Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty > The Yussupovs

The Yusupov fortune - what happened after 1917 ?

<< < (2/6) > >>

Frederick_A:
The Admin answered this correctly. But the story of the Rembrandts is larger and well researched for my novel hopefully to be launched in 2006. It is the story of these paintings from 1660 to 1942. No one knows when Nikolai Borisovich (the first one) acquired them. The exhibit book from the Pushkin's 2003 exhibit says "sometime before 1805." I place it during the French Revolution as he was in Europe at that time. How they got from the Moika Palace in 1917 to the NGA in 1942 involves the conflict between the Prince and Widener. I have studied the trial and all other available records. It was a typical Russian/American business deal where both were wrong in their motives, but Widener right by interpretation of the law. You will have to wait for the novel to get it all and judge for yourself.

hikaru:
It is so interesting!Did you undestand who was the owner in France?
It seems that Widener desired to get them long before revolution.

Frederick_A:
The story of these paintings is well documented after about 1800, the first Yusupov inventory on record is 1839 however. They are recorded in an auction in 1760 and believed by the NGA to have been painted 1660. Joseph Widener's father, Peter A B Widener, started the collection, developed the trolley system in Philadelphia, and became the richest man in the city. The portraits only left Russian once, in 1895 (I think) for an exposition in Holland. PAB heard of them and in 1905 took his yacht through the newly opened Keel Canal to St. Pete to see these paintings. His offer to buy them was refused. His son, Joseph, knew of them from that. When their presence in London hit the headlines, he went there and bought them in 1921 on contestable terms which is another story.

Valmont:
Nicolai,
Please help me understand this.
How was it that Felix sold the paintings and then took Widener to court caliming Widener con him?? I am not expevting a very elaborated  answer, just a simple one..

Arturo Vega-Llausás

Frederick_A:
There is not a simple answer to this as it has even a cultural basis as well as legal. Both sides were trying to keep the painting. Felix wanted to get it back and borrowed money to finance the case with intent to resell it from more money. Widener took a crafty advantage to get the paintings for a low price. Under law of contracts Widener was proved right. Felix was nieve, destitute (relatively so for a prince) and not used to managing money at all. It is really a long story involving the shenanigans of scheming art dealers, arrogant lawyers, etc.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page