Flea market Renoir may actually have been stolen

WASHINGTON The Renoir painting that caused a sensation when it was bought at a flea market for $7 may have been stolen from a museum six decades ago, and an auction house has put its sale on hold.

The planned Saturday auction was canceled Thursday after a reporter for The Washington Post discovered documents in the Baltimore Museum of Art's library showing that the painting was on loan there from 1937 until 1951, when it was stolen.

The Impressionist painting, whose title translates as "Landscape on the Banks of the Seine," was purchased two years ago at a West Virginia flea market. The buyer, a Virginia woman who has not revealed her name, took it to auction house The Potomack Co. in July, and experts there confirmed it was by the French master Pierre-Auguste Renoir. The frame of the painting includes a "Renoir" plaque.

It had been expected to fetch $75,000 or more at auction.

"Potomack is relieved this came to light in a timely manner as we do not want to sell any item without clear title," Elizabeth Wainstein, the owner of the Alexandria, Va.-based auction house, said in a statement.

Potomack and museum officials have notified the FBI about the theft, and an FBI spokesman said the bureau was investigating.

The documents uncovered by The Post in the museum's library indicated that the painting was part of the collection of Saidie May, a major donor to the BMA. It was reported stolen on Nov. 17, 1951, according to the documents, although there is no known police report and the painting does not appear on a worldwide registry of stolen art.

The reported theft occurred shortly after May's death, and the painting had not yet been formally accepted into the museum's collection, which is why museum officials did not initially realize it had been there, BMA director Doreen Bolger said.

"We were caught by surprise," Bolger said Thursday.

Bolger said she would be happy to show the painting again if it is ultimately returned to the museum.

"As this unfolds, we'll find out more about the ownership of the painting," she said. "If the painting is ours, we would be pleased to have it on view."

[karek40]

She bought the painting, the insurance company obviously paid for the theft, if possession is 9/10's of the law. Get a good lawyer.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Don't they have a statute of limitations?

[bobnjersey]

[the painting was part of the collection of Saidie May, a major donor to the BMA. It was reported stolen on Nov. 17, 1951]
-------------------------------------------------
so ... it was owned by saidie may ... loaned to the museum ... then stolen?

i would think it would have been insured by either the owner or the museum ... and i assume a claim was made and a payout paid.

so who really owns the painting now ... saidie may, the museum, the insurance company, or the one who paid $7 for it?

[nohater]

looked at it again closely using magnifying glass on screen image. like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder.

[john92021]

it wasn't meant to be looked at with a magnifying glass on a computer screen. That era had a 3 dimensional effect at distance (difficult to paint). Not all of the artists pieces are always great, some better than others. It is amazing how different a painting looks in person as opposed to photo, go to a gallery and look at a Monet or Pollock. When this painting first surfaced I wrote that it was probably stolen, the frame is too nice to sell for $7.

[nohater]

good investigation. that aside, don't see the big deal about this painting. it isn't all that spectacular by any stretch of the imagination. often wonder what is it that makes some of these early paintings so valuable.

[johntate777]

Wow, a reporter that actually did some investigating! I didn't think they did that anymore. Good job at the Washington Post.