in 1981 was equivalent to $165,000 (USD), which sounds about right.Page 12: A statement in the second sentence of the last paragraph that “Fine arts, jewels, and antiques always appreciate in value” is a dubious generality, if history is any indicator.Pages 61 / 62: The second sentence in the second paragraph on page 61 discusses work commissioned from Rembrandt by Maurits, who is described as Constantijn Huygen’s “OLDER brother” (my capitalization), but on the top of page 62 the authors refer to speculation by another source (Simon Schama) that Constantijn Huygens was “miffed” that Rembrandt was working on a portrait of Maurits, “a commission from his LITTLE brother” (my capitalization). According to my research, Maurits was the older brother – not the little brother -- of Constantijn.Pages 71 / 82: At the end of the first complete paragraph on page 71, the appraised values of two paintings are listed as “$250,000 (Man Leaning) and another at $80,000 (Elderly Woman).” However, towards the bottom of page 82, the comparable value of the two paintings is referenced in the following manner: “Hough told Warrington that one of the paintings, Elderly Woman, which Hough mistakenly believed was less valuable, would be returned as proof and a sign of good faith. Horsley says the decision to return Elderly Woman rather than Man Leaning on Sill was simple: He figured the larger painting was more valuable than the smaller one, and Man was larger in size”. (Yes, the capitalization of “He” after the colon is actually in the text of the book). This makes no sense. If the appraisals on page 71 are to be believed, Elderly Woman was indeed worth about one-third the value of the larger Man Leaning, and yet on page 81 the authors indicate the thief “mistakenly believed” Elderly Woman was less valuable than Man Leaning on a Sill.Pages 89 / 90: Page 89 refers to the recovery of $100,000 ransom money “except for $24 which they had spent for food at a fast-food restaurant”, but on the next page (page 90) it’s written that authorities “recovered $99,986 in ransom”. If $24 of the $100,000 had been spent, $99,976 would have been available for recovery. Maybe the food cost $14 instead of $24? Just saying…This is the kind of thing in a book I paid money for that annoys me as a reader.Page 125: The comma after “The last two names” in the fourth line from the bottom seems to be a typo.Page 141: Context indicates the “Black Jack” referred to in the first line is the same as the “Black Jan” referred to in the first sentence of the next paragraph.Page 164: Apparently there’s a typographical error in the Robert Wittman quote towards the end of the second paragraph: “I knew I we had him”. Who did he know had him: “I” or “we”?Page 169: When referring to a 1970’s theft from the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum in San Francisco, the first sentence of the second paragraph says many aspects of the heist “remain unsolved more than three decades years later”. I assume it should read “three decades later”.Pages 170 / 208: On page 170 of the text, the de Young heist is said to have occurred on Christmas, about four months after an attempted theft in August, 1979. But on page 208, in the book’s “List of Known and Reported Thefts”, the heist is listed as occurring in 1978 (which I believe is correct).Page 214: The second note for chapter two indicates the city name of Worcester, Massachusetts, is “Pronounced WOOS-ter”. I lived the first 36 years of my life in Massachusetts, and have only ever heard it pronounced “WIS-ter”. There are also various other occurrences in the chapter notes where it seems “Ibid.” should have been used, but wasn’t (example: page 218, chapter 5, note 14, and page 223, chapter 7, note 35…).Page 237: Even the INDEX has errors! The page reference for “Pocobene, Gianfranco” is given as page 201, but it’s actually on page 202 of my volume. This surprised me, as Pocobene is employed by the same museum as one of the book’s authors.I really have to stop now. This may say more about me as a reader than it does about the contents of the book, but I did find the book to be enjoyable overall and worth reading. It serves as a very good introduction to the subject matter.

The co-author is the head of security at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum which suffered a large unsolved theft in 1990. (I don't believe he worked at the Gardner decades ago, though.) I think the most intriguing story is the daylight robbery of the Stockholm museum using waterways as the get-away route. A clever plan with some glaring mistakes.

Not quite finished with this book. Well written. Great insight on art thefts in an entertains way.

Have you ever wondered how and why artwork is stolen, particularly masterpieces by the one and only Rembrandt, one of the most famous artists of all time? If so, this book is a must read. It's a fascinating, well-written book packed with factual accounts of famous art heists, particularly the thefts of works by Rembrandt. No detail is overlooked; the stories of the heists are recounted in great detail, making for an engrossing read. The authors, Anthony Amore and Tom Mashburg, make for a great writing team, and both are well-qualified to write a book on art theft. Amore is the director of security for the outstanding Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, site of the largest art theft in history, and Mashberg has a background in news reporting and was also famously involved in a potential recovery plot for the stolen Gardner artwork.As stated by the authors in the introduction of the book, the goal of the book is twofold: to explain the details of the thefts of Rembrandt's artwork throughout history, and to educate the reader on the man who was Rembrandt. The book succeeds on both accounts.In this book, you'll read about "The Takeaway Rembrandt", an oil painting by the Dutch master, aptly named because it has been pilfered and recovered a record 4 times. You'll read about "The Stockholm Blitz", a brazen theft of a Rembrandt from a museum in Sweden that involved speed boats, machine guns, and car fires, and its eventual recovery 5 years later through an undercover sting operation. The stories of art theft and recovery can be riveting, and even sometimes amusing, as the book explains.Rembrandt was a prolific artist, creating thousands of paintings, etchings, and drawings during his life. Great fine arts museums in cities around the world such as Stockholm, Boston, Worcester, Montreal, Toronto, Cincinnati, and San Francisco have had their Rembrandts stolen. Art theft is rampant and difficult to combat and causes much disappointment and frustration, since it robs the general public of great cultural works, masterpieces which we may never see again. But thankfully, much stolen art is indeed recovered and returned to its proper owner. These stories give us hope for the future that we will see other famous masterpieces recovered.

As a Bostonian I have been a frequent visitor to The Gardner Museum all my life. I was so shocked and disheartened when I learned of the art theft in 1990. As a tour guide I brought many visitors to The Gardner ...it has always been a very special place for me. I have stood before the lost Rembrandts many times.This book provided me with interesting insights as to the motives and techniques used by art thieves. ISurprisingly, I have never read anything connected to the actual heist outside of news coverage at the time. I do however wonder about those paintings often. I have always assumed ( incorrectly) that someone somewhere is sitting alone viewing his/her Rembrandt...how very twisted and sad. I now know, that like so many things in our society the real motive is not in these cases, art appreciation but for greed and power.There is a lot of repetition which actually helped me to recall facts from earlier chapters The author shares fascinating details about real art heists that keep his story moving at a fast pace. I couldn't wait for the next revelation.I will recommend this book to any Bostonian, my friends connected in any way to the arts or to anyone who likes a good read ,especially non fiction. I really enjoyed it. thanks

Good book, thanks

Interesting subject told in classroom fashion but if you are an art history buff you may enjoy it. I recently read a novel about art forgery and I thought that I would like to know more about the stealing of these great masterpieces, in particular Rembrandt, whose works are stolen more than any other. The author of this book, joined the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston as security director in the fall of 2005. During his tenure, he has studied the theft of Rembrandt's work around the world and recounts many of those "heists" here. With nearly 25% of the book, lists, indexes and footnotes, I found it could be read rather quickly.

I buy these types of books for my brother who has an avid interest in missing antiquities amongst other things. He tells me this book was amazing. Very informative and a good read. From his enthusiasm I am thinking I may even ask for it back to read it myself. He highly recommends that I do read it.....that's if I can prize it from his clutches

Los autores proponen a Rembrandt como un objetivo que tienta a los ladrones de arte. Detallan de manera muy amena los diferentes tipos de robos de sus obras, algunos muy famosos y otros, no tanto. Incluye algunas ilustraciones en blanco y negro.

Very good , on time!